Click on a specific year to narrow your record search to that year, or on "All" to see their entire voting record

Senator Markey, Ed
D-Massachusetts

Composite Progressive Score: 98.68%

Crucial Progressive Score: 97.59%

How to Use This Page

This page shows votes for as long as the member has been in the House or since 1993, whichever came later. Green in the first column means that the member's vote was a progressive vote, red means it was an anti-progressive vote. The first of the three colored columns shows whether the member cast a Yes vote, a No vote, or was absent. Absences on close votes ONLY are counted as anti-progressive votes. The second column all in green displays what the progressive position on that vote was, either Yes or No. The third column shows if the progressives' cause won or lost on that particular vote. Green indicates a win, red a loss. The Roll Call Vote link in the far left column will take you to the official roll call in the House or Senate for that vote.

You have options at the top of the page to look at all votes or just ones that we define as crucial. Refer to the "What is a Progressive Score" explanation for an explanation of how votes qualify for the database and/or which votes are crucial votes. You can choose to display only these votes by clicking on 'Show Crucial Votes Only' at the top of the list.

For previous years, just click on the link for the year at the top of the detailed list of votes or click on "All" to see the member's entire legislative history in one page.

 
Y=Yes/Yea; N=No/Nay
Absences are penalized if the measure was passed or defeated by 10 or fewer votes.
Show Crucial Votes Only | See All Ideologically Polarized Votes
Year:   2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995 | 1994 | 1993 | All
Roll Call Num
Date
Description How This Member Voted (Yes or No). Green = Progressive Vote What the Progressive Position Is — Click here to see how we define this Did the Progressive Side Win?
Roll Call 140
Apr 17, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Adjourn the Court of Impeachment Sine Die
On the Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Won
Roll Call 139
Apr 17, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Is the Schumer Constitutional Point of Order Against Article II Well Taken
On the Point of Order

Y Y Won
Roll Call 138
Apr 17, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Table the Schumer Point of Order
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 137
Apr 17, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Proceed to Executive Session
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 136
Apr 17, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Adjourn the Court of Impeachment Until Nov. 6, 2024 at 7:00 a.m.
On the Motion to Adjourn

N N Won
Roll Call 135
Apr 17, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Adjourn the Court of Impeachment until 12 Noon May 1. 2024
On the Motion to Adjourn

N N Won
Roll Call 134
Apr 17, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Adjourn the Court of Impeachment Until April 30, 2024 at 12:00 Noon
On the Motion to Adjourn

N N Won
Roll Call 133
Apr 17, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Close the Doors
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 132
Apr 17, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Is the Schumer Constitutional Point of Order Against Article I Well Taken
On the Point of Order

Y Y Won
Roll Call 131
Apr 17, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Table Schumer Point of Order
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 130
Apr 17, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Adjourn the Court of Impeachment until April 30, 2024 until 12:00 Noon
On the Motion to Adjourn

N N Won
Roll Call 129
Apr 17, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Close the Doors
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 128
Apr 16, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session
On the Motion to Proceed

N Y Won
Roll Call 125
Apr 15, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Table: Ramona Villagomez Manglona to be Judge for the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 124
Apr 11, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Recess Until Monday, April 15, 2024 at 3pm
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 123
Apr 11, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider Calendar No. 478, Ramona Villagomez Manglona
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 122
Apr 10, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.J.Res. 98
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 121
Apr 10, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S.J.Res. 61
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 118
Apr 09, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Robert J. White, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 117
Apr 09, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert J. White to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 113
Mar 22, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Budd Motion to Table Schumer Amdt No. 1792
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 112
Mar 22, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Hagerty Motion to Table Schumer Amdt No. 1793
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 111
Mar 22, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Budd Motion to Table Schumer Amdt No. 1794
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 110
Mar 22, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Table the Motion to Concur in the House Amdt to the Senate Amdt to H.R. 2882 with Johnson Amdt No. 1706
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 109
Mar 22, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Concur in the House Amdt to the Senate Amdt to H.R. 2882 with Schmitt Amdt No. 1795
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 108
Mar 22, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Table the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2882 with Tuberville Amdt 1781
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 107
Mar 22, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Table the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2882 with Cruz Amdt No. 1804
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 106
Mar 22, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Paul Motion to Refer the House Message to Accompany H.R. 2882 to the Committee on Appropriations
On the Motion to Refer

N N Won
Roll Call 105
Mar 22, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Concur in the House Amdt to the Senate Amdt to H.R. 2882 with Lee Amdt No. 1722
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 100
Mar 21, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jose Javier Rodriguez, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 99
Mar 21, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jose Javier Rodriguez to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 98
Mar 20, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Eumi K. Lee, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California.
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 97
Mar 20, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eumi K. Lee to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 96
Mar 20, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Edward Sunyol Kiel, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 95
Mar 20, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Edward Sunyol Kiel, of N.J., to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 94
Mar 19, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Nicole G. Berner, of Maryland, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 93
Mar 14, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nicole G. Berner to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 91
Mar 12, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Sean Patrick Maloney, of New York, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 90
Mar 12, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Melissa R. DuBose, of Rhode Island, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Rhode Island
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 89
Mar 12, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Melissa R. DuBose to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Rhode Island
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 88
Mar 12, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Sunil R. Harjani, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 87
Mar 12, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sunil R. Harjani to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 86
Mar 12, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jasmine Hyejung Yoon, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 85
Mar 11, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jasmine Hyejung Yoon to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 83
Mar 08, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Hagerty Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4366 with an Amendment No. 1634
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 82
Mar 08, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Scott (FL) Motion to Refer H.R. 4366 to the Committee on Appropriations with Instructions
On the Motion to Refer

N N Won
Roll Call 81
Mar 08, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Schmitt Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4366 with an Amendment No. 1626
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 80
Mar 08, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Lee Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4366 with an Amendment No. 1623
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 79
Mar 08, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4366
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 78
Mar 08, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Table the Motion to Refer the House Message to Accompany H.R. 4366
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 76
Mar 07, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Adrienne Jennings Noti, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 75
Mar 07, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S. 3853
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 74
Mar 07, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Adrienne Jennings Nori to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 73
Mar 06, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Cathy Ann Harris, of Maryland, to be Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 72
Mar 06, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cathy Ann Harris to be Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 71
Mar 06, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Moshe Z. Marvit, of Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 70
Mar 06, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Moshe Z. Marvit to be a Member of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 69
Mar 06, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Ronald T. Keohane, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 68
Mar 05, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ronald T. Keohane to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 66
Feb 29, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Cruz Motion to Commit H.R. 7463 to the Committee on Appropriations with Instructions
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 63
Feb 29, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Paul Amdt. No. 1614
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 61
Feb 29, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Shall the Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 38 Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the Contrary Notwithstanding?
On Overriding the Veto

N N Won
Roll Call 60
Feb 29, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Marjorie A. Rollinson, of Virginia, to be Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and an Assistant General Counsel in the Department of the Treasury
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 59
Feb 28, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Marjorie A. Rollinson to be Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and an Assistant General Counsel in the Department of the Treasury
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 56
Feb 28, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Julie Simone Sneed, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 55
Feb 28, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julie Simone Sneed to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 54
Feb 27, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Hampton Y. Dellinger, of North Carolina, to be Special Counsel, Office of Special Counsel
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 53
Feb 27, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Hampton Y. Dellinger to be Special Counsel, Office of Special Counsel
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 52
Feb 27, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: David Seymour Leibowitz, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 51
Feb 27, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Seymour Leibowitz to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 50
Feb 27, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jacqueline Becerra, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 49
Feb 26, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jacqueline Becerra to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 48
Feb 13, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.R. 815, as Amended
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 47
Feb 12, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: H.R. 815
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 46
Feb 12, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Murray Amdt. No. 1388
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 45
Feb 12, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline During the Consideration of H.R. 815
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 44
Feb 11, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Murray Amdt. No. 1388 to H.R. 815
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 43
Feb 11, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Table the Motion to Commit H.R. 815 to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 42
Feb 09, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Proceed to H.R. 815
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 41
Feb 08, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 815
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 40
Feb 07, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Reconsider the Vote by which the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 815 Was Not Agreed to
On the Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 39
Feb 07, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 815
On the Cloture Motion

N Y Lost
Roll Call 38
Feb 06, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Amy M. Baggio, of Oregon, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 37
Feb 06, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amy M. Baggio to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 33
Feb 01, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Lisa W. Wang to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 31
Feb 01, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lisa W. Wang to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 30
Jan 31, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Joseph Goffman, of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 29
Jan 31, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Joseph Goffman to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 28
Jan 31, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Karoline Mehalchick, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 27
Jan 31, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Karoline Mehalchick to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 26
Jan 31, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Kirk Edward Sherriff, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California.
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 25
Jan 30, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Joshua Paul Kolar, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 24
Jan 25, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Joshua Paul Kolar to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 23
Jan 25, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kirk Edward Sherriff to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 21
Jan 24, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Cristal C. Brisco, of Indiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 19
Jan 24, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cristal C. Brisco to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 10
Jan 18, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Paul Amendment No. 1384
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 5
Jan 10, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Shall the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 32) Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the Contrary Notwithstanding?
On Overriding the Veto

N N Won
Roll Call 4
Jan 10, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: S. Kato Crews, of Colorado, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 3
Jan 10, 2024

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: S. Kato Crews to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 352
Dec 19, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Elizabeth H. Richard, of Virginia, to be Coordinator for Counterterrorism
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 351
Dec 19, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Sarah E. Hill, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 350
Dec 19, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sara E. Hill to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 349
Dec 19, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Christopher Charles Fonzone, of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Attorney General
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 348
Dec 19, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Christopher Charles Fonzone to be an Assistant Attorney General
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 347
Dec 18, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Martin O'Malley, of Maryland, to be Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 346
Dec 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Brandon S. Long, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 345
Dec 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jerry Edwards, Jr., of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 344
Dec 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jerry Edwards, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 342
Dec 13, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Waive the Rule 28 Point of Order Re: Section 7902 of the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2670
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 339
Dec 12, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1373
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 338
Dec 12, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Harry Coker, Jr., of Kansas, to be National Cyber Director
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 337
Dec 12, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Harry Coker Jr. to be National Cyber Director
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 336
Dec 11, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Richard E.N. Federico, of Kansas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 335
Dec 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Richard E. N. Federico to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 332
Dec 06, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 815
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 331
Dec 06, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Nathalie Rayes, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Croatia
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 330
Dec 06, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nathalie Rayes, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Croatia
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 329
Dec 05, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elizabeth H. Richard to be Coordinator for Counterterrorism
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 328
Dec 05, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Loren L. AliKhan, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 327
Dec 05, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Loren L. AliKhan to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 324
Nov 30, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Shanlyn A.S. Park, of Hawaii, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Hawaii
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 323
Nov 29, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Shanlyn A.S. Park to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Hawaii
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 322
Nov 29, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jamel Semper, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 321
Nov 29, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jamel Semper to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 320
Nov 29, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Micah W.J. Smith, of Hawaii, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Hawaii
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 319
Nov 29, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Micah W.J. Smith to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Hawaii
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 318
Nov 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jose Javier Rodriguez to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor
On the Cloture Motion

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 317
Nov 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Margaret M. Garnett, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York
On the Nomination

Close Vote Absent Y Won
Roll Call 316
Nov 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Margaret M. Garnett to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York
On the Cloture Motion

Close Vote Absent Y Won
Roll Call 315
Nov 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jeffrey M. Bryan, of Minnesota, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota
On the Nomination

Close Vote Absent Y Won
Roll Call 314
Nov 27, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeffrey M. Bryan to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota
On the Cloture Motion

Close Vote Absent Y Won
Roll Call 311
Nov 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Paul Amdt. No. 1366
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 310
Nov 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S.J.Res. 43
On the Joint Resolution

N N Won
Roll Call 309
Nov 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Table Motion to Proceed to H.R. 6126
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 308
Nov 13, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Ana de Alba, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 307
Nov 09, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ana de Alba to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 306
Nov 09, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Brandy R. McMillion, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 305
Nov 09, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Monica Ramirez Almadani, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of California
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 304
Nov 08, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Monica Ramirez Almadani to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 303
Nov 08, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S.J.Res. 38
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 302
Nov 08, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brandy R. McMillion to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 301
Nov 08, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Charlotte A. Burrows, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 300
Nov 08, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Charlotte A. Burrows to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 299
Nov 08, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Ramon Ernesto Reyes, Jr., of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 298
Nov 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ramon Ernesto Reyes, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 297
Nov 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Julia E. Kobick, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 296
Nov 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julia E. Kobick to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 295
Nov 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Kenly Kiya Kato, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 294
Nov 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kenly Kiya Kato to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 293
Nov 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Monica M. Bertagnolli, of Massachusetts, to be Director of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 292
Nov 06, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Monica M. Bertagnolli to be Director of the National Institutes of Health
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 285
Nov 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.R. 662, as amended
On Passage of the Bill

N N Won
Roll Call 283
Nov 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Lee Amdt. No. 1121
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 282
Nov 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Cruz Amdt. No. 1249
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 280
Nov 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Paul Amdt. No. 1217
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 279
Oct 31, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Budd Amdt. No. 1243
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 278
Oct 31, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Cruz Amdt. No. 1296
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 277
Oct 31, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Hawley Amdt. No. 1200
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 276
Oct 31, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jacob J. Lew, of New York, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the State of Israel
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 275
Oct 31, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jacob J. Lew to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the State of Israel
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 274
Oct 31, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Matthew James Maddox, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 273
Oct 30, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Matthew James Maddox to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 272
Oct 26, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S.J. Res. 42
On the Joint Resolution

N N Won
Roll Call 271
Oct 26, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Braun Amdt. No. 1182
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 269
Oct 25, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Lankford Amdt. No. 1232
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 268
Oct 25, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Kennedy Amdt. No. 1354
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 267
Oct 25, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Rubio Amdt. No. 1237
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 266
Oct 25, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Vance Amdt. No. 1210
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 265
Oct 25, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jessica Looman, of Minnesota, to be Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 264
Oct 24, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jessica Looman to be Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 260
Oct 18, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S.J.Res. 32
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 259
Oct 17, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Karla Ann Gilbride, of Maryland, to be General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 258
Oct 17, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Karla Ann Gilbride to be General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 257
Oct 17, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Julia Kathleen Munley, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 256
Oct 17, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julia Kathleen Munley to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 255
Oct 17, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jennifer L. Hall, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Delaware
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 254
Oct 16, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jennifer L. Hill to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Delaware
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 253
Oct 04, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Susan Kim DeClercq, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 252
Oct 04, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Susan Kim DeClercq to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 251
Oct 04, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Brendan Abell Hurson, of Maryland, to be to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 250
Oct 04, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brendan Abell Hurson to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 249
Oct 04, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: James C. O'Brien, of Nebraska, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (European and Eurasian Affairs)
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 248
Oct 03, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: James C. O'Brien to be Assistant Secretary of State (European and Eurasian Affairs)
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 246
Sep 30, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Instruct the Sergeant-at-Arms to Request the Attendance of Absentee Senators
On the Motion for Attendance

Y Y Won
Roll Call 245
Sep 29, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Tara K. McGrath, of California, to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 243
Sep 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Shall the Joint Resolution S.J.Res.24 Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the Contrary Notwithstanding
On Overriding the Veto

N N Won
Roll Call 242
Sep 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Shall the Joint Resolution S.J.Res.9 Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the Contrary Notwithstanding
On Overriding the Veto

N N Won
Roll Call 233
Sep 20, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Suspend the rules under Rule V Re: Amdt No 1092
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 232
Sep 19, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Rita F. Lin, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 231
Sep 19, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rita F. Lin to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 230
Sep 19, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Vernon D. Oliver, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 229
Sep 18, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Vernon D. Oliver to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 226
Sep 12, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jeffrey Irvine Cummings, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
On the Nomination

Close Vote Absent Y Won
Roll Call 225
Sep 12, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeffrey Irvine Cummings to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
On the Cloture Motion

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 224
Sep 12, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Tanya J. Bradsher, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs
On the Nomination

Close Vote Absent Y Won
Roll Call 223
Sep 11, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Tanya J. Bradsher to be Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 222
Sep 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Anna M. Gomez, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 221
Sep 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Anna M. Gomez to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 220
Sep 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Adriana Debora Kugler, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 219
Sep 06, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Adriana Debora Kugler to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 218
Sep 06, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Lisa DeNell Cook, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 217
Sep 06, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lisa DeNell Cook to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 216
Sep 06, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Gwynne A. Wilcox, of New York, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 215
Sep 06, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gwynne A. Wilcox to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 210
Jul 27, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Rubio Amdt. No. 523
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 207
Jul 27, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Hawley Amdt. No. 1058
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 205
Jul 27, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Kennedy Amdt. No. 1034
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 204
Jul 27, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Marshall Amdt. No. 874
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 200
Jul 26, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Wicker Amdt. No. 1055
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 199
Jul 26, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Cruz Amdt. No. 421
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 194
Jul 20, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Cruz Amdt. No. 926
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 193
Jul 20, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: David M. Uhlmann, of Michigan, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 192
Jul 19, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Hawley Amdt. No. 838
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 190
Jul 19, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Kaine Amdt. No. 429
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 187
Jul 18, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Rachel Bloomekatz, of Ohio, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 186
Jul 13, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rachel Bloomekatz to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 185
Jul 13, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: David M. Uhlmann to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 184
Jul 13, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Kalpana Kotagal, of Ohio, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 183
Jul 12, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kalpana Kotagal to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 182
Jul 12, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Myong J. Joun, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 181
Jul 12, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Myong J. Joun to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 180
Jul 12, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Tiffany M. Cartwright, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 179
Jul 11, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Tiffany M. Cartwright to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 178
Jul 11, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Kymberly Kathryn Evanson, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 177
Jul 11, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Rosemarie Hidalgo, of the District of Columbia, to be Director of the Violence Against Women Office, Department of Justice
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 176
Jul 11, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kymberly Kathryn Evanson to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 175
Jul 11, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rosemarie Hidalgo to be Director of the Violence Against Women Office, Department of Justice
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 171
Jun 22, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.J. Res. 44
On the Joint Resolution

N N Won
Roll Call 169
Jun 21, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Natasha C. Merle, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 168
Jun 21, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Natasha C. Merle to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 167
Jun 21, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Shall the Joint Resolution Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the Contrary Notwithstanding?
On Overriding the Veto

N N Won
Roll Call 166
Jun 20, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Julie Rikelman, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the First Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 165
Jun 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julie Rikelman to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the First Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 164
Jun 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Nusrat Jahan Choudhury, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 163
Jun 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nusrat Jahan Choudhury to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 162
Jun 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Dale E. Ho, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 161
Jun 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: P. Casey Pitts, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 160
Jun 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dale E. Ho to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 159
Jun 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: P. Casey Pitts to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 158
Jun 13, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jared Bernstein, of Virginia, to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 157
Jun 13, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Hernan D. Vera, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 156
Jun 13, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jared Bernstein to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 155
Jun 13, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Hernan D. Vera to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 154
Jun 13, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Elizabeth Allen, of New York, to be Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 153
Jun 12, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elizabeth Allen to be Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 152
Jun 08, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Molly R. Silfen, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 151
Jun 08, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Molly R. Silfen to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 150
Jun 08, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Dilawar Syed, of California, to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 149
Jun 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dilawar Syed to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 148
Jun 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: David Crane, of New Jersey, to be Under Secretary of Energy
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 147
Jun 06, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Crane to be Under Secretary of Energy
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 146
Jun 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.R. 3746
On Passage of the Bill

N Y Won
Roll Call 145
Jun 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Kaine Amdt. No. 101
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 144
Jun 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Lee Amdt. No. 98
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 143
Jun 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Budd Amdt No. 134
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 142
Jun 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Cotton Amdt. No. 106
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 141
Jun 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Kennedy Amdt. No. 104
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 139
Jun 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Sullivan Amdt. No. 125
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 138
Jun 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Marshall Amdt. No. 110
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 137
Jun 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Braun Amdt. No. 91
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 135
Jun 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.J.Res. 45
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 134
May 31, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Proceed to H.J. Res. 45
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 133
May 30, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Darrel James Papillion, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 132
May 18, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Nancy G. Abudu, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 131
May 17, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nancy G. Abudu to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 130
May 17, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S. J. Res 18
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 129
May 17, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Darrel James Papillion to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 128
May 17, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jeremy C. Daniel, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 127
May 17, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeremy C. Daniel to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 126
May 16, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H. J. Res. 42
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 125
May 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Bradley N. Garcia, of Maryland, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 124
May 11, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Bradley N. Garcia to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 123
May 11, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S. J. Res. 24
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 122
May 11, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S.J.Res. 23
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 121
May 10, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Geeta Rao Gupta, of Virginia, to be Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 120
May 10, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Colleen Joy Shogan, of Pennsylvania, to be Archivist of the United States
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 119
May 10, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Glenna Laureen Wright-Gallo, of Nevada, to be Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, Department of Education
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 118
May 10, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Glenna Laureen Wright-Gallo to be Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 117
May 10, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: L. Felice Gorordo, of Florida, to be U.S. Alternate Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 116
May 09, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: L. Felice Gorordo to be U.S. Alternate Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 115
May 04, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Geeta Rao Gupta to be Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 114
May 04, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Colleen Joy Shogan to be Archivist of the United States
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 113
May 04, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: LaShonda A. Hunt, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 112
May 03, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: LaShonda A. Hunt to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 111
May 03, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Wesley L. Hsu, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 110
May 03, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S.J.Res. 9
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 109
May 03, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.J.Res. 39
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 108
May 03, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Wesley L. Hsu to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 107
May 03, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Orelia Eleta Merchant, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 106
May 02, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Orelia Eleta Merchant to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 105
May 02, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Robert Kirsch, of New Jersey, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 104
May 02, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Michael Farbiarz, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 103
May 02, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert Kirsch to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 102
May 02, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael Farbiarz to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 101
May 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Anthony Devos Johnstone, of Montana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 100
Apr 27, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Anthony Devos Johnstone to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 99
Apr 27, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. J. Res. 4
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 98
Apr 26, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S. J. Res. 11
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 97
Apr 26, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 326
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 96
Apr 26, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Joshua David Jacobs, of Washington, to be Under Secretary for Benefits of the Department of Veterans Affairs
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 93
Apr 20, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Sullivan Amdt. No. 83
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 92
Apr 20, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Van Hollen Amdt. No. 85
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 91
Apr 19, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Scott (FL) Amdt. No. 81
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 90
Apr 19, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Proceed to S.J.Res. 10
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 89
Apr 19, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Hagerty Amdt. No. 72, as modified
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 88
Apr 19, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Paul Amdt. No. 79
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 87
Apr 18, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Lee Amdt. No. 80
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 86
Apr 18, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Amy Lefkowitz Solomon, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Attorney General
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 85
Apr 18, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amy Lefkowitz Solomon to be an Assistant Attorney General
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 84
Apr 18, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Radha Iyengar Plumb, of New York, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 83
Apr 17, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Radha Iyengar Plumb to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense.
On the Cloture Motion

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 82
Mar 30, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Laura Taylor-Kale, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 81
Mar 30, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Richard R. Verma, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 80
Mar 29, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.J. Res. 7
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 79
Mar 29, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.J. Res. 27
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 77
Mar 29, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S. 316
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 75
Mar 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Scott (FL) Amdt. No. 13
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 74
Mar 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Sullivan Amdt. No. 33
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 73
Mar 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Cruz Amdt. No. 9
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 72
Mar 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Ricketts Amdt. No. 30
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 71
Mar 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Johnson Amdt. No. 11
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 70
Mar 27, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Re: S. 316
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 69
Mar 23, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Risch Amdt. No. 43
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 68
Mar 23, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Rubio Amdt. No. 4
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 66
Mar 22, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Graham Amdt No. 14
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 64
Mar 22, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Gordon P. Gallagher, of Colorado, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 63
Mar 21, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Proceed to S. 316
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 62
Mar 16, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jessica G.L. Clarke, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 61
Mar 16, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 316
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 60
Mar 16, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jessica G. L. Clarke to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 59
Mar 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Laura Taylor-Kale to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 58
Mar 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Ravi Chaudhary, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 57
Mar 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ravi Chaudhary to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 56
Mar 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Eric M. Garcetti, of California, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republic of India
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 55
Mar 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eric M. Garcetti, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republic of India
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 54
Mar 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Brent Neiman, of Illinois, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 53
Mar 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brent Neiman to be a Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 52
Mar 09, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Maria Araujo Kahn, of Connecticut, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 51
Mar 09, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: James Edward Simmons, Jr., of California, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 50
Mar 09, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Daniel I. Werfel, of the District of Columbia, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 49
Mar 08, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.J. Res. 26
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 48
Mar 08, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Daniel I. Werfel to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 47
Mar 08, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Patrice H. Kunesh, of Minnesota, to be Commissioner of the Administration for Native Americans, Department of Health and Human Services
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 46
Mar 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Patrice H. Kunesh to be Commissioner of the Administration for Native Americans, Department of Health and Human Services
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 45
Mar 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Arun Subramanian, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 44
Mar 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Arun Subramanian to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 43
Mar 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Andrew G. Schopler, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 42
Mar 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrew G. Schopler to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 41
Mar 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Robert Stewart Ballou, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 40
Mar 06, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert Stewart Ballou to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 39
Mar 02, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jonathan James Canada Grey, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 38
Mar 02, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gordon P. Gallagher to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 37
Mar 02, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Colleen R. Lawless, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 36
Mar 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: James Edward Simmons, Jr., to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 35
Mar 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.J. Res. 30
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 34
Mar 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jonathan James Canada Grey to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 33
Mar 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Colleen R. Lawless to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 32
Mar 01, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Margaret R. Guzman, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 31
Feb 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Margaret R. Guzman to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 30
Feb 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Araceli Martinez-Olguin, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 29
Feb 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Araceli Martinez-Olguin to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California.
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 28
Feb 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jamal N. Whitehead, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 27
Feb 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jamal N. Whitehead to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 26
Feb 28, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jamar K. Walker, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 25
Feb 27, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jamar K. Walker to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 24
Feb 16, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Maria Araujo Kahn to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 23
Feb 16, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Lester Martinez-Lopez, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 22
Feb 16, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Daniel J. Calabretta, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 21
Feb 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lester Martinez Lopez to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 20
Feb 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Ana C. Reyes, of the District of Columbia, to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 19
Feb 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Daniel J. Calabretta to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 18
Feb 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ana C. Reyes to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 17
Feb 15, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Adrienne C. Nelson, of Oregon, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 16
Feb 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Adrienne C. Nelson to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 15
Feb 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Matthew L. Garcia, of New Mexico, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 14
Feb 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Matthew L. Garcia to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 13
Feb 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Lindsay C. Jenkins, of Illinois, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 12
Feb 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lindsay C. Jenkins to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 11
Feb 14, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Gina R. Mendez-Miro, of Puerto Rico, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 10
Feb 13, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gina R. Mendez-Miro to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 9
Feb 13, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Cindy K. Chung. of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit.
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 8
Feb 09, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cindy K. Chung to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 7
Feb 09, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: DeAndrea Gist Benjamin, of South Carolina, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 6
Feb 07, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: DeAndrea Gist Benjamin to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 5
Feb 02, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Joseph Lee Falk, of Florida, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1
Jan 23, 2023

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Brendan Owens, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 421
Dec 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to Senate Amendment No. 4 with an Amendment No. 6552
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 416
Dec 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Cassidy Amendment No. 6558
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 415
Dec 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Braun Amendment No. 6569
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 414
Dec 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Lankford Amendment No. 6577
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 413
Dec 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Lee Amendment No. 6563
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 411
Dec 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Johnson Amendment No. 6559
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 410
Dec 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Johnson Amendment No. 6555
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 409
Dec 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Paul Amendment No. 6561
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 408
Dec 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: the House Amendment to Senate Amendment No. 4 with an Amendment (Amendment No. 6552)
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 406
Dec 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Franklin R. Parker, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Navy
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 405
Dec 21, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Agnes Schaefer, of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 403
Dec 20, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany H.R. 2617
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 402
Dec 20, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Robert Harley Shriver III, of Virginia, to be Deputy Director of the Office of Personnel Management
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 400
Dec 19, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Martin J. Gruenberg, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 398
Dec 15, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1437, with Lee amendment No. 6451, as modified
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 397
Dec 15, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1437 with the Scott (FL) Amendment No. 6540
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 395
Dec 15, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 7776 with the Johnson Amendment No. 6526
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 394
Dec 15, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to Senate Amendment to H.R. 7776 with the Manchin Amendment No. 6513
On the Cloture Motion

N Y Lost
Roll Call 391
Dec 14, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Francisco O. Mora, of Florida, to be Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the Organization of American States
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 390
Dec 14, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S.J.Res. 60
On the Joint Resolution

N N Won
Roll Call 389
Dec 13, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jay Curtis Shambaugh, of Maryland, to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 388
Dec 13, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Dana M. Douglas, of Louisiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 387
Dec 12, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves, of Delaware, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 386
Dec 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dana M. Douglas to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 385
Dec 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 384
Dec 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jeffery Paul Hopkins, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 383
Dec 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Jerry W. Blackwell, of Minnesota, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 382
Dec 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeffery Paul Hopkins to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 381
Dec 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: John Frank Murphy, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 380
Dec 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Kai N. Scott, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 379
Dec 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kai N. Scott to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 378
Dec 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Mia Roberts Perez, of Pennsylvania, to U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 377
Dec 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Kelley Brisbon Hodge, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 376
Dec 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Frances Kay Behm, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 375
Dec 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kelley Brisbon Hodge to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 374
Dec 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Frances Kay Behm to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 373
Dec 05, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Doris L. Pryor, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 371
Dec 01, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.Con.Res. 119
On the Concurrent Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 370
Dec 01, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Sullivan Amdt. No. 6503
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 369
Dec 01, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Doris L. Pryor, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 368
Dec 01, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jerry W. Blackwell to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 366
Nov 30, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Anne M. Nardacci, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of New York
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 365
Nov 30, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Camille L. Velez-Rive, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 364
Nov 30, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Anne M. Nardacci to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of New York
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 363
Nov 30, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Camille L. Velez-Rive to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 362
Nov 29, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.R. 8404, as amended
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 361
Nov 29, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Rubio Amdt. No. 6493
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 360
Nov 29, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Lankford Amdt. No. 6496
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 359
Nov 29, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Lee Amdt. No. 6482
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 358
Nov 28, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amdt. No. 6487 to H.R. 8404
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 357
Nov 17, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R. 8404
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 356
Nov 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 8404
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 355
Nov 15, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S.J.Res. 63
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 354
Nov 15, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Maria del R. Antongiorgi-Jordan, of Puerto Rico, to be United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 353
Nov 14, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Maria del R. Antongiorgi-Jordan to be United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 352
Sep 29, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Upon Reconsideration, Confirmation: Lisa M. Gomez, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 351
Sep 29, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.R. 6833, as amended
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 350
Sep 29, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Upon Reconsideration, Confirmation: Arianna J. Freeman, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 349
Sep 27, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 6833
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 348
Sep 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Arati Prabhakar, of California, to be Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 347
Sep 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Amanda Bennett, of the District of Columbia, to be Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. Agency for Global Media
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 346
Sep 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 4822
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 345
Sep 21, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Arati Prabhakar to be Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 344
Sep 21, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amanda Bennett to be Chief Executive Officer of the United States Agency for Global Media
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 343
Sep 21, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Resolution of Ratification to Treaty Doc No 117-1, the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol
On the Resolution of Ratification

Y Y Won
Roll Call 341
Sep 20, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Treaty Doc 117-1, Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 340
Sep 20, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Florence Y. Pan, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 339
Sep 19, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Florence Y. Pan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 337
Sep 15, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Sarah A.L. Merriam, of Connecticut, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 336
Sep 14, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sarah A. L. Merriam to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 335
Sep 14, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Lara E. Montecalvo, of Rhode Island, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 334
Sep 13, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lara E. Montecalvo to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 333
Sep 13, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Arianna J. Freeman, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 332
Sep 12, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Arianna J. Freeman to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 331
Sep 12, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Salvador Mendoza, Jr., of Washington, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 330
Sep 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Salvador Mendoza, Jr. to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 329
Sep 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Andre B. Mathis, of Tennessee, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 328
Sep 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andre B. Mathis to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 327
Sep 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: John Z. Lee, of Illinois, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 326
Sep 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Invoke Cloture: John Z. Lee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 325
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

H.R. 5376, As Amended
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 324
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Warner Amendment No. 5488
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 323
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Thune Amendment No.5472
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 322
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Hagerty Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 321
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Graham Amendment No. 5487
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 320
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Sullivan Amendment No. 5435
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 319
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Rubio Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions with Instructions
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 318
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Blackburn Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry with Instructions.
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 317
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Hoeven Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 316
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Cruz Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 315
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Cruz Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs with Instructions
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 314
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amendment No. 5194, Insulin
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 313
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Kennedy Amendment No. 5385
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 311
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cruz Amendment No. 5265
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 309
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Cruz Amendment No. 5263
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 307
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Scott (SC) Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 306
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Shelby Amendment No. 5418
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 305
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Lee Amendment No. 5316
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 304
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Rubio Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 303
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Kennedy Amendment No. 5387
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 302
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Collins Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 301
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Grassley Amendment No. 5421
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 300
Aug 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Capito Amendment 5383
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 298
Aug 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Marshall Amendment No. 5389
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 297
Aug 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Scott (FL) Motion to Commit H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 296
Aug 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Crapo Amendment No. 5404
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 295
Aug 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Waive Section 313 of the CBA of 1974 Re: Tester Amendment No. 5480
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 294
Aug 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Lankford Amendment No. 5384
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 293
Aug 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Capito Amendment No. 5382
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 291
Aug 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Barrasso Amendment No. 5409
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 290
Aug 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline RE: Hassan Amendment No. 5469
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 289
Aug 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Graham Amendment No. 5301
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 287
Aug 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Proceed to H.R. 5376
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 286
Aug 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Constance J. Milstein, of New York, to be Ambassador of The United States of America to the Republic of Malta.
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 285
Aug 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Discharge: David M. Uhlmann to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from the Committee on Environment and Public Works
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 284
Aug 04, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Confirmation: Roopali H. Desai, of Arizona, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 283
Aug 04, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

S.J.Res.55
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 279
Aug 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S.3373 with Amendment No. 5185 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 278
Aug 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S.3373 with Amendment No. 5186 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 276
Aug 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elizabeth Wilson Hanes, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia. )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 275
Aug 01, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elizabeth Wilson Hanes to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 274
Jul 28, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: David Pressman, of New York, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to Hungary )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 272
Jul 27, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 3373 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 271
Jul 27, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4346 with Amendment No. 5135, )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 270
Jul 27, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 5135 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 269
Jul 26, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive Section 404(a) of S. Con. Res. 13, 111th Congress, as amended by S. Con. Res. 11, 114th Congress re: Amendment No. 5135 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 268
Jul 26, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4346 with Amdt. No. 5135 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 267
Jul 21, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Shereef M. Elnahal, of New Jersey, to be Under Secretary for Health of the Department of Veterans Affairs )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 266
Jul 21, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Reuben E. Brigety II, of Florida, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republic of South Africa )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 265
Jul 20, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.Con.Res. 43 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 264
Jul 20, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Bernadette M. Meehan, of New York, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republic of Chile )
On the Nomination

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 263
Jul 20, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Gregory Brian Williams, of Delaware, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Delaware )
On the Nomination

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 262
Jul 20, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gregory Brian Williams to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Delaware )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 261
Jul 19, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany H.R. 4346 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 260
Jul 19, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Julianna Michelle Childs, of South Carolina, to be U.S. Circuit Judge of the District of Columbia Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 259
Jul 19, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Nancy L. Maldonado, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 258
Jul 19, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nancy L. Maldonado to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 257
Jul 19, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Nina Nin-Yuen Wang, of Colorado, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 256
Jul 18, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nina Nin-Yuen Wang to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 255
Jul 14, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julianna Michelle Childs to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 254
Jul 14, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kate Elizabeth Heinzelman, of New York, to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency )
On the Nomination

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 253
Jul 13, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kate Elizabeth Heinzelman to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 252
Jul 13, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Owen Edward Herrnstadt, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 251
Jul 13, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Owen Edward Herrnstadt to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 250
Jul 13, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 249
Jul 13, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael S. Barr, to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 248
Jul 13, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 247
Jul 12, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael S. Barr to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 246
Jul 12, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Steven M. Dettelbach, of Ohio, to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 245
Jul 12, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Steven M. Dettelbach to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 242
Jun 23, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House amendment to S. 2938 with an amendment (Amdt. No. 5099) )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 241
Jun 23, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table: Amdt. No. 5100 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 240
Jun 23, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 2938 with Amendment No. 5099 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 239
Jun 23, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge Jessica G. L. Clarke to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York from the Committee on the Judiciary )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 238
Jun 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Hernan D. Vera, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California, from the Committee on the Judiciary. )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 237
Jun 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Mary T. Boyle, of Maryland, to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 236
Jun 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Arianna J. Freeman, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit from the Committee on the Judiciary )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 235
Jun 21, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany S. 2938 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 234
Jun 21, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ana Isabel de Alba, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of California )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 233
Jun 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Steven M. Dettelbach to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from the Committee on the Judiciary )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 232
Jun 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Mary T. Boyle to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 231
Jun 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ana Isabel de Alba to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 229
Jun 15, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Alan M. Leventhal, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Denmark. )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 228
Jun 15, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.Con.Res. 41 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 224
Jun 09, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Samuel R. Bagenstos, of Michigan, to be General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 223
Jun 09, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert Steven Huie, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 222
Jun 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Amy Loyd, of New Mexico, to be an Assistant Secretary of Education for Career, Technical, and Adult Education. )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 221
Jun 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Todd M. Harper, of Virginia, to be a Member of the National Credit Union Administration )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 220
Jun 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Nina Morrison, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 219
Jun 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lisa M. Gomez, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor )
On the Nomination

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 218
Jun 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Shalanda H. Baker, of Texas, to be Director of the Office of Minority Economic Impact, Department of Energy )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 217
Jun 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kenneth L. Wainstein, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, Department of Homeland Security )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 211
May 26, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 46 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Won
Roll Call 210
May 26, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 350 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 209
May 25, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Cathy Ann Harris, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Merit Systems Protection Board )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 208
May 25, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amy Loyd to be Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 206
May 25, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lisa M. Gomez to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 205
May 25, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Henry Christopher Frey, of North Carolina, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 204
May 25, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Henry Christopher Frey to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 203
May 25, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sandra L. Thompson, of Maryland, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 202
May 25, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sandra L. Thompson to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 201
May 25, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Charlotte N. Sweeney, of Colorado, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 200
May 25, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Evelyn Padin, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 199
May 24, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nina Morrison to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 198
May 24, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Charlotte N. Sweeney to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 197
May 24, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Evelyn Padin to be United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 196
May 24, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Dara Lindenbaum, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 195
May 24, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dara Lindenbaum to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 194
May 24, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Stephanie Dawkins Davis, of Michigan, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 193
May 19, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Stephanie Dawkins Davis to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 192
May 19, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 4008 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 188
May 18, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sunshine Suzanne Sykes, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 187
May 18, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Trina L. Thompson, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 186
May 18, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elizabeth Schoff Watson, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 185
May 18, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elizabeth Schoff Watson to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

Close Vote Absent Y Won
Roll Call 184
May 18, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Barbara A. Leaf, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Near Eastern Affairs) )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 183
May 18, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Barbara A. Leaf to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Near Eastern Affairs) )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 182
May 18, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jennifer Louise Rochon, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 181
May 17, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sunshine Suzanne Sykes to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 180
May 17, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Trina L. Thompson to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 179
May 17, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jennifer Louise Rochon to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 175
May 12, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Susan Tsui Grundmann, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 174
May 12, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Mary T. Boyle to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 172
May 11, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Julia Ruth Gordon, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Nomination

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 171
May 11, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julia Ruth Gordon to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 170
May 11, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Proceed to S. 4132 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 169
May 11, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Alvaro M. Bedoya, of Maryland, to be a Federal Trade Commissioner )
On the Nomination

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 168
May 11, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Alvaro M. Bedoya to be a Federal Trade Commissioner )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 167
May 11, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Discharge: Charlotte N. Sweeney to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado from the Committee on the Judiciary )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 166
May 10, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lisa DeNell Cook, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Nomination

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 165
May 10, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lisa DeNell Cook to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Upon Reconsideration )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 164
May 10, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Asmeret Asefaw Berhe, of California, to be Director of the Office of Science, Department of Energy )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 163
May 10, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Asmeret Asefaw Berhe to be Director of the Office of Science, Department of Energy )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 159
May 04, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Scott (SC) Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 158
May 04, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Toomey Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 157
May 04, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Capito Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 155
May 04, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Lankford Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 152
May 04, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Johnson Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 151
May 04, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Cotton Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 150
May 04, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Lee Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 149
May 04, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Cruz Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 148
May 04, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Barrasso Motion to Instruct Re: H.R. 4521 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 147
May 03, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 39 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 146
May 03, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elizabeth de Leon Bhargava, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 145
May 03, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elizabeth de Leon Bhargava to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 144
May 03, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Joshua Frost, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 143
May 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Joshua Frost to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 142
Apr 28, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Insist on the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4521, Agree to the Request for Conference, and Authorize the Chair to Appoint Conferees )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 141
Apr 28, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Insist on the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4521, Agree to the Request for Conference, and Authorize the Chair to Appoint Conferees )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 140
Apr 27, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.J. Res. 41 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 139
Apr 27, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sherilyn Peace Garnett, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 138
Apr 27, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sherilyn Peace Garnett to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 137
Apr 26, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lisa DeNell Cook to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 136
Apr 26, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lael Brainard, of the District of Columbia, to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 135
Apr 25, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lael Brainard to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 134
Apr 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ketanji Brown Jackson, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 133
Apr 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 130
Apr 06, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: James C. O'Brien, of Nebraska, to be Head of the Office of Sanctions Coordination, with the rank of Ambassador )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 129
Apr 05, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 4373 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 128
Apr 05, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider Executive Calendar No. 860 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 127
Apr 05, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Julia Ruth Gordon to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 126
Apr 04, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from the committee on the Judiciary )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 125
Mar 31, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Georgette Castner, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 124
Mar 31, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sarah Elisabeth Geraghty, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 123
Mar 30, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cathy Ann Harris to be Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 122
Mar 30, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cathy Ann Harris to be a Member of the Merit System Protection Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 121
Mar 30, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Susan Tsui Grundmann to be a Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 120
Mar 30, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Weil to be Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 119
Mar 30, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: January Contreras, of Arizona, to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support, Department of Health and Human Services )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 118
Mar 30, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: January Contreras to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support, Department of Health and Human Services )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 117
Mar 30, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Judith DelZoppo Pryor, of Ohio, to be First Vice President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 116
Mar 30, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Judith DelZoppo Pryor to be First Vice President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 115
Mar 30, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Alvaro M. Bedoya to be a Federal Trade Commissioner from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 114
Mar 29, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: C.S. Eliot Kang, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (International Security and Non-Proliferation) )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 113
Mar 29, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Nani A. Coloretti, of California, to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 112
Mar 29, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: C.S. Eliot Kang to be an Assistant Secretary of State (International Security and Non-Proliferation) )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 111
Mar 29, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nani A. Coloretti to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 110
Mar 29, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Lisa DeNell Cook to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 109
Mar 28, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 4521 As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 108
Mar 28, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Schumer Amdt. No. 5002 to H.R. 4521 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 107
Mar 24, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Andrew M. Luger, of Minnesota, to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 106
Mar 23, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Alison J. Nathan, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 105
Mar 23, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Anne Rachel Traum, of Nevada, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 104
Mar 23, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Cristina D. Silva, of Nevada, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 103
Mar 23, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: John H. Chun, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 102
Mar 23, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Hector Gonzalez, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 101
Mar 23, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Julie Rebecca Rubin, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 100
Mar 23, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.R. 4521 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 99
Mar 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Victoria Marie Calvert, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 98
Mar 22, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 97
Mar 21, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 4521 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 96
Mar 17, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Alison J. Nathan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 95
Mar 17, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Fred. W. Slaughter, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 94
Mar 17, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jacqueline Scott Corley, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 93
Mar 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrew M. Luger to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 92
Mar 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Anne Rachel Traum to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 91
Mar 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cristina D. Silva to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 90
Mar 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Georgette Castner to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 89
Mar 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sarah Elizabeth Geraghty to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 88
Mar 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John H. Chun to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 87
Mar 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Hector Gonzalez to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 86
Mar 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julie Rebecca Rubin to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 85
Mar 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Victoria Marie Calvert to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 84
Mar 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ruth Bermudez Montenegro to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 83
Mar 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Fred W. Slaughter to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 82
Mar 16, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jacqueline Scott Corley to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 81
Mar 15, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 37 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 80
Mar 15, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Shalanda D. Young, of Louisiana, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 79
Mar 14, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Shalanda D. Young, of Louisiana, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 78
Mar 10, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Senate Concurs in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2471 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 77
Mar 10, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Kennedy Amdt. No. 4983 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 76
Mar 10, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Braun Amdt. No. 4990 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 75
Mar 10, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 4989 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 73
Mar 10, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: S.J. Res. 35 )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 70
Mar 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive Sect. 3101 (b) of S. Con. Res. 11 (114th Congress) )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 68
Mar 03, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 38 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 67
Mar 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 32 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 65
Feb 28, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 3755. )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 64
Feb 17, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6617 )
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 63
Feb 17, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Braun Amdt. No. 4930 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 62
Feb 17, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt No. 4927 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 61
Feb 17, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 4929 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 60
Feb 17, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 6617 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 55
Feb 15, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert McKinnon Califf, of North Carolina, to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services )
On the Nomination

N Y Won
Roll Call 54
Feb 14, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert McKinnon Califf to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services )
On the Cloture Motion

N Y Won
Roll Call 53
Feb 10, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Max Vekich, of Washington, to be a Federal Maritime Commissioner )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 52
Feb 10, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Max Vekich to be a Federal Maritime Commissioner )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 51
Feb 09, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge Samuel R. Bagenstos to be General Counsel of the Department of HHS )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 50
Feb 09, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Neil Harvey MacBride, of Virginia, to be General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury )
On the Nomination

N Y Won
Roll Call 49
Feb 09, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Leonard Philip Stark, of Delaware, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 48
Feb 09, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Reta Jo Lewis, of Georgia, to be President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 43
Feb 09, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Scott A. Nathan, of Massachusetts, to be Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 42
Feb 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Chantale Yokmin Wong, of the District of Columbia, to be United States Director of the Asian Development Bank )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 41
Feb 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lisa A. Carty, of Maryland, to be Representative of the United States of America on the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 40
Feb 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Amy Gutmann, of Pennsylvania, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Federal Republic of Germany )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 39
Feb 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Loren L. AliKhan, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 38
Feb 08, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: John P. Howard III, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 37
Feb 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Donald Walker Tunnage, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 36
Feb 07, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ebony M. Scott, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 35
Feb 03, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Leonard Philip Stark to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 34
Feb 03, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Reta Jo Lewis to be President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 31
Feb 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Chantale Yokmin Wong to be U.S. Director of the Asian Development Bank, with the Rank of Ambassador )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 30
Feb 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Scott A. Nathan to be Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 29
Feb 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lisa A. Carty to be Representative of the United States of America on the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 28
Feb 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amy Gutmann to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Federal Republic of Germany )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 27
Feb 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Loren L. AliKhan to be an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 26
Feb 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John P. Howard III to be an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 25
Feb 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sean C. Staples, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 24
Feb 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kenia Seoane Lopez, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 23
Feb 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Donald Walker Tunnage to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 22
Feb 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ebony M. Scott to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 21
Feb 02, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rupa Ranga Puttagunta, of the District of Columbia, to be Associate Judge if the Superior Court of the District of Columbia )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 20
Feb 01, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sean C. Staples to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 19
Feb 01, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kenia Seoane Lopez to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 18
Feb 01, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rupa Ranga Puttagunta to be Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 17
Feb 01, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: David Augustin Ruiz to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 16
Feb 01, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Augustin Ruiz to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 15
Feb 01, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Charles Esque Fleming, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 14
Feb 01, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Charles Esque Fleming to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 13
Feb 01, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Bridget Meehan Brennan, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 12
Jan 31, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Bridget Meehan Brennan to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 11
Jan 20, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Holly A. Thomas, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 10
Jan 19, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair stand as the Judgement of the Senate )
On the Decision of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 9
Jan 19, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5746 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 8
Jan 13, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (S. 3436 )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Won
Roll Call 7
Jan 12, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Gabriel P. Sanchez, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 6
Jan 12, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Amitabha Bose, of New Jersey, to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 5
Jan 11, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amitabha Bose to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 4
Jan 11, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Alan Davidson, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 3
Jan 10, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Alan Davidson to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information. )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 2
Jan 05, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Anne A. Witkowsky, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Conflict and Stabilization Operations) )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1
Jan 05, 2022

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Anne A. Witkowsky to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Conflict and Stabilization Operations) )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 528
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Holly A. Thomas to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 527
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gabriel P. Sanchez to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 526
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rahm Emanuel, of Illinois, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Japan )
On the Nomination

N Y Won
Roll Call 525
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Mary Katherine Dimke, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 524
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Mary Katherine Dimke to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 523
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Katherine Marie Menendez, of Minnesota, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 522
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Katherine Marie Menendez to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 521
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jennifer L. Thurston, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 520
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jennifer L. Thurston to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 519
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Shalina D. Kumar, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 518
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Shalina D. Kumar to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 517
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jane M. Beckering, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Michigan )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 516
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jane M. Beckering to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Michigan )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 515
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 514
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 513
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: David Herrera Urias, of New Mexico, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 512
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Herrera Urias to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 511
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jinsook Ohta, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 510
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jinsook Ohta to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 509
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Linda Lopez, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 508
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Linda Lopez to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 507
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Atul Atmaram Gawande, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 506
Dec 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Atul Atmaram Gawande to be an Assistant Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 502
Dec 16, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge Holly A. Thomas to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit from the Committee on the Judiciary )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 501
Dec 15, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Samantha D. Elliott, of New Hampshire, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Hampshire )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 500
Dec 15, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jennifer Sung, of Oregon, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 498
Dec 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res 33 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 497
Dec 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.J. Res. 33 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 495
Dec 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Samantha D. Elliott to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Hampshire )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 494
Dec 13, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lucy Haeran Koh, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 493
Dec 09, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jennifer Sung to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 492
Dec 09, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lucy Haeran Koh to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 491
Dec 09, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 610 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 490
Dec 09, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 610 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 489
Dec 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 29 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 488
Dec 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael D. Smith, of Virginia, to be Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 487
Dec 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael D. Smith to be Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 486
Dec 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rachael S. Rollins, of Massachusetts, to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts )
On the Nomination

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 485
Dec 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rachael S. Rollins to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 484
Dec 07, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 31 )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 483
Dec 07, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Chris Magnus, of Arizona, to be Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 482
Dec 07, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Chris Magnus to be Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 481
Dec 07, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Deirdre Hamilton, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the National Mediation Board )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 480
Dec 07, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Deirdre Hamilton to be a Member of the National Mediation Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 479
Dec 07, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jessica Rosenworcel, of Connecticut, to be a Member of the Federal Comunications Commission )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 478
Dec 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jessica Rosenworcel to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 477
Dec 02, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6119 )
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 476
Dec 02, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Marshall Amdt. No. 4868 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 475
Dec 02, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Rachael S. Rollins to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts from the Committee on the Judiciary )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 474
Dec 02, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brian Eddie Nelson, of California, to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 473
Nov 29, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Re: Reed Amdt. No. 3867 As Modified to H.R. 4350 )
On the Cloture Motion

N Y Lost
Roll Call 471
Nov 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brain Eddie Nelson to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 470
Nov 16, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jonathan Kanter, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 467
Nov 16, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Graham Scott Steele, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Nomination

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 466
Nov 15, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Graham Scott Steele to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 465
Nov 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert Luis Santos, of Texas, to be Director of the Census )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 464
Nov 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert Luis Santos to be Director of the Census )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 462
Nov 03, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Jennifer Sung to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit from the Committee on the Judiciary )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 461
Nov 03, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rajesh D. Nayak, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 460
Nov 03, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jeffrey M. Prieto, of California, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 459
Nov 03, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 4 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 458
Nov 03, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Isobel Coleman, of New York, to be a Deputy Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 455
Nov 02, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rajesh D. Nayak to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 454
Nov 02, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeffrey M. Prieto to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 453
Nov 02, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Isobel Coleman to be a Deputy Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 450
Nov 01, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Toby J. Heytens, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 449
Nov 01, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Beth Robinson, of Vermont, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 448
Oct 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Toby J. Heytens, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 447
Oct 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Beth Robinson, of Vermont, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 446
Oct 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elizabeth Prelogar, of Indiana, to be Solicitor General of the United States )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 445
Oct 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Hampton Y. Dellinger, of North Carolina, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 444
Oct 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Christopher H. Schroeder, of North Carolina, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 443
Oct 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Matthew G. Olsen, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 442
Oct 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Omar Antonio Williams, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 441
Oct 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elizabeth Prelogar to be Solicitor General of the United States )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 440
Oct 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Hampton Y. Dellinger to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 439
Oct 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Christopher H. Schroeder to be Assistant Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 438
Oct 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Matthew G. Olsen to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 437
Oct 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Omar Antonio Williams to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 436
Oct 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sarala Vidya Nagala, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 435
Oct 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael S. Nachmanoff, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 434
Oct 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Patricia Tolliver Giles, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 433
Oct 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Karen McGlashan Williams, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 432
Oct 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jia M. Cobb, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 431
Oct 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sarala Vidya Nagala to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 430
Oct 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael S. Nachmanoff to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 429
Oct 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Patricia Tolliver Giles to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 428
Oct 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Karen McGlashan Williams to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 427
Oct 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jia M. Cobb to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 426
Oct 25, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Myrna Perez, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 425
Oct 25, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Douglas L. Parker, of West Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 424
Oct 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Tana Lin, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 423
Oct 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Myrna Perez to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the second Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 422
Oct 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Douglas L. Parker to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 421
Oct 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Tana Lin to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 420
Oct 20, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 2747 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 419
Oct 20, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Catherine Elizabeth Lhamon, of California, to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Education )
On the Nomination

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 418
Oct 20, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Catherine Elizabeth Lhamon to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Education )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 417
Oct 19, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Brian Eddie Nelson to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes, from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 416
Oct 19, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Christine P. O'Hearn, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 415
Oct 19, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Christine P. O'Hearn to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 414
Oct 18, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Gustavo A. Gelpi, of Puerto Rico, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the First Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 413
Oct 07, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gustavo A. Gelpi to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the First Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 412
Oct 07, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 1301 with an Amendment (Amdt. No. 3847) )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 411
Oct 07, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 1301 with an Amendment (Amdt. No. 3847) )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 410
Oct 07, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Catherine Elizabeth Lhamon to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Education, from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 409
Oct 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sarah A.L. Merriam, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 408
Oct 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sarah A. L. Merriam to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 407
Oct 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lauren J. King, of Washington, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 406
Oct 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lauren J. King to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 403
Oct 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jonathan Eugene Meyer, of Ohio, to be General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 402
Sep 30, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany S. 1301 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 401
Sep 30, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Tracy Stone-Manning, of Montana, to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 400
Sep 30, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Tracy Stone-Manning to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 399
Sep 30, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rohit Chopra, of the District of Columbia, to be Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 398
Sep 30, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rohit Chopra to be Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 397
Sep 30, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 5305, As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 396
Sep 30, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Braun Amdt. No. 3832 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 395
Sep 30, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Marshall Amdt. No. 3831 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 394
Sep 30, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cotton Amdt. No. 3833 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 393
Sep 29, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert T. Anderson, of Washington, to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 392
Sep 29, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jonathan Eugene Meyer to be General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 391
Sep 29, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert T. Anderson to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 390
Sep 29, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jessica Lewis, of Ohio, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Political-Military Affairs) )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 389
Sep 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Todd D. Robinson, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs) )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 388
Sep 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Mary Catherine Phee, of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (African Affairs) )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 387
Sep 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Monica P. Medina, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 386
Sep 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Karen Erika Donfried, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (European Affairs and Eurasian Affairs) )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 385
Sep 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 5305 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 384
Sep 23, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jessica Lewis to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Political-Military Affairs) )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 383
Sep 23, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Todd D. Robinson to be an Assistant Secretary of State (International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs) )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 382
Sep 23, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Mary Catherine Phee to be an Assistant Secretary of State (African Affairs) )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 381
Sep 23, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Monica P. Medina to be Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 380
Sep 23, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Karen Erika Donfried, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (European Affairs and Eurasian Affairs) )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 375
Sep 23, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Florence Y. Pan, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 374
Sep 22, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Florence Y. Pan to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 372
Sep 22, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lily Lawrence Batchelder, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 370
Sep 22, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lily Lawrence Batchelder to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 369
Sep 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Rohit Chopra to be Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 368
Sep 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Margaret Irene Strickland, of New Mexico, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 367
Sep 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Margaret Irene Strickland to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 366
Sep 20, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Veronica S. Rossman, of Colorado, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit )
On the Nomination

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 365
Sep 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Veronica S. Rossman to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 364
Sep 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Angel Kelley, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 363
Sep 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Angel Kelley to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 362
Sep 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: David G. Estudillo, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 361
Sep 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David G. Estudillo to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 360
Sep 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: James Richard Kvaal, of Massachusetts, to be Under Secretary of Education )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 359
Sep 13, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: James Richard Kvaal to be Under Secretary of Education )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 358
Aug 11, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S. 1 )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 357
Aug 11, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 14, As Amended )
On the Concurrent Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 356
Aug 11, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 3815 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 355
Aug 11, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive Sec. 904 of the C.B.A. Re: Cruz Amdt. No. 3681 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 354
Aug 11, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Sullivan Amdt. No. 3626 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 353
Aug 11, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Grassley Amdt. No. 3650 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 352
Aug 11, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Hyde-Smith Amdt. No. 3568 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 351
Aug 11, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Hagerty Amdt. No. 3742 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 350
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Inhofe Amdt. No. 3331 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 349
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 3141 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 348
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Kennedy Amdt. No. 3758 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 346
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Hoeven Amdt. No. 3243 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 344
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No. 3781 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 343
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Blackburn Amdt. No. 3062 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 342
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cotton Amdt. No. 3680 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 341
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Moran Amdt. No. 3795 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 340
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Romney Amdt. No. 3652 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 338
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 3150 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 336
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lankford Amdt. No. 3792 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 333
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Ernst Amdt. No. 3115 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 332
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Fischer Amdt. No. 3128 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 330
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Boozman Amdt. No. 3103 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 327
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 3569 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 326
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Grassley Amdt. No. 3251 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 325
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Shelby Amdt. No. 3293 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 324
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Scott (SC) Amdt. No. 3073 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 323
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cramer Amdt. No. 3105 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 322
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 3365 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 321
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Crapo Amdt. No. 3099 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 320
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lummis Amdt. No. 3104 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 319
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 3317 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 317
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Carper Amdt. No. 3330 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 315
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S. Con. Res. 14 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 314
Aug 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3684, As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 313
Aug 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: H.R. 3684 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 312
Aug 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Sinema Amdt. No. 2137, As Amended )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 311
Aug 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sinema Amdt. No. 2137 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 310
Aug 07, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Eunice C. Lee, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 309
Aug 07, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sinema Amdt. No. 2137 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 308
Aug 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eunice C. Lee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 307
Aug 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Schumer Amdt. No. 2570 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 305
Aug 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 2279 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 304
Aug 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Scott (FL) Amdt. No. 2338 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 303
Aug 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Daines Amdt. No. 2449 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 302
Aug 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lankford Amdt. No. 2233 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 299
Aug 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Wicker Amdt. No. 2146 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 298
Aug 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Johnson Amdt. No. 2245 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 296
Aug 03, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Duckworth Amdt. No. 2140 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 293
Aug 02, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Barrasso Amdt. No. 2180 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 290
Jul 30, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, of California, to be Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 289
Jul 30, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ur Mendoza Jaddou to be Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 288
Jul 30, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.R. 3684 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 286
Jul 29, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Leahy Amdt. No. 2123 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 285
Jul 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 3684 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 284
Jul 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: David M. Prouty, of Maryland, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 283
Jul 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David M. Prouty to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 282
Jul 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Gwynne A. Wilcox, of New York, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 281
Jul 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gwynne A. Wilcox to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 280
Jul 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Tracy Stone-Manning to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 279
Jul 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Todd Sunhwae Kim, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 278
Jul 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Todd Sunhwae Kim to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 276
Jul 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 3684 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 275
Jul 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Bonnie D. Jenkins, of New York, to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 274
Jul 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Bonnie D. Jenkins to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 273
Jul 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jennifer Ann Abruzzo, of New York, to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Nomination

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 271
Jul 20, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Toomey Amdt No. 2121, As Modified )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 270
Jul 20, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kenneth Allen Polite, Jr., of Louisiana, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 269
Jul 20, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jennifer Ann Abruzzo to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 268
Jul 20, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kenneth Allen Polite, Jr. to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 267
Jul 19, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Tiffany P. Cunningham, of Illinois, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 266
Jul 15, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Tiffany P. Cunningham to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 264
Jul 15, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: J. Nellie Liang, of Maryland, to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 262
Jul 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: J. Nellie Liang to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 261
Jul 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Seema Nanda, of Virginia, to be Solicitor for the Department of Labor )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 260
Jul 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jocelyn Samuels, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 259
Jul 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Seema Nanda to be Solicitor for the Department of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 258
Jul 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jocelyn Samuels to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 257
Jul 13, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Jennifer Ann Abruzzo to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 256
Jul 13, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Julie A. Su, of California, to be Deputy Secretary of Labor )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 255
Jul 13, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julie A. Su to be Deputy Secretary of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 254
Jul 13, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Uzra Zeya, of Virginia, to be an Under Secretary of State (Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights) )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 253
Jul 12, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Uzra Zeya to be an Under Secretary of State (Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights) )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 252
Jun 24, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, of Illinois, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 249
Jun 23, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Candace Jackson-Akiwumi to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 248
Jun 23, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Deborah L. Boardman, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 247
Jun 23, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Deborah L. Boardman to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 246
Jun 22, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 2093 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 245
Jun 22, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kiran Arjandas Ahuja, of Massachusetts, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management )
On the Nomination

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 244
Jun 22, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kiran Arjandas Ahuja, of Massachusetts, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 243
Jun 22, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Christopher Charles Fonzone, of Pennsylvania, to be General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 242
Jun 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Christopher Charles Fonzone to be General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 241
Jun 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: John K. Tien, of Georgia, to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 240
Jun 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John K. Tien to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 237
Jun 16, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lydia Kay Griggsby, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 236
Jun 16, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Radhika Fox, of California, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 235
Jun 16, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lydia Kay Griggsby to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 234
Jun 16, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Radhika Fox to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 233
Jun 15, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lina M. Khan, of New York, to be a Federal Trade Commissioner )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 232
Jun 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lina M. Khan to be a Federal Trade Commissioner )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 231
Jun 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ketanji Brown Jackson, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 229
Jun 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ketanji Brown Jackson to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 227
Jun 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 7 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 226
Jun 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (S. 1260, As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 225
Jun 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Amdt. No. 1502 As Amended )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 224
Jun 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 1502 As Amended )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 223
Jun 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 1858 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 222
Jun 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Regina M. Rodriguez, of Colorado, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 221
Jun 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Regina M. Rodriguez to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 220
Jun 08, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Julien Xavier Neals, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 219
Jun 07, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julien Xavier Neals to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 218
May 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 3233 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 215
May 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Rubio Amdt. No. 1802 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 214
May 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Schumer Amdt. No. 1502 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 213
May 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Sasse Amdt. No. 2023 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 212
May 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Braun Amdt. No. 1771 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 211
May 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1929 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 209
May 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Kennedy Amdt. No. 1710 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 208
May 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 2014 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 207
May 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Sullivan Amdt. No. 1911 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 206
May 25, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1891 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 205
May 25, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Crapo Amdt. No. 1565 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 204
May 25, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 1975 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 203
May 25, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kristen M. Clarke, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 202
May 25, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kristen M. Clarke to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 201
May 25, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, of Virginia, to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 200
May 24, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Chiquita Brooks-LaSure to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 199
May 20, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Johnson Amdt. No. 1518 )
On the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 198
May 20, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Inhofe Amdt. No. 1523 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 197
May 19, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Scott (FL) Amdt. No. 1547 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 196
May 19, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Tillis Amdt. No. 1517 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 195
May 19, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 13 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 194
May 18, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.J. Res. 13 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 193
May 18, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge the Nomination of Kristen M. Clarke to be an Assistant Attorney General from the Committee on the Judiciary )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 190
May 13, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Amber Faye McReynolds, of Colorado, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 189
May 12, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amber Faye McReynolds to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 188
May 12, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ronald Stroman, of the District of Columbia, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 187
May 12, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ronald Stroman to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 186
May 12, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ronald Stroman, of the District of Columbia, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 185
May 12, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Ronald Stroman to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 184
May 12, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge: Chiquita Brooks-LaSure to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from the Committee on Finance )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 183
May 11, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S. J. Res. 15 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 182
May 11, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Cynthia Minette Marten, of California, to be Deputy Secretary of Education )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 181
May 11, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cynthia Minette Marten to be Deputy Secretary of Education )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 180
May 11, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Andrea Joan Palm, of Wisconsin, to be Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 179
May 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrea Joan Palm to be Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 177
Apr 29, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1472 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 175
Apr 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 14 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 174
Apr 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Samantha Power, of Massachusetts, to be Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 173
Apr 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Samantha Power to be Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 171
Apr 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Colin Hackett Kahl, of California, to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 170
Apr 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Colin Hackett Kahl to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 169
Apr 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Janet Garvin McCabe, of Indiana, to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 168
Apr 27, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Janet Garvin McCabe to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 164
Apr 22, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Blackburn Amdt. No. 1458 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 163
Apr 22, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1425 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 162
Apr 22, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No. 1456 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 161
Apr 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge Colin Hackett Kahl to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from the Committee on Armed Services )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 160
Apr 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Vanita Gupta, of Virginia, to be Associate Attorney General )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 159
Apr 21, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Vanita Gupta to be Associate Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 157
Apr 20, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Gary Gensler, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 156
Apr 20, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gary Gensler to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 155
Apr 19, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider Vanita Gupta to be Associate Attorney General )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 153
Apr 15, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge the Nomination of Vanita Gupta from the Committee on the Judiciary )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 152
Apr 15, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 150
Apr 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brenda Mallory, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Council on Environmental Quality )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 149
Apr 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brenda Mallory to be a Member of the Council on Environmental Quality )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 148
Apr 14, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Gary Gensler, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 147
Apr 13, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gary Gensler to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 146
Apr 13, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Wendy Ruth Sherman, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of State )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 145
Apr 13, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Wendy Ruth Sherman to be Deputy Secretary of State )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 141
Mar 25, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Scott (FL) Amdt. No. 1411 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 139
Mar 25, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: H.R. 1799 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 138
Mar 25, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Rubio Amdt. No. 1405 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 137
Mar 25, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Kennedy Amdt. No. 1401 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 134
Mar 24, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rachel Leland Levine, of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 132
Mar 24, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Rachel Leland Levine to be an Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 131
Mar 23, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Vivek Hallegere Murthy, of Florida, to be Medical Director in the Regular Corps and Surgeon General of the Public Health Service )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 130
Mar 23, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Vivek Hallegere Murthy to be Medical Director in the Regular Corps and to be Surgeon General of the Public Health Service )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 129
Mar 23, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Shalanda D. Young, of Louisiana, to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 128
Mar 23, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Shalanda D. Young to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 127
Mar 22, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Martin Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, to be Secretary of Labor )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 126
Mar 18, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Martin Joseph Walsh to be Secretary of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 125
Mar 18, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Xavier Becerra, of California, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 124
Mar 17, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Xavier Becerra, of California, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 119
Mar 15, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Debra Anne Haaland, of New Mexico, to be Secretary of the Interior )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 118
Mar 11, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Debra Anne Haaland to be Secretary of the Interior )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 117
Mar 11, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge the Nomination of Xavier Becerra to be Secretary of Health and Human Services from the Committee on Finance )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 116
Mar 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael Stanley Regan, of North Carolina, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 115
Mar 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael Stanley Regan to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 114
Mar 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Merrick Brian Garland, of Maryland, to be Attorney General )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 113
Mar 10, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Marcia Louise Fudge, of Ohio, to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 112
Mar 09, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Merrick Brian Garland to be Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 111
Mar 09, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Marcia Louise Fudge to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 110
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1319, As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 108
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Commit H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Foreign Relations )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 107
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Moran Amdt. No. 1154 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 106
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Grassley Amdt. No. 902 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 105
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1331 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 104
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No. 968 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 103
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cassidy Amdt. No. 1162 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 102
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Cornyn Motion to Commit H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with Instructions )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 101
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1381 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 100
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Scott (FL) Motion to Commit H.R. 1319 to Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs with Instructions )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 99
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Kennedy Motion to Commit H.R. 1319 to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship with Instructions )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 98
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motions to Commit to H.R. 1319 to Eleven Committees Considered En Bloc )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 97
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Tuberville Amdt. No. 1386 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 96
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Romney Amdt. No. 1364 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 95
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No. 969 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 94
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lankford Amdt. No. 1031 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 93
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Blackburn Amdt. No. 996 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 92
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Cotton Motion to Commit H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 91
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Scott (FL) Amdt. No. 1395 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 90
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Capito Motion to Commit H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 89
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Young Amdt. No. 1383 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 88
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 1014 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 87
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Fischer Amdt. No. 944 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 86
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Toomey Amdt. No. 1010 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 85
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Grassley Motion to Commit H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 84
Mar 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cassidy Amdt. No. 1161 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 83
Mar 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Tester Amdt. No. 1197 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 82
Mar 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Graham Amdt. No. 1369 As Modified )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 81
Mar 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Hassan Amdt. No. 1344 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 80
Mar 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Rubio Amdt. No. 1026 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 79
Mar 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 1378 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 78
Mar 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Scott (SC) Amdt. No. 1030 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 77
Mar 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Collins Amdt. No. 1242 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 76
Mar 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Portman Amdt. No. 1092 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 75
Mar 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Adjourn (Motion to Adjourn Until 10:00 A.M. Tomorrow )
On the Motion to Adjourn

N N Won
Roll Call 74
Mar 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 972 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 73
Mar 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.R. 1319 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 68
Mar 01, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Miguel A. Cardona, of Connecticut, to be Secretary of Education )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 67
Feb 25, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Miguel A. Cardona to be Secretary of Education )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 66
Feb 25, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jennifer Mulhern Granholm, of Michigan, to be Secretary of Energy )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 65
Feb 24, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jennifer Mulhern Granholm to be Secretary of Energy )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 59
Feb 13, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Guilty or Not Guilty (Article of Impeachment Against Former President Donald John Trump )
Guilty or Not Guilty

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 58
Feb 13, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Shall It Be In Order to Consider and Debate Any Motion to Subpoena Witnesses or Documents? )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 57
Feb 09, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Is Former President Donald John Trump Subject to a Court of Impeachment for Acts Committed While President? )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 54
Feb 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 5, As Amended )
On the Concurrent Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 53
Feb 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 889 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 52
Feb 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Schumer Amdt. No. 888 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 51
Feb 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Rubio Amdt. No. 651 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 50
Feb 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sullivan Amdt. No. 461 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 48
Feb 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 253 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 47
Feb 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Romney Amdt No. 803 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 46
Feb 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Hoeven Amdt No. 887 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 45
Feb 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Crapo Amdt. No. 55 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 44
Feb 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lankford Amdt. No. 837 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 43
Feb 05, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Capito Amdt. No. 655 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 42
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Scott (FL) Amdt No. 872 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 41
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cruz Amdt. No. 811 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 40
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 770 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 38
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Kennedy Amdt. No. 782 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 37
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cassidy Amdt. No. 483 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 36
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cotton Amdt No. 66 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 34
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 821 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 33
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Johnson Amdt. No. 542 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 32
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Daines Amdt. No. 678 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 31
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 1 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 29
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Grassley Amdt. No. 91 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 28
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Braun Amdt No. 833 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 25
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ernst Amdt. No. 132 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 24
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Graham Amdt. No. 687 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 23
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sasse Amdt. No. 192 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 20
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Toomey Amdt. No. 553 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 18
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Young Amdt No. 54 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 17
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Blunt Amdt. No. 48 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 15
Feb 04, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Scott (SC) Amdt. No. 53 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 13
Feb 02, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S. Con. Res. 5 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 12
Feb 02, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, of the District of Columbia, to be Secretary of Homeland Security )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 10
Jan 28, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 8
Jan 26, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table: Is the Point of Order Well Taken? )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 2
Jan 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Objection (Shall the Objection Submitted by the Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, and the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Hawley, Be Sustained? )
On the Objection

N N Won
Roll Call 1
Jan 06, 2021

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Objection (Shall the Objection Submitted by the Gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, and the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, and Others Be Sustained? )
On the Objection

N N Won
Roll Call 288
Dec 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Eric J. Soskin, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, Department of Transportation )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 287
Dec 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eric J. Soskin to be Inspector General, Department of Transportation )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 286
Dec 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Reconsider (Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Eric J. Soskin, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, Department of Transportation )
On the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 285
Dec 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Eric J. Soskin, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, Department of Transportation )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 280
Dec 19, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Beth Harwell, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 279
Dec 19, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Beth Harwell to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 278
Dec 19, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eric J. Soskin to be Inspector General, Department of Transportation )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 277
Dec 19, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John Chase Johnson to be Inspector General, Federal Communications Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 276
Dec 19, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Thompson Michael Dietz, of New Jersey, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 275
Dec 19, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Thompson Michael Dietz to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 274
Dec 17, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Zachary N. Somers, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 273
Dec 17, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Zachary N. Somers to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 272
Dec 17, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Charles Edward Atchley, Jr., of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 271
Dec 16, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Charles Edward Atchley, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 270
Dec 16, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Joseph Dawson III, of South Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 269
Dec 16, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Joseph Dawson III to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 268
Dec 16, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Katherine A. Crytzer, of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 267
Dec 15, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Katherine A. Crytzer to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 266
Dec 15, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Thomas L. Kirsch II, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 265
Dec 14, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Thomas L. Kirsch II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 262
Dec 09, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 78 )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 261
Dec 09, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 77 )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 260
Dec 09, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sean J. Cooksey, of Missouri, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 258
Dec 09, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Allen Dickerson, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 257
Dec 08, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Nathan A. Simington, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 256
Dec 08, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Stephen Sidney Schwartz, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 255
Dec 08, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Nathan A. Simington to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 254
Dec 07, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Stephen Sidney Schwartz to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 253
Dec 03, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Liam P. Hardy, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 252
Dec 03, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Liam P. Hardy to be a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 251
Dec 03, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Christopher Waller, of Minnesota, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 249
Dec 02, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Grassley Amdt. No. 2689 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 248
Dec 02, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kathryn C. Davis, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 247
Dec 02, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Christopher Waller to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 246
Dec 02, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kathryn C. Davis to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 245
Dec 02, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kyle Hauptman, of Maine, to be a Member of the National Credit Union Administration Board )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 244
Dec 01, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kyle Hauptman to be a Member of the National Credit Union Administration Board )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 243
Dec 01, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: J. Philip Calabrese, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 242
Dec 01, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: J. Philip Calabrese to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 241
Dec 01, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Taylor B. McNeel, of Mississippi, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 240
Nov 30, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Taylor B. McNeel to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 239
Nov 18, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 238
Nov 18, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kathryn Kimball Mizelle to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 237
Nov 18, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Stephen A. Vaden, of Tennessee, to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 236
Nov 18, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Stephen A. Vaden, of Tennessee, to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 235
Nov 17, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Toby Crouse, of Kansas, to be United States District Judge for the District of Kansas )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 234
Nov 17, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Toby Crouse, of Kansas, to be United States District Judge for the District of Kansas )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 233
Nov 17, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Judy Shelton to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 232
Nov 17, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Benjamin Joel Beaton, of Kentucky, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 231
Nov 17, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Benjamin Joel Beaton to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 230
Nov 17, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kristi Haskins Johnson, of Mississippi, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 229
Nov 16, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kristi Haskins Johnson to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 228
Nov 12, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Aileen Mercedes Cannon, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 227
Nov 12, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Aileen Mercedes Cannon to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 226
Nov 10, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: James Ray Knepp II, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 225
Nov 09, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: James Ray Knepp II to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 224
Oct 26, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 223
Oct 26, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? )
On the Decision of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 222
Oct 25, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 221
Oct 23, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Recess )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 220
Oct 23, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Appealing of the Ruling of the Chair )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 219
Oct 23, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table the Motion to Recommit (Motion to Table the Motion to Recommit the Barrett Nomination to the Committee on the Judiciary )
On the Motion to Table the Motion to Recommit

N N Lost
Roll Call 218
Oct 23, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Indefinitely Postpone the Barrett Nomination )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 217
Oct 23, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider the Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 216
Oct 23, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Open the Doors )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 215
Oct 23, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 214
Oct 22, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Recess )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 213
Oct 22, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael Jay Newman, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 212
Oct 22, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? )
On the Decision of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 211
Oct 22, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael Jay Newman to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 210
Oct 22, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 209
Oct 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Appealing of the Ruling of the Chair )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 208
Oct 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Appealing of the Ruling of the Chair )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 207
Oct 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 178 with Senate Amendment SA 2652 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 206
Oct 20, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Appealing of the Ruling of the Chair )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 205
Oct 20, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider Michael Newman to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 204
Oct 20, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Proceed to S. 4675 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 203
Oct 20, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table McConnell Amdt. No. 2680 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 202
Oct 19, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Appealing of the Ruling of the Chair )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 201
Oct 19, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.J. Res. 90 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 200
Oct 01, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 4653 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 199
Sep 30, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Tillis Amdt. No. 2673 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 198
Sep 30, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany S. 178 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 193
Sep 23, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jocelyn Samuels, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 189
Sep 22, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Keith E. Sonderling, of Florida, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 188
Sep 22, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Keith E. Sonderling to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 187
Sep 22, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Andrea R. Lucas, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 186
Sep 22, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrea R. Lucas, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 185
Sep 22, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Edward Hulvey Meyers, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 184
Sep 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Edward Hulvey Meyers to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 183
Sep 17, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Iain D. Johnston, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 182
Sep 17, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Franklin Ulyses Valderrama, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 181
Sep 16, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Iain D. Johnston to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 180
Sep 16, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Stephen P. McGlynn, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 179
Sep 16, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: David W. Dugan, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 178
Sep 16, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Stephen P. McGlynn to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 177
Sep 16, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David W. Dugan to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 174
Sep 15, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Todd Wallace Robinson to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 168
Sep 10, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 178 with Amendment No. 2652 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 166
Sep 10, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Thomas T. Cullen, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 165
Sep 10, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Hala Y. Jarbou, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Michigan )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 163
Sep 09, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Thomas T. Cullen to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 161
Sep 09, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Hala Y. Jarbou to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Michigan )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 160
Sep 09, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Christy Criswell Wiegand to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 157
Aug 06, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: John Peter Cronan, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 156
Aug 06, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John Peter Cronan, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 155
Aug 04, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Mark Wesley Menezes, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Energy )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 154
Aug 03, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Mark Wesley Menezes to be Deputy Secretary of Energy )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 153
Jul 30, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany S.178 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 152
Jul 30, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Derek Kan, of California, to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 151
Jul 29, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lauren McGarity McFerran, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 150
Jul 29, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lauren McGarity McFerran to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 149
Jul 29, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Marvin Kaplan, of Kansas, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Nomination

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 148
Jul 29, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Marvin Kaplan to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 147
Jul 29, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Derek Kan to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 146
Jul 28, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Dana T. Wade, of Washington D.C., to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 145
Jul 28, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: David Cleveland Joseph, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 144
Jul 28, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dana T. Wade to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 143
Jul 28, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Cleveland Joseph to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 142
Jul 27, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: William Scott Hardy, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 141
Jul 23, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: William Scott Hardy to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 140
Jul 23, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (S. 4049, As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 139
Jul 23, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: S. 4049 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 135
Jul 22, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 1788 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 132
Jul 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Schatz Amdt. No. 2252 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 131
Jul 20, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Russell Vought, of Virginia, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 130
Jul 02, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Russell Vought to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget )
On the Cloture Motion

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 129
Jul 01, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Paul Amdt. No. 2011 )
On the Motion to Table

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 126
Jun 24, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 3985 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 125
Jun 24, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Cory T. Wilson, of Mississippi, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 124
Jun 22, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cory T. Wilson to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 123
Jun 18, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Justin Reed Walker, of Kentucky, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 122
Jun 17, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Justin Reed Walker to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 118
Jun 15, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 1617 )
On the Motion

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 113
Jun 04, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael Pack, of Maryland, to be Chief Executive Officer of the Broadcasting Board of Governors )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 112
Jun 04, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael Pack to be Chief Executive Officer of the Broadcasting Board of Governors )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 111
Jun 03, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Drew B. Tipton, of Texas to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 110
Jun 03, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Drew B. Tipton to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 109
Jun 03, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: James H. Anderson, of Virginia, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 108
Jun 03, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: James H. Anderson to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 107
Jun 02, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brian D. Miller, of Virginia, to be Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 106
Jun 02, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brian D. Miller to be Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 103
Jun 01, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: John Leonard Badalamenti, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 102
May 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John Leonard Badalamenti to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 101
May 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: John L. Ratcliffe, of Texas, to be Director of National Intelligence )
On the Nomination

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 100
May 20, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: John F. Heil III, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 99
May 20, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Anna M. Manasco, of Alabama, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 98
May 20, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John F. Heil III to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 97
May 20, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Anna M. Manasco to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 96
May 19, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: James E. Trainor III, of Texas, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission )
On the Nomination

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 95
May 19, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: James E. Trainor III to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 94
May 19, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Scott H. Rash, of AZ, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 93
May 18, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Scott H. Rash to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 92
May 14, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6172, As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 89
May 13, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 1583 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 88
May 12, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Troy D. Edgar, of California, to be Chief Financial Officer, Department of Homeland Security )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 87
May 12, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Troy D. Edgar to be Chief Financial Officer, Department of Homeland Security )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 86
May 12, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brian D. Montgomery, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 85
May 11, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brian D. Montgomery to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 84
May 07, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Joint Resolution S.J. Res. 68 Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the Contrary Notwithstanding? )
On Overriding the Veto

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 79
Mar 25, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Sasse Amdt No.1577 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 78
Mar 23, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 748 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 77
Mar 22, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Re: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 748 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 75
Mar 18, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Johnson Amdt. No.1558 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 74
Mar 18, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Murray Amdt. No.1559 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 72
Mar 12, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: James P. Danly, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 71
Mar 12, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: James P. Danly to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 70
Mar 11, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 76 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 69
Mar 10, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion To Proceed To: S.J. Res. 56 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 67
Mar 09, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 1407, As Modified, to S.2657 )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Won
Roll Call 60
Feb 25, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Katharine MacGregor, of Pennsylvania, to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 58
Feb 25, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 311 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 57
Feb 25, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 3275 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 56
Feb 25, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 52
Feb 13, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 68 As Amended )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 51
Feb 13, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Sullivan Amdt. No. 1319 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 50
Feb 13, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Rubio Amdt. No. 1320 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 48
Feb 13, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Cotton Amdt. No. 1305 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 46
Feb 13, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No. 1301 )
On the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 45
Feb 12, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.J. Res. 68 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 44
Feb 12, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Philip M. Halpern, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 42
Feb 12, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Matthew Thomas Schelp, of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 41
Feb 12, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Joshua M. Kindred, of Alaska, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Alaska )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 40
Feb 11, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Philip M. Halpern to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 38
Feb 11, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Matthew Thomas Schelp to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 37
Feb 11, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Joshua M. Kindred to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Alaska )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 36
Feb 11, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Andrew Lynn Brasher, of Alabama, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 35
Feb 10, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion ( Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrew Lynn Brasher to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 34
Feb 05, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Guilty or Not Guilty (Article II, Articles of Impeachment Against President Donald John Trump )
Guilty or Not Guilty

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 33
Feb 05, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Guilty or Not Guilty (Article I, Articles of Impeachment Against President Donald John Trump )
Guilty or Not Guilty

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 32
Jan 31, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Resolution (S. Res. 488 )
On the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 31
Jan 31, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Van Hollen Amdt. No. 1298 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 30
Jan 31, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1297 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 29
Jan 31, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1296 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 28
Jan 31, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1295 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 27
Jan 31, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Shall It Be In Order To Consider And Debate Any Motion To Subpoena Witnesses Or Documents )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 26
Jan 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Resolution (S. Res. 483 )
On the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 25
Jan 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer for Van Hollen Amdt. No. 1294 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 24
Jan 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1293 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 23
Jan 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1292 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 22
Jan 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1291 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 21
Jan 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1290 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 20
Jan 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1289 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 19
Jan 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1288 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 18
Jan 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No.1287 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 17
Jan 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1286 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 16
Jan 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1285 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 15
Jan 21, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 1284 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 10
Jan 09, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Paul J. Ray, of Tennessee, to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 9
Jan 09, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Paul J. Ray to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 7
Jan 08, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Eleni Maria Roumel, of Maryland, to be a Judge for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 5
Jan 08, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Cloture Motion: Michael George DeSombre to be Ambassador of the United States to the Kingdom of Thailand )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 4
Jan 08, 2020

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eleni Maria Roumel to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 425
Dec 19, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lewis J. Liman, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 424
Dec 19, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert J. Colville, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 419
Dec 19, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jodi W. Dishman, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Oklahoma )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 418
Dec 19, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Daniel Mack Traynor, of North Dakota to be U.S. District Judge for the District of North Dakota )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 416
Dec 19, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Anuraag Singhal, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 406
Dec 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jodi W. Dishman to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 405
Dec 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Daniel Mack Traynor to be U.S. District Judge for the District of North Dakota )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 403
Dec 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Anuraag Singhal to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 402
Dec 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Matthew Walden McFarland, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 401
Dec 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Matthew Walden McFarland, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 397
Dec 12, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Stephen Hahn, of Texas, to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 396
Dec 12, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: John Joseph Sullivan of Maryland, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Russian Federation )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 395
Dec 12, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Aurelia Skipwith, of Indiana, to be Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 394
Dec 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 393
Dec 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Stephen Hahn to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 392
Dec 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John Joseph Sullivan to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Russian Federation )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 391
Dec 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lawrence VanDyke, of Nevada, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 388
Dec 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lawrence VanDyke to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 387
Dec 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Patrick J. Bumatay, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 386
Dec 09, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Patrick J. Bumatay to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 384
Dec 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sherri A. Lydon, of South Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 383
Dec 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Richard Ernest Myers II, of North Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 380
Dec 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Douglas Russell Cole, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 379
Dec 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sarah E. Pitlyk, of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 378
Dec 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: John L. Sinatra, Jr., of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of New York )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 376
Dec 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sherri A. Lydon to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 375
Dec 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Richard Ernest Myers II to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 372
Dec 03, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Douglas Russell Cole to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 371
Dec 03, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sarah E. Pitlyk to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 370
Dec 03, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John L. Sinatra, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of New York )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 367
Dec 02, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Dan R. Brouillette, of Texas, to be Secretary of Energy )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 366
Nov 21, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dan Brouillette to be Secretary of Energy )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 362
Nov 20, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Adrian Zuckerman, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to Romania )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 361
Nov 20, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Adrian Zuckerman to be Ambassador of the United States of America to Romania )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 360
Nov 20, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Barbara Lagoa, of Florida, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 359
Nov 19, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Barbara Lagoa to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 358
Nov 19, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert J. Luck, of Florida, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 357
Nov 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert J. Luck to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 356
Nov 14, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Steven J. Menashi, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 355
Nov 13, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Steven J. Menashi to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 354
Nov 13, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Chad F. Wolf, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans, Department of Homeland Security )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 353
Nov 12, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Chad Wolf to be Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans, Department of Homeland Security )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 350
Nov 07, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lee Philip Rudofsky, of Arkansas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 348
Nov 06, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Danielle J. Hunsaker, of Oregon, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 346
Nov 06, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lee Philip Rudofsky to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 345
Nov 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Danielle J. Hunsaker to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 343
Nov 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Austin Tapp to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 342
Oct 31, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2740 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 339
Oct 31, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1209 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 337
Oct 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 52 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 333
Oct 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Justin Reed Walker, of Kentucky, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 332
Oct 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Justin Reed Walker to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 331
Oct 23, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 50 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 329
Oct 22, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Andrew P. Bremberg, of Virginia, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 328
Oct 22, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrew P. Bremberg to be Representative of the United States of America to the Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 325
Oct 17, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Joint Resolution S.J. Res. 54 pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding? )
On Overriding the Veto

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 324
Oct 17, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 53 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 321
Oct 16, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Charles R. Eskridge III, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 316
Oct 16, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Charles R. Eskridge III to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 313
Sep 26, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Eugene Scalia, of Virginia, to be Secretary of Labor )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 312
Sep 26, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: John E. Hyten to be Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and for Appointment in the U.S. Air Force to the grade of General while Assigned. )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 309
Sep 25, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eugene Scalia, of Virginia, to be Secretary of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 308
Sep 25, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: General John E. Hyten for Appointment as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 307
Sep 25, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Resolution (S. Res. 336 )
On the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 306
Sep 25, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Resolution (S. Res. 335 )
On the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 305
Sep 25, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Resolution (S. Res. 333 )
On the Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 302
Sep 25, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 54 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 301
Sep 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: David Fabian Black, of North Dakota, to be Deputy Commissioner of Social Security )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 300
Sep 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Daniel Habib Jorjani, of Kentucky, to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 299
Sep 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Joseph Cella, of Michigan, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republics of Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga, and Tuvalu )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 297
Sep 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Fabian Black to be Deputy Commissioner of Social Security )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 296
Sep 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Daniel Habib Jorjani to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 295
Sep 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Joseph Cella to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republics of Fiji, Kiribati, and the Kingdom of Tonga, and Tuvalu )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 292
Sep 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2740 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 291
Sep 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brian Callanan, of New Jersey, to be General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 290
Sep 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brent James McIntosh, of Michigan, to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 289
Sep 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert A. Destro, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 288
Sep 17, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brian Callanan to be General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 287
Sep 17, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brent James McIntosh to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 286
Sep 17, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert A. Destro, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 285
Sep 17, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kenneth A. Howery, of Texas, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Sweden. )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 284
Sep 17, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kenneth A. Howery to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Sweden )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 283
Sep 17, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: John Rakolta, Jr., of Michigan, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the United Arab Emirates )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 282
Sep 16, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John Rakolta, Jr., to be Ambassador of the United States to the United Arab Emirates )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 280
Sep 12, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michelle Bowman, of Kansas, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 278
Sep 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Steven D. Grimberg, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 277
Sep 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Ada E. Brown, of Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 273
Sep 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michelle Bowman to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 272
Sep 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: James Byrne, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 271
Sep 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Dale Cabaniss, of Virginia, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 269
Sep 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: James Byrne to be Deputy Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 268
Sep 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dale Cabaniss to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 266
Sep 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elizabeth Darling, of Texas, to be Commissioner on Children, Youth, and Families, Department of Health and Human Services )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 265
Sep 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elizabeth Darling to be Commissioner on Children Youth, and Families, Department of Health and Human Services )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 264
Sep 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kelly Craft, of Kentucky, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 263
Sep 09, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kelly Craft to be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 259
Jul 31, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kelly Craft, of Kentucky, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the United Nations and Representative to the Security Council )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 258
Jul 31, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: William Shaw Stickman IV, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 256
Jul 31, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jason K. Pulliam, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 255
Jul 31, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brantley Starr, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 254
Jul 31, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jeffrey Vincent Brown, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 253
Jul 31, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Mark T. Pittman, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 252
Jul 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kelly Craft to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the United Nations and Representative to the Security Council )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 251
Jul 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: William Shaw Stickman IV to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 248
Jul 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jason K. Pulliam to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 247
Jul 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Steven D. Grimberg to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 244
Jul 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brantley Starr, of Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 243
Jul 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeffery Vincent Brown, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 242
Jul 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Mark T. Pittman to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 241
Jul 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Sean D. Jordan, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 240
Jul 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sean D. Jordan to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 237
Jul 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Peter D. Welte, of North Dakota, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of North Dakota )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 236
Jul 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael T. Liburdi, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 235
Jul 29, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Peter D. Welte to be U.S. District Judge for the District of North Dakota )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 234
Jul 29, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael T. Liburdi to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 233
Jul 29, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Overriding the Veto (Shall the joint resolution S.J. Res. 38 pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding? )
On Overriding the Veto

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 232
Jul 29, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Joint Resolution S.J. Res. 37 pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding )
On Overriding the Veto

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 231
Jul 29, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Joint Resolution S.J. Res. 36 pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding )
On Overriding the Veto

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 229
Jul 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Brian C. Buescher, of Nebraska, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nebraska )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 228
Jul 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Wendy Williams Berger, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 227
Jul 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brian C. Buescher to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nebraska )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 226
Jul 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Wendy Williams Berger to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 225
Jul 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Stephen M. Dickson, of Georgia, to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 222
Jul 23, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 928 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 221
Jul 23, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Stephen M. Dickson to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 218
Jul 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Donald R. Tapia, of Arizona, to be Ambassador of the United States to Jamaica )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 217
Jul 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Lynda Blanchard, of Alabama, to be Ambassador of the United States to the Republic of Slovenia )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 216
Jul 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Clifton L. Corker, of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 215
Jul 17, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Donald R. Tapia to be Ambassador of the United States of America to Jamaica )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 214
Jul 17, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lynda Blanchard to be Ambassador of the United States to the Republic of Slovenia )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 213
Jul 17, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Clifton L. Corker to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 205
Jul 16, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Peter Joseph Phipps, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 204
Jul 15, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Peter Joseph Phipps, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 203
Jul 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Peter C. Wright, of Michigan, to be Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste, Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 202
Jul 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Peter C. Wright to be Assistant Administrator of Solid Waste, Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 201
Jul 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: John P. Pallasch, of Kentucky, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 200
Jul 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Robert L. King, of Kentucky, to be Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Department of Education )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 199
Jul 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: John P. Pallasch to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 198
Jul 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Robert L. King to be Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Department of Education )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 195
Jul 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation T. Kent Wetherell II, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 193
Jul 09, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Damon Ray Leichty to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 192
Jul 09, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: T. Kent Wetherell II to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 191
Jul 09, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Daniel Aaron Bress, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 190
Jul 08, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Daniel Aaron Bress to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 189
Jun 28, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Udall Amdt. No. 883 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 182
Jun 26, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3401 )
On Passage of the Bill

N Y Lost
Roll Call 179
Jun 20, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (En Bloc: S.J.Res. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 178
Jun 20, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 38 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 177
Jun 20, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 36 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 175
Jun 19, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Greg Gerard Guidry, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 174
Jun 19, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation James David Cain, Jr., of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 173
Jun 19, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Allen Cothrel Winsor, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 172
Jun 19, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 171
Jun 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Greg Gerard Guidry to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 170
Jun 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: James David Cain, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 169
Jun 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Allen Cothrel Winsor to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 168
Jun 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Matthew J. Kacsmaryk to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 167
Jun 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Sean Cairncross, of Minnesota, to be Chief Executive Officer, Millennium Challenge Corporation )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 166
Jun 18, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Sean Cairncross to be Chief Executive Officer, Millennium Challenge Corporation )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 162
Jun 13, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26 )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 161
Jun 13, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 20 )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 158
Jun 12, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Thomas P. Barber, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 157
Jun 12, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Rodney Smith, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 156
Jun 12, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Corey Landon Maze, of Alabama, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 154
Jun 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jean-Paul Boulee, of Georgia, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 153
Jun 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Thomas P. Barber, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 152
Jun 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Rodney Smith, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 151
Jun 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Corey Landon Maze, of Alabama, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 147
Jun 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Richard A. Hertling, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 146
Jun 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Rossie David Alston, Jr., of Virginia, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 145
Jun 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Ryan T. Holte, of Ohio, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 144
Jun 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Richard A. Hertling, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 143
Jun 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Rossie Alston, Jr., of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 142
Jun 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Ryan T. Holte, of Ohio, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 141
Jun 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Susan Combs, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Interior )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 140
Jun 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Susan Combs to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 139
Jun 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Heath P. Tarbert, of Maryland, to be a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 138
Jun 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Heath P. Tarbert, of Maryland, to be Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 137
Jun 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation David Schenker, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of State )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 136
Jun 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Heath P. Tarbert to be Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 135
Jun 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Heath P. Tarbert to be Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 134
Jun 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Schenker to be an Assistant Secretary of State )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 133
Jun 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Andrew M. Saul, of New York, to be Commissioner of Social Security )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 131
Jun 03, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Andrew M. Saul to be Commissioner of Social Security )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 126
May 22, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Kenneth D. Bell, of North Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 125
May 22, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Carl J. Nichols, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 124
May 22, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Stephen R. Clark, Sr., of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 123
May 22, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Howard C. Nielson, Jr., of Utah, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Utah )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 122
May 21, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kenneth D. Bell to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 121
May 21, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Carl J. Nichols to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 120
May 21, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Stephen R. Clark, Sr., to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 119
May 21, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Howard C. Nielson, Jr., to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Utah )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 118
May 21, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Daniel P. Collins, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 117
May 20, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Daniel P. Collins to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 116
May 16, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Jeffrey A. Rosen, of Virginia, to be Deputy Attorney General )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 114
May 16, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Wendy Vitter, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 113
May 15, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeffrey A. Rosen to be Deputy Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 111
May 15, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Wendy Vitter, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 110
May 15, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Kenneth Kiyul Lee, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 109
May 14, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kenneth Kiyul Lee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 108
May 14, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Michael J. Truncale, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 107
May 13, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael J. Truncale to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 106
May 09, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Michael H. Park, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 105
May 08, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Michael H. Park to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 104
May 08, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Janet Dhillon, of Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 103
May 08, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Janet Dhillon to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 99
May 08, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Joseph F. Bianco, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 95
May 06, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Joseph F. Bianco to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 94
May 02, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Joint Resolution S.J. Res. 7 Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States Notwithstanding )
On Overriding the Veto

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 93
May 02, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Joshua Wolson, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 90
May 01, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Joshua Wolson to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 87
May 01, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Andrew Lynn Brasher, of Alabama, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 86
May 01, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Andrew Lynn Brasher to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 85
May 01, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation J. Campbell Barker, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 84
Apr 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture J. Campbell Barker to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 83
Apr 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Gordon Hartogensis, of Connecticut, to be Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 82
Apr 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Gordon Hartogensis to be Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 79
Apr 30, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation William Cooper, of Maryland, to be General Counsel, Department of Energy )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 78
Apr 29, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of William Cooper, of Maryland, to be General Counsel of the Department of Energy )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 77
Apr 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation David Bernhardt, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Interior )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 76
Apr 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of David Bernhardt, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Interior )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 75
Apr 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation David Steven Morales, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 74
Apr 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: David Steven Morales, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 73
Apr 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Holly A. Brady, of Indiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 72
Apr 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Holly A. Brady to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 70
Apr 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Cheryl Marie Stanton, of South Carolina, to be Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 69
Apr 09, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Cheryl Marie Stanton to be Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 68
Apr 09, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Patrick R. Wyrick, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 67
Apr 09, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Patrick Wyrick, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 66
Apr 09, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Daniel Desmond Domenico, of Colorado, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 65
Apr 09, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Daniel Desmond Domenico, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 64
Apr 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Mark Anthony Calabria, of Virginia, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 63
Apr 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Mark Anthony Calabria to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 62
Apr 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Roy Kalman Altman, of Florida, to be U. S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 61
Apr 03, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? )
On the Decision of the Chair

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 60
Apr 03, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Roy Kalman Altman, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 59
Apr 03, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? )
On the Decision of the Chair

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 57
Apr 02, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Proceed to S. Res. 50 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 56
Apr 01, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 268 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 55
Apr 01, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Amdt. No. 201 to H.R. 268 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 51
Mar 26, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Bridget S. Bade, of Arizona, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 50
Mar 25, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Bridget S. Bade, of Arizona, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 49
Mar 14, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 46 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 48
Mar 13, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 7 As Amended )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 47
Mar 13, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Inhofe Amdt. No. 194 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 46
Mar 13, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation William Beach, of Kansas, to be Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 45
Mar 13, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: William Beach to be Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 44
Mar 13, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Neomi J. Rao, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 43
Mar 12, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Neomi J. Rao, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D. C. Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 42
Mar 12, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Paul B. Matey, of New Jersey, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 41
Mar 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Paul Matey, of New Jersey, to be U.S. Circut Judge for the Third Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 40
Mar 07, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation John Fleming, of Louisiana, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 39
Mar 07, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Eric E. Murphy, of Ohio, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 38
Mar 06, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Eric E. Murphy, of Ohio, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 37
Mar 06, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Chad A. Readler, of Ohio, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 36
Mar 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Chad A. Readler, of Ohio, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 35
Mar 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Allison Jones Rushing, of North Carolina, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 34
Mar 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Allison Jones Rushing, of North Carolina, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 33
Feb 28, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Andrew Wheeler, of Virginia, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 32
Feb 27, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrew Wheeler to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 31
Feb 27, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Michael J. Desmond, of California, to be Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and an Assistant General Counsel, Department of the Treasury )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 30
Feb 26, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Michael J. Desmond to be Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and an Assistant General Counsel in the Department of the Treasury )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 29
Feb 26, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Eric D. Miller, of Washington, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 28
Feb 25, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Eric D. Miller, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 27
Feb 25, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: The Motion to Proceed to S. 311 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 24
Feb 14, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation William Pelham Barr, of Virginia, to Attorney General )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 23
Feb 12, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: William Pelham Barr to be Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 20
Feb 11, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Lee Amdt. No. 187 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 19
Feb 07, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Lee Amdt. No. 162 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 18
Feb 07, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Lankford Amdt. No. 158 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 16
Feb 05, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (S. 1 As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 15
Feb 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 1 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 14
Feb 04, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 65, As Amended )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 13
Jan 31, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McConnell Amdt. No. 65 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 12
Jan 29, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S. 1 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y N Lost
Roll Call 11
Jan 28, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y N Lost
Roll Call 10
Jan 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Schumer Amdt. No. 6 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 9
Jan 24, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion Invoke Cloture on the Shelby Amdt. No. 5 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 7
Jan 17, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 109 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 6
Jan 16, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.J. Res. 2 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 5
Jan 15, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.J. Res. 2 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 4
Jan 15, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Proceed to S.J. Res. 2 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 3
Jan 14, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 2
Jan 10, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 1
Jan 08, 2019

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 274
Dec 21, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany H.R. 695 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 270
Dec 18, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Kennedy Amendment #4109 Division III )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 269
Dec 18, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Kennedy Amendment #4109 Division II )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 268
Dec 18, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Kennedy Amendmeny #4109 Divison I )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 266
Dec 13, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 54, As Amended )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 265
Dec 13, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cotton Amdt. No. 4098 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 263
Dec 13, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Young Amdt. No. 4080 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 261
Dec 12, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed S.J. Res. 54 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 260
Dec 12, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 64 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 258
Dec 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Jonathan A. Kobes, of South Dakota, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Won
Roll Call 257
Dec 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Justin George Muzinich, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 256
Dec 10, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Justin George Muzinich, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 255
Dec 06, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Kathleen Laura Kraninger, of Ohio, to be Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 254
Dec 06, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Bernard L. McNamee, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 253
Dec 05, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Bernard L. McNamee, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 252
Nov 29, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Kathleen Laura Kraninger to be Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 251
Nov 29, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jonathan A. Kobes to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 250
Nov 28, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S. J. Res 54 )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Won
Roll Call 249
Nov 28, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Thomas Alvin Farr, of North Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 248
Nov 28, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Karen Dunn Kelley, of Pennsylvania, to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 247
Nov 27, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Karen Dunn Kelley, of Pennsylvania, to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 246
Nov 27, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Stephen Alexander Vaden, of Tennessee, to be General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 245
Nov 26, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Stephen Alexander Vaden, of Tennessee, to be General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 244
Nov 15, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Michelle Bowman, of Kansas, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 243
Nov 15, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 65 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 242
Nov 14, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Michelle Bowman, of Kansas, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 239
Oct 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Thomas S. Kleeh, of West Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 238
Oct 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Eli Jeremy Richardson, of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 237
Oct 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Mark Saalfield Norris, Sr., of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 236
Oct 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Michael Joseph Juneau, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 235
Oct 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Liles Clifton Burke, of Alabama, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 234
Oct 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: William M. Ray II, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 233
Oct 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Richard J. Sullivan, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Second Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 232
Oct 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Ryan Douglas Nelson, of Idaho, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 231
Oct 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation David James Porter, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 230
Oct 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Eric S. Dreiband, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 229
Oct 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Eric S. Dreiband, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 228
Oct 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Jeffrey Bossert Clark, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 227
Oct 10, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Jeffery Bossert Clark to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 226
Oct 10, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 63 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 223
Oct 06, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Brett M. Kavanaugh, of Maryland, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 222
Oct 05, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 217
Sep 26, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Peter A. Feldman, of the District of Columbia, to be a Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 216
Sep 25, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Peter A. Feldman, to be a Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission (Term of Seven Years) )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 215
Sep 25, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Peter A. Feldman, of the District of Columbia, to be a Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 214
Sep 24, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Peter A. Feldman to be a Commisioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y N Lost
Roll Call 213
Sep 24, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Jackie Wolcott, of Virginia, to be Representative of the United States of America to the International Atomic Energy Agency and to the Vienna Office of the United Nations )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 206
Sep 12, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Charles P. Rettig, of California, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 205
Sep 12, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Charles P. Rettig to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 204
Sep 06, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Charles J. Williams, of Iowa, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 203
Sep 06, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Dominic W. Lanza, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 202
Sep 05, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Elad L. Roisman, of Maine, to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 201
Sep 04, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Elad L. Roisman to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 200
Aug 28, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Charles Barnes Goodwin, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 199
Aug 28, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Isabel Marie Keenan Patelunas, of Pennsylvania, to be Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 198
Aug 28, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Joseph H. Hunt, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 197
Aug 28, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Richard Clarida, of Connecticut, to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 196
Aug 28, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Richard Clarida to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 195
Aug 28, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Lynn A. Johnson, of Colorado, to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 194
Aug 27, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Lynn A. Johnson to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support, Department of Health and Human Services )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 192
Aug 23, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Shelby Amdt. No. 3695 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 191
Aug 23, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 3967 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 185
Aug 16, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Julius Ness Richardson, of South Carolina, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 184
Aug 16, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Julius Ness Richardson, of South Carolina, to be U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Fourth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 183
Aug 16, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of South Carolina, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 182
Aug 15, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr. to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 179
Aug 01, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Cruz Amdt. No. 3402 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 176
Aug 01, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Leahy Amdt. No. 3464 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 174
Jul 31, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Britt Cagle Grant, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 172
Jul 30, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Britt Cagle Grant to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 163
Jul 23, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Robert L. Wilkie, of North Carolina, to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 161
Jul 18, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Ryan Wesley Bounds to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 160
Jul 18, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Andrew S. Oldham, of Texas, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 159
Jul 17, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Andrew S. Oldham, of Texas, to U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 158
Jul 17, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Randal Quarles, of Colorado, to be a Member of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 157
Jul 17, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Randal Quarles to be a Member of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 156
Jul 17, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation James Blew, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary for Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Department of Education )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 154
Jul 12, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Paul C. Ney, of Tennessee, to be General Counsel of the Department of Defense )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 153
Jul 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Paul C. Ney, Jr., to be General Counsel of the Department of Defense )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 152
Jul 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Brian Allen Benczkowski, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 146
Jul 10, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Brian Benczkowski, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 145
Jul 10, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Mark Jeremy Bennett, of Hawaii, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 142
Jun 28, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 3074 )
On the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 141
Jun 28, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Kennedy Amdt. No. 3383 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 138
Jun 21, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Lee Amdt. No. 3021 As Modified )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 134
Jun 20, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge H.R. 3 )
On the Motion to Discharge

N N Won
Roll Call 123
Jun 14, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 2700 to Amdt. No. 2282, As Modified, to H.R. 5515 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 122
Jun 13, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Lee Amdt. No. 2366 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 121
Jun 13, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Reed Amdt. No. 2842 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 118
Jun 07, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Kenneth L. Marcus, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Education )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 117
Jun 06, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Annemarie Carney Axon, of Alabama, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama )
On the Nomination

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 111
May 24, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation James Randolph Evans, of Georgia, to be Ambassador of the United States of America to Luxembourg )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 110
May 24, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: James Randolph Evans to be Ambassador of the United States to Luxembourg )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 109
May 24, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Jelena McWilliams, of Ohio, to be Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 108
May 23, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Jelena McWilliams, of Ohio, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the FDIC )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 107
May 23, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Jelena McWilliams, of Ohio, to be Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 105
May 23, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Brian D. Montgomery, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 103
May 22, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Dana Baiocco, of Ohio, to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 102
May 21, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Dana Baiocco to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 101
May 17, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Gina Haspel, of Kentucky, to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 100
May 17, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Gina Haspel to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 98
May 16, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Mitchell Zais, of South Carolina, to be Deputy Secretary of Education )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 97
May 16, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S. J. Res. 52 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 96
May 16, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S. J. Res. 52 )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 95
May 15, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation John B. Nalbandian, of Kentucky, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 94
May 15, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Joel M. Carson III, of New Mexico, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 91
May 10, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on John B. Nalbandian, of Kentucky, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 90
May 10, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Joel M. Carson III to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 89
May 10, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Michael B. Brennan, of Wisconsin, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 88
May 09, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Michael B. Brennan, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 87
May 09, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Kurt D. Engelhardt, of Louisiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 86
May 07, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Kurt D. Engelhardt, of Louisiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit. )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 85
Apr 26, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Richard Grenell, of California, to be Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 84
Apr 26, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Mike Pompeo, of Kansas, to be Secretary of State )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 83
Apr 26, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Mike Pompeo, of Kansas, to be Secretary of State )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 82
Apr 24, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Stuart Kyle Duncan, of Louisiana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 81
Apr 23, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Stuart Kyle Duncan, of Louisiana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 80
Apr 19, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation James Bridenstine, of Oklahoma, to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 79
Apr 18, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Carlos G. Muniz, of Florida, to be General Counsel, Department of Education )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 78
Apr 18, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: James Bridenstine to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 77
Apr 18, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 140 with an Amendment )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 76
Apr 18, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S. J. Res. 57 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 75
Apr 17, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S. J. Res. 57 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 74
Apr 16, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 140 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 72
Apr 12, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on John W. Broomes, of Kansas, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Kansas )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 71
Apr 12, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Andrew Wheeler, of Virginia, to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 70
Apr 12, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Andrew Wheeler to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 69
Apr 12, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Patrick Pizzella, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Labor )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 68
Apr 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Patrick Pizzella, to be Deputy Secretary of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 67
Apr 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation John F. Ring, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 66
Apr 10, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: John F. Ring to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 58
Mar 20, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Discharge S. J. Res. 54 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 56
Mar 19, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Kevin K. McAleenan, of Hawaii, to be Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 55
Mar 14, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Kevin K. McAleenan to be Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 54
Mar 14, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (S. 2155, Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 53
Mar 14, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: S. 2155 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 52
Mar 14, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2155 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 51
Mar 14, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Crapo Amdt. No. 2151 As Modified )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 50
Mar 12, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Crapo Amendment No. 2151, As Modified )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 48
Mar 06, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2155 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 44
Mar 01, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Tilman Eugene Self III to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 42
Mar 01, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr. of South Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 41
Feb 28, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of South Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 40
Feb 28, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Russell Vought, of Virginia, to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget )
On the Nomination

N N Won
Roll Call 39
Feb 27, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Russell Vought to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 38
Feb 27, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elizabeth L. Branch, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 37
Feb 26, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Elizabeth L. Branch, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 36
Feb 15, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 1959 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 35
Feb 15, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 1958 As Modified )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 34
Feb 15, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 1948 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 33
Feb 15, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 1955 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 31
Feb 08, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1892 with an Amendment (SA 1930) )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 30
Feb 08, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Concur in the House Amdt. to the Senate Amdt. to H.R. 1892 with an Amendment (SA 1930) )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 29
Feb 08, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 695 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 27
Jan 30, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: David Ryan Stras, of Minnesota, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 26
Jan 29, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: David Ryan Stras to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 25
Jan 29, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. 2311 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 23
Jan 24, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Samuel Dale Brownback, of Kansas, to be Ambassasador at Large for International Religious Freedom )
On the Nomination

N N Won
Roll Call 22
Jan 24, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Samuel Dale Brownback to be Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 21
Jan 24, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Alex Michael Azar II, of Indiana, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 20
Jan 23, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Alex Michael Azar to be Secretary of Health and Human Services )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 17
Jan 22, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment with Further Amendment )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 16
Jan 22, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 195 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 15
Jan 19, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Refer H.R. 195 to the Committee on Appropriations with Instructions )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 14
Jan 19, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 195 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 12
Jan 18, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 139 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 11
Jan 16, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amdt. to S. 139 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 10
Jan 11, 2018

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the House Message to Accompany S. 139 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 325
Dec 21, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1370 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 323
Dec 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Recede from the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1 and Concur with Further Amendment )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 322
Dec 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budget Resolutions Re: The Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 321
Dec 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 320
Dec 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Jennifer Gillian Newstead, of New York, to be Legal Adviser of the Department of State )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 319
Dec 18, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Owen West, of Connecticut, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 318
Dec 18, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation J. Paul Compton, Jr., of Alabama, to be General Counsel of the Department of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 317
Dec 14, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation James C. Ho, of Texas, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 316
Dec 13, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: James C. Ho to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 315
Dec 13, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Don R. Willett, of Texas, to be a Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 314
Dec 12, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Don R. Willett to be a Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 313
Dec 12, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Leonard Steven Grasz, of Nebraska, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 312
Dec 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Leonard Steven Grasz to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 311
Dec 07, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 123 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 310
Dec 07, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Joseph Balash, of Alaska, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 309
Dec 06, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Booker Motion to Instruct Conferees Re: H.R. 1 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 308
Dec 06, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Stabenow Motion to Instruct Conferees Re: H.R. 1 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 307
Dec 06, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (King Motion to Instruct Conferees Re: H.R. 1 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 306
Dec 06, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Insist on the Senate Amdt. to H.R. 1, Agree to the Request for Conference, and Authorize the Chair to Appoint Conferees )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 305
Dec 05, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Kirstjen Nielsen, of Virginia, to be Secretary of Homeland Security )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 304
Dec 04, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Kirstjen Nielsen, of Virginia, to be Secretary of Homeland Security )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 303
Dec 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1 As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 302
Dec 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Merkley Amdt. No. 1856 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 301
Dec 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive the CBA Re: Cantwell Amdt. No. 1717 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 298
Dec 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No. 1852 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 297
Dec 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Menendez Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 295
Dec 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA Re: Brown Amdt. No. 1854 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 294
Dec 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 1720 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 293
Dec 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Adjourn (Schumer Motion to Adjourn Until Noon Monday )
On the Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 292
Dec 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Cardin Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 291
Dec 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Baldwin Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 290
Dec 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Nelson Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 289
Nov 30, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Stabenow Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 288
Nov 30, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (King Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 287
Nov 30, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Casey Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 286
Nov 30, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Brown Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 285
Nov 29, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Wyden Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 284
Nov 29, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.R. 1 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 283
Nov 28, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Gregory G. Katsas, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 282
Nov 27, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Gregory G. Katsas, of Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 277
Nov 16, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Joseph Otting, of Nevada, to be Comptroller of the Currency )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 276
Nov 15, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Joseph Otting to be Comptroller of the Currency )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 275
Nov 15, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation David G. Zatezalo, of West Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 273
Nov 14, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: David G. Zatezalo, of West Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 272
Nov 14, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Steven Gill Bradbury, of Virginia, to be General Counsel of the Department of Transportation )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 271
Nov 13, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Steven Gill Bradbury to be General Counsel of the Department of Transportation )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 268
Nov 09, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation William L. Wehrum, of Delaware, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 267
Nov 08, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: William L. Wehrum to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 266
Nov 08, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confrimation Peter B. Robb, of Vermont, to be Gener Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 265
Nov 07, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Peter B. Robb, of Vermont, to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 264
Nov 07, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Steven Andrew Engel, of D.C., to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 263
Nov 07, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Steven Andrew Engel to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 261
Nov 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Stephanos Bibas, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 260
Nov 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Stephanos Bibas, of Pennsylvania, to be U. S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 259
Nov 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Allison H. Eid, of Colorado, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 258
Nov 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Allison H. Eid, of Colorado, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 257
Nov 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Joan Louise Larsen, of Michigan, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 256
Oct 31, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Joan Louise Larsen to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 255
Oct 31, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 254
Oct 30, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 252
Oct 26, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Trevor N. McFadden, of Virginia, to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 251
Oct 26, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Scott L. Palk, of Oklahoma, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 250
Oct 25, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Scott L. Palk, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 249
Oct 24, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H. J. Res. 111 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Won
Roll Call 245
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Concurrent Resolution (H. Con. Res. 71 As Amended )
On the Concurrent Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 244
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Enzi Amdt. No. 1561 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 243
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cantwell Amdt. No. 1301 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 242
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1429 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 240
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1428 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 239
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Udall Amdt. No. 1553 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 238
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 1277 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 237
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1430 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 235
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Kaine Amdt. No. 1249 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 234
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive Sec. 305(b)(2) of the C.B.A. Re: Cardin Amdt. No. 1375 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 232
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Brown Amdt. No. 1378 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 231
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305 (b)(2) of the C.B.A. Re: Heitkamp Amdt. No. 1228 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 230
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Baldwin Amdt. No. 1139 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 228
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Warner Amdt. No. 1138 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 227
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the C.B.A. Re: Cantwell Amdt. No. 1141 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 226
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Capito Amdt. No. 1393 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 225
Oct 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 1302 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 224
Oct 18, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the C.B.A. Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 1120 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 222
Oct 18, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Nelson Amdt. No. 1150 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 221
Oct 18, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 1119 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 220
Oct 18, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Hatch Amdt. No. 1144 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 219
Oct 17, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H. Con. Res. 71 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 218
Oct 17, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation David Joel Trachtenberg, of Virginia, to be a Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 217
Oct 16, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Callista L. Gingrich, of Virginia, to be Ambassador of the U.S. to the Holy See )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 216
Oct 05, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Callista L. Gingrich to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the Holy See )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 215
Oct 05, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Lee Francis Cissna, of Maryland, to be Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 214
Oct 05, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Lee Francis Cissna to be Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 213
Oct 05, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Randal Quarles, of Colorado, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 212
Oct 04, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Randal Quarles to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 211
Oct 04, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Eric D. Hargan, of Illinois, to be Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 210
Oct 04, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Eric D. Hargan to be Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 209
Oct 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Ajit Vardaraj Pai, of Kansas, to be a Member of the F.C.C. )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 208
Sep 28, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Ajit Varadaraj Pai to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 205
Sep 27, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Makan Delrahim, of California, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 204
Sep 27, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Heath P. Tarbert, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 203
Sep 25, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation William J. Emanuel, of California, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 202
Sep 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of William J. Emanuel, of California, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 201
Sep 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Noel J. Francisco, of the District of Columbia, to be Solicitor General of the United States )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 200
Sep 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Noel J. Francisco, of the District of Columbia, to be Solicitor General of the United States )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 196
Sep 14, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Pamela Hughes Patenaude, of New Hampshire, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 195
Sep 13, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Paul Amdt. No. 871 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 194
Sep 12, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Kevin Allen Hassett, of Massachusetts, to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 186
Aug 03, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Dan Brouillette, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Energy )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 184
Aug 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Marvin Kaplan, of Kansas, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 183
Aug 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Marvin Kaplan to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 182
Aug 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Kevin Christopher Newsom, of Alabama, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 180
Jul 31, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Kevin Christopher Newsom, of Alabama, to be U.S. Circuit Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 179
Jul 27, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 667 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 178
Jul 27, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Murray Motion to Commit H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, with Instructions )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 177
Jul 27, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Heller Amdt. No. 502 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 176
Jul 27, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Schumer Motion to Commit H.R. 1628 with Instructions )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 174
Jul 27, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Strange Amdt. No. 389 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 171
Jul 26, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Casey Motion to Commit H.R. 1628 with Instructions )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 170
Jul 26, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Donnelly Motion to Commit H.R. 1628 with Instructions )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 169
Jul 26, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 271 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 168
Jul 25, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No 270 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 167
Jul 25, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.R. 1628 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 166
Jul 24, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation David Bernhardt, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 165
Jul 20, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: David Bernhardt to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 164
Jul 20, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation John Kenneth Bush, of Kentucky, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 163
Jul 19, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of John Kenneth Bush, of Kentucky, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 160
Jul 13, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: William Francis Hagerty IV, of Tennessee, to be Ambassador of the United States to Japan )
On the Nomination

Y N Lost
Roll Call 156
Jul 10, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Neomi Rao, of the District of Columbia, to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 155
Jun 29, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Neomi Rao to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 152
Jun 22, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Marshall Billingslea, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 151
Jun 21, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Marshall Billingslea to be Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 143
Jun 13, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Discharge (Motion to Discharge S. J. Res. 42 )
On the Motion to Discharge

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 139
Jun 06, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Courtney Elwood, of Virginia, to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 137
May 25, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Amul R. Thapar, of Kentucky, to be United States Circuit Judge )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 136
May 24, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Amul R. Thapar to be U.S. Circuit Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 133
May 22, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Terry Branstad, of Iowa, to be Ambassador to the People's Republic of China )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 131
May 18, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rachel L. Brand, of Iowa, to be Associate Attorney General )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 130
May 17, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Rachel L. Brand, of Iowa, to be Associate Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 129
May 16, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Jeffrey A. Rosen, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Transportation )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 128
May 15, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jeffrey A. Rosen to be Deputy Secretary of Transportation )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 127
May 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Robert Lighthizer, of Florida, to be United States Trade Representative )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 126
May 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Robert Lighthizer, of Florida, to be United States Trade Representative )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 125
May 10, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H. J. Res. 36 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 124
May 09, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Scott Gottlieb, of Connecticut, to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 123
May 08, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture On the Nomination of Scott Gottlieb to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 122
May 08, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Heather Wilson, of South Dakota, to be Secretary of the Air Force )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 120
May 03, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H. J. Res. 66 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 119
May 03, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of H.J. Res. 66 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 118
May 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Jay Clayton, of New York, to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 117
May 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jay Clayton, of New York, to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 116
Apr 27, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation R. Alexander Acosta, of Florida, to be Secretary of Labor )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 115
Apr 26, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of R. Alexander Acosta, of Florida, to be Secretary of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 111
Apr 07, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Neil M. Gorsuch, of Colorado, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 110
Apr 06, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch of Colorado, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 109
Apr 06, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? )
On the Decision of the Chair

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 108
Apr 06, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Adjourn (Schumer Motion to Adjourn Until 5:00 P.M. )
On the Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 107
Apr 06, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Postpone (Motion to Postpone the Motion to Invoke Cloture, Upon Reconsideration, of the Nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch Until a Time Certain )
On the Motion to Postpone

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 106
Apr 06, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Reconsider (Motion to Reconsider the Vote By Which the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch Was Not Invoked )
On the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 105
Apr 06, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch, of Colorado, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 104
Apr 04, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider the Nomination of Neil Gorsuch )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 101
Mar 30, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 43 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Won
Roll Call 100
Mar 30, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.J. Res. 43 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 99
Mar 30, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 67 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 96
Mar 23, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation David Friedman, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Israel )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 95
Mar 23, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture re Nomination of David Friedman to be Ambassador to Israel )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 94
Mar 23, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 34 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 93
Mar 22, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 83 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 92
Mar 21, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 69 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 90
Mar 15, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Lt. Gen. Herbert R. McMaster, Jr. to be Lieutenant General )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 89
Mar 15, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Daniel Coats, of Indiana, to be Director of National Intelligence )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 88
Mar 15, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Daniel Coats, of Indiana, to be Director of National Intelligence )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 87
Mar 14, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H. J. Res. 42 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 86
Mar 13, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Seema Verma, of Indiana, to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 85
Mar 09, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Seema Verma to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 84
Mar 09, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 57 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 83
Mar 08, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H. J. Res. 58 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 82
Mar 07, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 44 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 81
Mar 06, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H. J. Res. 37 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 80
Mar 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H. J. Res. 37 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 79
Mar 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation James Richard Perry, of Texas, to be Secretary of Energy )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 78
Mar 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: James Richard Perry to be Secretary of Energy )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 77
Mar 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., of Florida, to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 76
Mar 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Ben Carson to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 75
Mar 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Ryan Zinke, of Montana, to be Secretary of the Interior )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 74
Feb 27, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Nomination of Ryan Zinke to be Secretary of the Interior )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 73
Feb 27, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Wilbur L., Ross, Jr., of Florida, to be Secretary of Commerce )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 72
Feb 17, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., of Florida, to be Secretary of Commerce )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 71
Feb 17, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Scott Pruitt, of Oklahoma, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 70
Feb 17, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Extend Debate Re: Pruitt Nomination )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 69
Feb 16, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture re Nomination of Scott Pruitt, of Oklahoma, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 68
Feb 16, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Mick Mulvaney, of South Carolina, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 67
Feb 15, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Mick Mulvaney to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 66
Feb 15, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 40 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 65
Feb 14, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Linda E. McMahon, of Connecticut, to be Administrator of the Small Business Administration )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 63
Feb 13, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Steven T. Mnuchin, of California, to be Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 62
Feb 09, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Steven T. Mnuchin, of California, to be Secretary of the Treasury. )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 61
Feb 09, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Thomas Price, of Georgia, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 60
Feb 08, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Nomination of Tom Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 59
Feb 08, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Jeff Sessions, of Alabama, to be Attorney General )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 58
Feb 07, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Shall the Senator be Permitted to Proceed in Order? )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 57
Feb 07, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? )
On the Decision of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 55
Feb 07, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jeff Sessions, of Alabama, to be Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 54
Feb 07, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elisabeth Prince DeVos, of Michigan, to be Secretary of Education )
On the Nomination

N N Won
Roll Call 52
Feb 03, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Elisabeth DeVos to be Secretary of Education )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 51
Feb 03, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 41 )
On the Joint Resolution

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 50
Feb 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.J. Res. 41 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 49
Feb 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 48
Feb 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider the Nomination of Steven Mnuchin to be Secretary of the Treasury )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 47
Feb 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 46
Feb 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider the Nomination of Thomas Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 45
Feb 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 44
Feb 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to consider the Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 43
Feb 02, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.J.Res. 38 )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 42
Feb 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to H.J. Res. 38 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 41
Feb 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 40
Feb 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session to Consider Elisabeth DeVos to be Secretary of Education )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 39
Feb 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Shall the Journal Stand Approved to Date? )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 38
Feb 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 37
Feb 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider the Vote on Confirmation of Rex W. Tillerson )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 36
Feb 01, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Rex W. Tillerson, of Texas, to be Secretary of State )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 34
Jan 30, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Rex W. Tillerson, of Texas, to be Secretary of State )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 32
Jan 23, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Mike Pompeo, of Kansas, to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency )
On the Nomination

N N Lost
Roll Call 27
Jan 12, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (S. 84 )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 26
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 3 )
On the Concurrent Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 25
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive the C.B.A. Re: Brown Amdt. No. 86 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 24
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hatch Amdt. No. 180 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 23
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive the C.B.A. Re: Gillibrand Amdt. No. 82 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 22
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Fischer Amdt. No. 184 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 21
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive the C.B.A. Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 188 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 20
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Klobuchar Amdt. No. 178 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 19
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alexander Amdt. No. 174 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 18
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Menendez Amdt. No. 83 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 17
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hatch Amdt. No. 179 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 16
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Barrasso Amdt. No. 181 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 15
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive the C.B.A. Re: Casey Amdt. No. 61 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 14
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive the C.B.A. Re: Tester Amdt. No. 104 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 13
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Flake Amdt. No. 176 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 12
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive the CBA Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 81 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 11
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Heller Amdt. No. 167 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 10
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive the C.B.A. Re: Manchin Amdt. No. 64 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 9
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Barrasso Amdt. No. 173 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 8
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: King Amdt. No. 60 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 7
Jan 11, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Nelson Amdt. No. 13 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 6
Jan 10, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive the CBA Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 19 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 5
Jan 10, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Budgetary Discipline Re: Flake Amdt. No. 52 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 4
Jan 09, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA Re: Germaneness Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 20 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 2
Jan 05, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the C.B.A. re: Kaine Amdt. No. 8 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 1
Jan 04, 2017

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S. Con. Res. 3 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 163
Dec 09, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 612 )
On the Motion

Y N Lost
Roll Call 162
Dec 09, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 612 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 161
Dec 09, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028 )
On the Motion

Y N Lost
Roll Call 160
Dec 09, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 153
Nov 17, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 3110 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 147
Sep 27, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 5325 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 146
Sep 27, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 5082 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 145
Sep 21, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 39 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 136
Sep 06, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 5293 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 135
Sep 06, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2577 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 134
Jul 14, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2577 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 133
Jul 14, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 5293 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 124
Jul 07, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 5293 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 123
Jul 07, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 764 with Further Amendment (Amdt. No. 4935) )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 122
Jul 07, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table McConnell Amdt. No. 4936 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 121
Jul 06, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment with an Amendment to S. 764 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 120
Jul 06, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2193 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 119
Jul 06, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 3100 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 117
Jun 29, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Lay Before the Senate a Message From the House to Accompany S. 764 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 116
Jun 29, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 2328 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 115
Jun 29, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: the Motion to Concur in the House Amdt. to S. 2328 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 114
Jun 29, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment with Amendment No. 4865 to S. 2328 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 113
Jun 29, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 2328 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 112
Jun 28, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2577 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 110
Jun 23, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Johnson Amdt. No. 4859 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 109
Jun 23, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Commit H.R. 2578 with Instructions (Amdt. No. 4858) )
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 108
Jun 22, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 4787 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 107
Jun 20, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Commit with Instructions )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 106
Jun 20, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 4720 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 105
Jun 20, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 4749 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 104
Jun 20, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Commit H.R. 2578 with instructions (Amdt. No. 4750) )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 103
Jun 20, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 4751 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 101
Jun 16, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Shaheen Motion to Instruct Conferees to S. 524 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 97
Jun 10, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2943 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 96
Jun 09, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McCain Amdt. No. 4229 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 95
Jun 09, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Reed Amdt. No. 4549 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 94
Jun 08, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Sullivan Motion to Instruct Conferees Re: H.R. 2577 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 93
Jun 08, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Nelson Motion to Instruct Conferees (Ebola/Zika Funding) Re: H.R. 2577 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 90
Jun 07, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 4369 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 88
May 26, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Laura S. H. Holgate, of Virginia, to be Representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 86
May 25, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 28 )
On the Joint Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 84
May 24, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 88 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 81
May 19, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Lee Amdt. No. 3897 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 77
May 19, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Blunt Amdt. No. 3900 As Modified and Amended )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 76
May 19, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 3900 As Modified )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 75
May 17, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Blunt Amdt. No. 3900 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 74
May 17, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Cornyn Amdt. No. 3899 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 73
May 17, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Nelson Amdt. No. 3898 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 72
May 16, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Paula Xinis, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 70
May 11, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Fischer Amdt. No. 3888 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 69
May 11, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cardin Amdt. No. 3871 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 67
May 11, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 3878 to Amdt. No. 3801 to H.R. 2028 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 66
May 09, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 3801 to H.R. 2028 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 65
Apr 28, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion ( Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Alexander Amdt. No. 3801, Upon Reconsideration )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 64
Apr 27, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Alexander Amdt. No. 3801 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 61
Apr 26, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Merkley Amdt. No. 3812 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 60
Apr 25, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Murray Amdt. No. 3813 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 58
Apr 21, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Coats Amdt. No. 3814 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 57
Apr 21, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Hoeven Amdt. No. 3811 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 53
Apr 19, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Paul Amdt. No. 3787 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 52
Apr 19, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Udall Amdt. No. 3312 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 51
Apr 19, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Boozman Amdt. No. 3311 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 50
Apr 19, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lankford Amdt. No. 3210 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 49
Apr 19, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Isakson Amdt. No. 3202 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 43
Apr 07, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Schumer Amdt. No. 3483 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 41
Apr 07, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Thune Amdt. No. 3512 As Modified )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 37
Mar 16, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment with an Amendment )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 36
Mar 14, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation John B. King, of New York, to be Secretary of Education )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 30
Mar 02, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Shaheen Amdt. No. 3345 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 29
Mar 02, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 3395 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 22
Feb 11, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Conference Report (Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 644 )
On the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 21
Feb 11, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 644 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 17
Feb 04, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2012 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 16
Feb 04, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Murkowski Amdt No. 2953 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 15
Feb 02, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Whitehouse Amdt. No. 3125 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 14
Feb 02, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Schatz Amdt. No. 3176 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 13
Feb 02, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Sullivan Amdt. No. 2996 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 12
Feb 02, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Barrasso Amdt. No. 3030 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 11
Feb 02, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 3115 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 10
Feb 02, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 3023 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 9
Jan 28, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Schatz Amdt. No. 2965 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 8
Jan 28, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Markey Amdt. No. 2982 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 5
Jan 21, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Veto Message to Accompany S.J. Res. 22 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 4
Jan 20, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 4038 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 3
Jan 19, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Wilhelmina Marie Wright, of Minnesota, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 2
Jan 12, 2016

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2232 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 337
Dec 18, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the First House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2029 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 335
Dec 14, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Alissa M. Starzak, of New York, to be General Counsel of the Department of the Army )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 329
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3762 As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 328
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Murphy Amdt. No. 2918 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 327
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 2919 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 326
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: McConnell Amdt. No. 2916 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 325
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 2915 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 324
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Coats Amdt. No. 2888 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 322
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Bennet Amdt. No. 2907 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 321
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Manchin Amdt. No. 2908 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 320
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Grassley Amdt. No. 2914 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 319
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Feinstein Amdt. No. 2910 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 318
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cornyn Amdt. No. 2912 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 317
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Shaheen Amdt. No. 2892 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 315
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Casey Amdt. No. 2893 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 314
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Collins Amdt. No. 2885 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 313
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Brown Amdt. No. 2883 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 312
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Johnson Amdt. No. 2875 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 311
Dec 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Murray Amdt. No. 2876 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 307
Nov 17, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 23 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 306
Nov 17, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 24 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 304
Nov 10, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Wicker Motion to Instruct Conferees (Re: Combination Length Limitations) )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 298
Nov 05, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2685 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 297
Nov 04, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S. J. Res. 22 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 296
Nov 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S. J. Res. 22 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 295
Nov 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1140 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 294
Oct 29, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1314 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 293
Oct 29, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1314 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 292
Oct 29, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1314 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 291
Oct 27, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (S. 754, As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 289
Oct 27, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Coons Amdt. No. 2552, As Further Modified )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 288
Oct 27, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 2612 As Further Modified )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 287
Oct 27, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Leahy Amdt. No. 2587, As Modified )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 286
Oct 27, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Heller Amdt. No. 2548, As Modified )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 285
Oct 27, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 2621, As Modified )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 282
Oct 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Paul Amdt. No. 2564 As Modified )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 281
Oct 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Burr Amdt. No. 2716 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 280
Oct 20, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2146 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 278
Oct 08, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2028 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 277
Oct 07, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Conference Report (Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1735 )
On the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 276
Oct 07, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1735 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 275
Oct 06, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1735 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 273
Oct 01, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2029 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 270
Sep 24, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Cochran Amdt. No. 2669 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 269
Sep 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2685, Upon Reconsideration )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 268
Sep 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 36 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 267
Sep 17, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McConnell Amdt. No. 2640 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 266
Sep 17, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McConnell Amdt. No. 2656 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 265
Sep 15, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McConnell Amdt. No. 2640 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 264
Sep 10, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McConnell Amdt. No. 2640 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 262
Aug 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1881 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 259
Jul 29, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 22 As Amended )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 258
Jul 29, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 2266 As Amended )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 256
Jul 27, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Kirk Amdt. No. 2327 )
On the Amendment

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 254
Jul 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Kirk Amdt. No. 2327 )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 253
Jul 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McConnell Amdt. No. 2328 )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent N Won
Roll Call 251
Jul 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 22 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 250
Jul 21, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 22 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 247
Jul 16, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Casey Amdt. No. 2242 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 246
Jul 16, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Brown Amdt. No. 2100 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 245
Jul 16, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Burr Amdt. No. 2247 As Modified )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 244
Jul 16, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Coons Amdt. No. 2243 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 243
Jul 16, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 2177 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 242
Jul 16, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No. 2180 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 241
Jul 15, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Murphy Amdt. No. 2241 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 240
Jul 15, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Kirk Amdt. No. 2161 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 239
Jul 15, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Heitkamp Amdt. No. 2171 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 238
Jul 15, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Markey Amdt. No. 2176 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 236
Jul 14, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 2093 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 235
Jul 14, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt No. 2162 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 233
Jul 14, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Booker Amdt. No. 2169 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 232
Jul 14, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Scott Amdt. No. 2132 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 230
Jul 09, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Reed Motion to Instruct Conferees Re: H.R. 1735 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 229
Jul 09, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Insist on the Senate Amendment, Agree to the Request for Conference, and Authorize the Presiding Officer to Appoint Conferees Re: H.R. 1735 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 226
Jul 09, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Daines Amdt. No. 2110 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 225
Jul 08, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Alexander Amdt. No. 2139 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 224
Jul 08, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Tester Amdt. No. 2107 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 223
Jul 08, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Hirono Amdt. No. 2109 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 219
Jun 24, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2146 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 218
Jun 23, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2146 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 216
Jun 18, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2685 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 215
Jun 18, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1735 As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 214
Jun 17, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 1735 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 212
Jun 16, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on McCain Amdt. No. 1463 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 211
Jun 16, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Gillibrand Amdt. No. 1578 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 210
Jun 16, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Ernst Amdt. No. 1549 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 208
Jun 15, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Matthew T. McGuire, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 207
Jun 11, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Burr Amdt. No. 1569 As Modified )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 206
Jun 10, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Kirk Amdt. No. 1986 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 205
Jun 09, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Reed Amdt. No. 1521 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 204
Jun 04, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Tillis Amdt. No. 1506 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 203
Jun 04, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Shaheen Amdt. No. 1494 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 202
Jun 04, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Portman Amdt. No. 1522 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 201
Jun 02, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 2048 )
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 200
Jun 02, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 1449 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 199
Jun 02, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 1450 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 198
Jun 02, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 1451 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 195
May 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1357 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 194
May 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2048 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 193
May 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1314 As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 192
May 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 1314 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 191
May 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Hatch Amdt. No. 1221 As Amended )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 190
May 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Flake Amdt. No. 1243 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 189
May 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Brown Amdt. No. 1251 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 188
May 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Warren Amdt. No. 1327 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 187
May 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Portman Amdt. No. 1299 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 186
May 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Hatch Amdt. No. 1411 As Modified )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 183
May 21, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Hatch Amdt. No. 1221 to H.R. 1314 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 181
May 18, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Brown Amdt. No. 1242 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 180
May 14, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 1314 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 176
May 12, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 1314 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 171
May 05, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Conference Report (Conference Report to Accompany S. Con. Res. 11 )
On the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 170
May 05, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed Re: Conference Report to Accompany S. Con. Res. 11 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 168
Apr 29, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Barrasso Amdt. No. 1147 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 167
Apr 28, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Johnson Amdt. No. 1150 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 165
Apr 23, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Loretta E. Lynch, of New York, to be Attorney General )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 164
Apr 23, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Loretta Lynch, to be Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 159
Apr 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Leahy Amdt. No. 290 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 158
Apr 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 1127 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 156
Apr 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Leahy Amdt. No. 301 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 153
Apr 15, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Stabenow Motion to Instruct (Medicare Cuts) RE: S.Con.Res. 11 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 152
Apr 15, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Mikulski Motion to Instruct (Equal Pay) Re: S.Con.Res. 11 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 151
Apr 15, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Fischer Motion to Instruct (Equal Pay) re: S.Con.Res. 11 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 149
Apr 15, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Warren Motion to Instruct (Student Loans) re: S.Con.Res. 11 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 145
Apr 15, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Disagree in the House Amendment, Agree to the Request for a Conference, and Authorize the Presiding Officer to Appoint Conferees. )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 143
Apr 14, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: H.R. 2 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 142
Apr 14, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cardin Amdt. No. 1119 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 140
Apr 14, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive Applicable Budgetary Discipline Murray Amdt. No. 1117 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 139
Apr 14, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 1116 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 138
Apr 14, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive Applicable Budgetary Discipline Bennet Amdt. No. 1115 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 137
Apr 14, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 1114 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 135
Mar 27, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Concurrent Resolution (S.Con.Res. 11 As Amended )
On the Concurrent Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 134
Mar 27, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Kaine Amdt. No. 1047 As Modified )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 133
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cardin Amdt. No. 367 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 132
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 855 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 131
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Warren Amdt. No. 1094 As Modified )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 130
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Vitter Amdt. No. 811 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 129
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive Applicable Budgetary Discipline Cotton Amdt. No. 664 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 128
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cotton Amdt. No. 659 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 127
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Reed Amdt. No. 919 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 126
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 750 As Modified )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 124
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (McCain Amdt. No. 360 As Modified )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 123
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Nelson Amdt. No 944 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 122
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Kirk Amdt. No. 1038 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 121
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Schatz Amdt. No. 1063 As Modified )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 120
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Flake Amdt. No. 665 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 119
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Murray Amdt. No. 951 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 118
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Gardner Amdt. No. 443 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 117
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Merkley Amdt. No. 842 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 116
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (McConnell Amdt. No. 836 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 115
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Bennet Amdt. No. 1014 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 114
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Thune Amdt. No. 607 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 112
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Portman Amdt. No. 689 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 111
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Stabenow Amdt. No. 1072 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 110
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Coons Amdt. No. 966 As Modified )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 108
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Inhofe Amdt. No. 649 As Modified )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 107
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Whitehouse Amdt No. 867 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 106
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Murkowski Amdt. No. 838 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 105
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Vitter Amdt. No. 515 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 104
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 817 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 103
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Blunt Amdt. No. 928 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 102
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Scott Amdt. No. 692 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 101
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 828 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 100
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Baldwin Amdt. No. 432 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 98
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Murray Amdt. No. 798 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 96
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Rubio Amdt. No. 423 As Modified )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 95
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Wyden Admt. No. 1012 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 94
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Stabenow Amdt. No. 523 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 93
Mar 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 881 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 91
Mar 25, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Murray Amdt. No. 801 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 90
Mar 25, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Bennet Amdt. No. 601 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 89
Mar 25, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 777 As Modified )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 88
Mar 25, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Barrasso Amdt. No. 347 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 86
Mar 25, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Warren Amdt. No. 652 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 84
Mar 24, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 471 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 83
Mar 24, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Hatch Amdt. No. 498 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 82
Mar 24, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Mikulski Amdt. No. 362 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 81
Mar 24, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Fischer Amdt. No. 409 )
On the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 78
Mar 24, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 323 As Modified )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 76
Mar 19, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.178 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 75
Mar 19, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Committee Reported Substitute Amdt. to S. 178 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 74
Mar 18, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Committee Reported Substitute Amdt. to S.178 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 73
Mar 17, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.178 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 72
Mar 17, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Committee Reported Substitute Amendment to S.178 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 68
Mar 04, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Bill S.1 Pass, Over the Objections of the President )
On Overriding the Veto

N N Won
Roll Call 67
Mar 04, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res.8 )
On the Joint Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 66
Mar 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.J.Res.8 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Lost
Roll Call 65
Mar 02, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the House Message to Accompany H.R. 240 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 64
Mar 02, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Insist on Senate Amdt., Agree to a Conference, and Authorize Appointment of Conferees Re: H.R. 240 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 63
Feb 27, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S.534 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 62
Feb 27, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 240, As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 61
Feb 27, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cochran Amdt. No. 255 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 60
Feb 27, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Amdt. No. 258 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 59
Feb 27, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 240 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 57
Feb 23, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 240 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 53
Feb 05, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 240 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 52
Feb 04, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 240 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 51
Feb 03, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 240 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 49
Jan 29, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (S.1 As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 48
Jan 29, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Markey Amdt. No. 178 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 47
Jan 29, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Markey Amdt. No. 141 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 46
Jan 29, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Booker Amdt. No. 155 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 45
Jan 29, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.1 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 44
Jan 29, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Udall Amdt. No. 77 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 43
Jan 29, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Burr Amdt. No. 92 As Modified )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 42
Jan 29, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Daines Admt. No. 246 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 41
Jan 28, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Gillibrand Amdt. No. 48 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 40
Jan 28, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Heitkamp Amdt. No. 133 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 39
Jan 28, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Murkowski Amdt. No. 166 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 38
Jan 28, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Coons Amdt. No. 115 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 37
Jan 28, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Daines Amdt. No. 132 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 36
Jan 28, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Whitehouse Amdt. No. 148 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 35
Jan 28, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Moran Amdt. No. 73 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 34
Jan 28, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cruz Amdt. No 15 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 33
Jan 28, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 23 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 32
Jan 28, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Peters Amdt. No. 70 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 31
Jan 28, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Cardin Amdt. No. 75 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 30
Jan 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 1 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 29
Jan 26, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Murkowski Amdt. No. 2 )
On the Cloture Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 28
Jan 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Reed Amdt. No. 74 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 27
Jan 22, 2015

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Leahy Amdt. No. 30 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 26
Jan 22, 2015
(S. 1) On a motion to table (kill) an amendment requiring disclosure of political campaign contributions made by individuals who make more than $1 million from development of Canadian ?tar sands? oil fields

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to table (kill) an amendment requiring disclosure of political campaign contributions made by individuals who make more than $1 million from development of Canadian ?tar sands? oil fields.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) had offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would carry Canada?s tar sands oil fields to the south-central United States, where it could be sold on world markets. The project was seen as important to the continued development of Canada?s tar sands oil industry.

Sen. Whitehouse?s amendment targeted individuals and companies that held leases or otherwise profited from the tar sands oil boom. Under the terms of the amendment, anyone who made more than $1 million would be required to disclose campaign contributions larger than $200.

However, before the amendment came to a vote, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered a ?motion to table? it. If successful, this motion would prevent Sen. Whitehouse?s amendment from getting an up-or-down vote, effectively killing it.

Sen. Whitehouse argued that his amendment would provide a ?beam of daylight? into the secretive world of campaign finance. With so many wealthy individuals spending large sums to influence U.S. elections, American voters deserved to know who was bankrolling their elected representatives? campaigns, he said.

?It is a little bit unusual to some that the opening measure of the new Republican majority would be a project that advantages a foreign oil company,? Sen. Whitehouse said. ?This is the kind of information the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly said citizens are entitled to know in order to make appropriate decisions, and in our democracy we should put our citizens first.?

No lawmakers spoke out in favor of the motion to table Sen. Whitehouse?s amendment. However, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) criticized a nearly identical amendment offered by Sen. Whitehouse just a few days later. She argued that the topic of campaign finance was unrelated to the underlying bill, and therefore an inappropriate topic for the current debate. Federal law already required disclosure of contributions to official political campaigns, she noted.

?This amendment is not relevant to this debate,? Sen. Murkowski said. ?To the extent it is legal for a person or a company to make a campaign contribution, Federal and State election laws require public disclosure of those campaign contributions.?

The Senate agreed to table Sen. Whitehouse?s amendment by a vote of 52-43. Voting ?yea? were 52 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 43 Democrats. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to hold an up-or-down vote on an amendment requiring disclosure of political campaign contributions made by individuals who make more than $1 million from development of Canadian ?tar sands? oil fields.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Lost
Roll Call 25
Jan 22, 2015
(S. 1) On a motion to table (kill) an amendment imposing an 8-cent-per-barrel fee on oil transported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to table (kill) an amendment imposing an 8-cent-per-barrel fee on oil transported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the pipeline. Most oil is subject to an 8-cent-per-barrel federal excise tax that funds clean-up efforts in the case of a spill. However, because oil from Canada?s ?tar sands? is actually a mixture of soil and bitumen ? it is extracted through strip mining rather than drilling ? it was exempt from this tax under existing federal law. Sen. Carper?s amendment sought to close this ?loophole? by imposing an equivalent ?fee? on the Keystone XL?s oil. The revenue from this fee would be put in a federal land and water conservation fund.

However, before the amendment came to a vote, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered a ?motion to table? it. If successful, this motion would prevent Sen. Carper?s amendment from getting an up-or-down vote, effectively killing it.

Sen. Carper argued that it would be unfair ? both to U.S. oil producers and to taxpayers ? to allow a Canadian company to transport its oil across the American heartland without paying either the excise tax or an equivalent fee. The fee would prevent the Canadian oil from getting an unfair advantage while also funding efforts to protect the environment, he said.

?The land and water conservation fund is also established not just to provide the revenues for national parks,? Sen. Carper said. ?The land and water conservation fund was also established to help protect rivers, lakes, and critical habitat for wildlife, areas that may be impacted by the construction of this pipeline or a possible spill from this pipeline.?

Supporters of the motion to table Sen. Carper?s amendment did not explain their opposition to the proposal; in fact, earlier in the debate, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) expressed support for a policy that would subject the Keystone XL?s oil to the regular excise tax. However, she argued, rather than adding the policy to the underlying bill, the Senate should give the House of Representatives a chance to add it, since the Constitution requires revenue-raising legislation to originate in the lower chamber.

?The problem that we have is that as we work to enact legislation to update our laws, we have to make sure it is consistent with the Constitution, which requires revenue-raising measures to originate in the House,? Sen. Murkowski said.

The Senate agreed to the motion to table Sen. Carper?s amendment by a vote of 57-38. Voting ?yea? were 52 Republicans and 5 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 38 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to hold an up-or-down vote on an amendment imposing an 8-cent-per-barrel fee on oil transported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 24
Jan 22, 2015
(S. 1) On a motion to table (kill) an amendment delaying construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline until federal law had been changed to ensure the oil it carries is taxed like other petroleum products

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to table (kill) an amendment delaying construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline until federal law had been changed to ensure the oil it carries is taxed like other petroleum products.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the pipeline. Most oil is subject to an 8-cent-per-barrel federal excise tax that funds clean-up efforts in the case of a spill. However, because oil from Canada?s ?tar sands? is actually a mixture of soil and bitumen ? it is extracted through strip mining rather than drilling ? it was exempt from this tax under existing federal law. Sen. Markey?s amendment would have made approval of the pipeline contingent on a change in that policy ? ensuring the oil carried through the Keystone XL was subject to the tax.

However, before the amendment came to a vote, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered a ?motion to table? it. If successful, this motion would prevent Sen. Markey?s amendment from getting an up-or-down vote, effectively killing it.

Supporters of Sen. Markey?s amendment argued that the existing ?loophole? in federal tax law would put American oil producers at a disadvantage. It would also leave taxpayers on the hook for any spills on the Keystone XL pipeline, they said, since the company would not have to contribute to the clean-up fund.

?If spilled into the environment, oil produced from tar sands is just as damaging as oil produced by other means, if not more so,? Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) said in 2014. ?Surely producers of oil from tar sands should help contribute to the costs of cleaning up these spills ? just like producers of other oil must do.?

Supporters of the motion to table did not explain their opposition to Sen. Markey?s amendment; in fact, earlier in the debate, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) expressed support for a policy that would subject the Keystone XL?s oil to the tax. However, she argued, rather than adding the policy to the underlying bill, the Senate should give the House of Representatives a chance to add it, since the Constitution requires revenue-raising legislation to originate in the lower chamber.

?This is important because right now we have a legitimate but unintended loophole on the books, and it is also a matter of fairness because conventional oil pays into the trust fund,? Sen. Murkowski said, adding that lawmakers should correct the issue ?legitimately through the Constitution.?

The Senate agreed to the motion to table by a vote of 53-42. Voting ?yea? were 51 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 42 Democrats. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to allow an up-or-down vote on an amendment delaying construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline until federal law had been changed to ensure the oil it carries is taxed like other petroleum products.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 22
Jan 22, 2015
(S. 1) On an amendment to prevent the developer of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from using eminent domain powers to take land from private property owners who didn?t want to sell it

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have prevented the developer of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from using eminent domain powers to take land from private property owners who didn?t want to sell it.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would connect Canada?s ?tar sands? oil fields to pipelines in the south central United States and the world market beyond. Sen. Menendez?s amendment would have required TransCanada, the company that wanted to build the project, to obtain land only ?from willing sellers and consistently with the Constitution.? This would rule out the use of eminent domain, the power of the government to take private property ? even if the owner does not agree to sell it ? for a public purpose.

Supporters of Sen. Menendez?s amendment argued that Congress should not put U.S. landowners at risk of having their private land taken away by a Canadian firm.

?I support the pipeline. I think it has a lot of good benefits, but make no mistake about it, if you do not support the Menendez amendment ? you will allow a foreign corporation ? a foreign corporation ? to come in and use eminent domain to take the property,? Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) said. ?We don't want to go down this line.?

Opponents of Sen. Menendez?s amendment argued that the underlying bill already included enough protections; it stated that land must be taken ?consistently with the Constitution? but did not require that the landowners give their consent. Sen. Menendez?s amendment was simply designed to make it impossible to build the pipeline, they argued.

?The standard being proposed by the senator from New Jersey is an anti-states? rights amendment, and it is designed to be a poison pill on this Keystone XL pipeline, which he obviously does not support and wants to use every means to kill,? Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said.

Sen. Menendez?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 43-54. Voting ?yea? were 41 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 50 Republicans and 4 Democrats. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to prevent the developer of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from using eminent domain powers to take land from private property owners who didn?t want to sell it.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 21
Jan 22, 2015
(S. 1) On an amendment stipulating that during construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, developers could acquire land only in ways consistent with constitutional protections of private property rights

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment stipulating that during construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, developers could acquire land only in ways consistent with constitutional protections of private property rights.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Sen. Cornyn offered his amendment as a counterpoint to a separate proposal from Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) that would outlaw the use of eminent domain during Keystone?s construction. Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private property ? even if the owner does not agree to sell it ? for a public purpose.

By contrast, Sen. Cornyn?s amendment would simply state that any acquisition of private land would have to be done ?consistently with the Constitution.? The Supreme Court had famously but controversially approved the use of eminent domain in a wide range of situations ? even for purposes of ?economic development.?

Sen. Cornyn argued that Sen. Menendez was simply trying to undermine the entire bill by adding a ?poison pill.? It would be enough to simply reaffirm Congress? view that the Keystone XL pipeline must be built in a way that does not violate the Constitution?s protection of private property rights, he said.

?I think it is accurate to say that the distinguished senator from New Jersey is no fan of the Keystone XL pipeline, so he wants to add this provision to the bill to make it impossible, basically, to implement,? Sen. Cornyn said.

Sen. Menendez argued that Sen. Cornyn?s amendment was simply an attempt to provide political cover for those who wanted to allow the use of eminent domain to build a pipeline for a foreign company.

?This amendment seems innocuous, but it embraces the seizure of private property for private gain to the full extent of the Constitution,? Sen. Menendez said. ?The founders of our country and its Constitution never envisioned having a company from another country come to the United States and use eminent domain to take the property of U.S. citizens for private purposes.?

The Senate approved Sen. Cornyn?s amendment by a vote of 64-33. Voting ?yea? were 52 Republicans and 12 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 33 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. As a result, the Senate moved forward with a bill stipulating that during construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, developers could acquire land only in ways consistent ?with the Constitution.? However, senators declined to add a provision outlawing the use of eminent domain to build the pipeline.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 20
Jan 22, 2015
(S. 1) On an amendment putting the Senate on record in opposition to President Obama?s climate pact with China

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment putting the Senate on record in opposition to President Obama?s climate pact with China.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Blunt?s amendment was not designed to have any practical effect on federal policy; rather, it was a statement of the ?sense of the Senate.? The amendment asserted that the U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate and Clean Energy Cooperation ? which called on both countries to cut back their greenhouse gas emissions ? had ?no force and effect in the United States.? It also stated that the climate pact was bad for American consumers.

Sen. Blunt argued that the U.S.-China agreement was unfair to the United States, because Americans would be required to cut net climate pollution while China would simply be slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. Lawmakers should make clear that it does not agree, and remind the president that any international agreement must be approved by the Senate, he said.

?The United States should not be bound by commitments where we are the only party that has a commitment made in the agreement with China,? Sen. Blunt said.

Opponents of Sen. Blunt?s amendment argued that the climate pact was actually a boon for the United States, because it called for new cooperation in areas like building energy-efficient buildings. Congress should not stand in the way of efforts by the president to cut greenhouse gas emissions while improving the prospects for American business abroad, they said.

?When we reached an agreement through the president of the United States to work together as a way to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gases, guess what is going to win?? Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said. ?American business, American product, and we are selling it to them because we have an agreement to work together to be more energy efficient.?

Even though 51 senators voted in favor of Sen. Blunt?s amendment and only 46 voted ?nay,? the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 50 Republicans and 1 Democrat. Voting ?nay? were 44 Democrats and 2 Republicans. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to go on record in opposition to President Obama?s climate pact with China.



ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Won
Roll Call 19
Jan 22, 2015
(S. 1) On an amendment to require Canadian energy companies to pay an 8-cent-per-barrel tax for oil shipped through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have required Canadian energy companies to pay an 8-cent-per-barrel tax for oil shipped through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the controversial pipeline, which would connect Canada?s ?tar sands? oil fields to the United States and the world market. Sen. Wyden?s amendment would have altered federal tax law to make sure the Canadian oil is actually classified as oil and, therefore, subject to an excise tax that funds clean-up efforts in the case of a spill. The Canadian oil would not otherwise be subject to the tax because it is a mixture of soil and bitumen that is mined rather than drilled. The substance can be turned into oil only through a complex process of extraction and separation.

Sen. Wyden argued that Congress should fix the ?loophole,? which threatened to allow Canadian producers to ship their oil across the United States without paying into the clean-up fund. The Canadian oil is as likely to spill as American-produced oil, he said, and tax-free status would put U.S. oil producers at a disadvantage and force taxpayers to foot the bill for oil spills.

?Tar sands oil producers ought to pay into the same fund as other oil producers to clean up the spills. Because, make no mistake about it, at the end of the day, without this amendment that closes the tar sands loophole, Canadian tar sands oil will keep getting a free ride,? Sen. Wyden said.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who opposed the amendment, argued that it would violate the Constitution?s requirement that revenue-raising bills start in the House of Representatives. She argued that it was good enough that the Senate had already added a non-binding statement in support of taxing the Canadian oil; senators could push the House to add the provision later on, she said.

?If we agree that we want to close this loophole, which we should do, we need to allow for the House to address this,? Sen. Murkowski said. ?Otherwise ? it would act as a poison pill to the Keystone XL bill.?

Even though 50 senators supported Sen. Wyden?s amendment and only 47 voted against it, the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 45 Democrats and 5 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 47 Republicans. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to require Canadian energy companies to pay an 8-cent-per-barrel tax for oil shipped through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 17
Jan 22, 2015
(S. 1) On an amendment to require the federal government to speed up its review of applications to drill for oil and natural gas on public land

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have required the federal government to speed up its review of applications to drill for oil and natural gas on public land.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Lee?s amendment would have required the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to process applications to drill on federal land within 30 days, with just a few exceptions that allow for an extended review. If the agency did not meet the deadline, the oil company?s permit would have been automatically approved. 

Sen. Lee argued that the BLM?s tendency to delay its decisions on permit applications was hurting efforts to develop oil and gas resources in the western United States. The result of the BLM?s approach was months of delay and a backlog of permit applications, and Congress should force the agency to do better, he said.

?Our security ? our energy security and our national security, more broadly ? depends ultimately on our ability to produce energy,? Sen. Lee said. ?We need to make sure we are using that (federal) land to shore up our energy independence.?

Opponents of Sen. Lee?s amendment argued that it was simply an attempt to circumvent the Endangered Species Act and other important legal protections for the environment. The amendment sought to put in place an ?arbitrary? deadline and undermined American citizens? right to challenge drilling decisions in federal court, they argued.

?I guess if (my) colleagues want to keep trying to loosen environmental regulations, then maybe they should support this amendment,? Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said.

Even though 51 senators voted in favor of Sen. Lee?s amendment and only 47 voted against it, the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 49 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 43 Democrats and 4 Republicans. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to require the federal government to speed up its review of applications to drill for oil and natural gas on public land.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Won
Roll Call 16
Jan 22, 2015
(S. 1) On a motion to table (kill) an amendment stating that climate change is a real problem that requires urgent action to prevent ?irreparable harm? to the planet

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to table (kill) an amendment stating that climate change is a real problem that requires urgent action to prevent ?irreparable harm? to the planet.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Sanders? amendment was not designed to have any practical impact on federal policy; rather, it represented a statement of the ?sense of Congress? on the topic of climate change. The amendment asserted that climate change was real and human-caused. It also stated that policymakers had ?a brief window of opportunity? in which they must act ? specifically by transitioning away from fossil fuels ? to avoid ?irreparable harm? to the planet.

However, before the amendment came to a vote, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) offered a ?motion to table? it. If successful, this motion would prevent Sen. Sanders? amendment from getting an up-or-down vote, effectively killing it.

Sen. Sanders argued that his amendment deserved an up-or-down vote because it made an important statement about climate change and the urgency with which Congress must act. He noted that the overwhelming scientific consensus was that humans were causing climate change. Quick and dramatic policy changes were required to avert the potential for disaster, he said.

?It is imperative that the United States transforms its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible,? Sen. Sanders said. ?That doesn't mean you close down every coal-burning plant in America tomorrow, but it does mean we move away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible.?

Supporters of the motion to table Sen. Sanders? amendment said they did not believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) argued that politicians like Al Gore and groups like the United Nations had promoted the idea because they wanted to gain wealth and power for themselves. In reality, the science was not settled, he argued.

?I have good friends on the other side that really believe (in climate change), and I think that one sometimes has to open it up and realize there is another side to this story. When they say that 97 percent, 98 percent of the scientists agree, it just isn't true,? Sen. Inhofe said.

The Senate agreed to the motion to table Sen. Sanders? amendment by a vote of 56-42. Voting ?yea? were 53 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 42 Democrats. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to hold an up-or-down vote on an amendment stating that climate change is a real problem that requires urgent action to prevent ?irreparable harm? to the planet.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Lost
Roll Call 15
Jan 22, 2015
(S. 1) On a motion to table (kill) an amendment stating that climate change is real and human-caused, and calling for investment in ?clean fossil fuel? energy technology

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to table (kill) an amendment stating that climate change is real and human-caused, and calling for investment in ?clean fossil fuel? energy technology.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Manchin?s amendment was not designed to have any practical impact on federal policy; rather, it represented a statement of the ?sense of Congress? on the topic of climate change. The amendment asserted that climate change was ?real,? ?caused by human activities,? and ?has already caused devastating problems? around the globe. It also asserted that climate change-causing fossil fuels will continue to be a major part of the U.S. energy picture, and it called for more spending on research and development of ?clean? technology that allows fossil fuels to be burned while releasing fewer greenhouse gases and other pollutants into the atmosphere.

However, before the amendment came to a vote, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) offered a ?motion to table? it. If successful, this motion would prevent Sen. Manchin?s amendment from getting an up-or-down vote, effectively killing it.

Sen. Manchin argued that his amendment represented a realistic approach to the problem of climate change. Lawmakers should address the issue, but they should not forget that coal, nuclear, and natural gas were the only energy sources that had been proven reliable and affordable, he said.

?We can all agree we need to act to address the potentially devastating impact of climate change,? Sen. Manchin said. ?What we are asking for is we need a federal commitment from the president to Congress to invest in the research and development of fossil energy so we can use the cleanest and most environmentally responsible way possible and find that technology to do it so we are responsible.?

Supporters of the motion to table Manchin?s amendment argued that they were not convinced by the scientific evidence that climate change was caused by human activity. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that he had assembled a list of ?hundreds? of scientists who did not agree with the consensus opinion on the issue. Groups like the United Nations had promoted the concept of climate change for ideological reasons, he argued.

?How arrogant is it for people to say that man can do something about changing climate? Climate has always changed,? Sen. Inhofe said. ?The science is not settled.?

The Senate agreed to the motion to table Sen. Manchin?s amendment by a vote of 53-46. Voting ?yea? were 53 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 45 Democrats and 1 Republican. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to hold an up-or-down vote on an amendment stating that climate change is real and human-caused, and calling for investment in ?clean fossil fuel? energy technology.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 14
Jan 22, 2015
(S. 1) On an amendment to limit the federal government?s ability to protect public land from development

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment limiting the federal government?s ability to protect public land from development.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Fischer?s amendment would have placed new limits on the U.S. Interior Department?s ability to set aside publicly owned land to conserve ?historic, cultural, environmental, scenic, recreational, developmental, or biological resources.? In the future, when considering such a designation, federal officials would have had to take into account the Interior Department?s ability to manage the newly protected land, given potentially scarce federal resources.

Sen. Fischer said she was concerned that the federal government had obtained more land than it had the resources to manage. National parks and other protected areas are an important part of U.S. heritage, she said, but they risked falling into disrepair if Congress did not impose some limits.

?Our national parks are facing $13 billion in maintenance needs,? Sen. Fischer said. ?We want to keep these resources and parks open for our children and grandchildren to marvel at and enjoy. All of us have unique and special areas within our states, but we in Congress have the responsibility to care for the natural resources of our country.?

Opponents of Sen. Fischer?s amendment argued that it would erect unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that would make it more difficult to set aside sites of national importance. Americans risked losing important environmental and cultural treasures, they argued.

?This amendment would open the courthouse door over disputes of whether to place worthy lands under protection because of challenges that there are not enough resources or certain issues were not considered ahead of time,? Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) said. ?I think it will do harm to the protection of necessary lands in our country.?

Even though 54 senators voted in favor of Sen. Fischer?s amendment and only 45 voted against it, the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 50 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 41 Democrats and 4 Republicans. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to limit the federal government?s ability to protect public land from development.



ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 13
Jan 22, 2015
(S. 1) On an amendment endorsing the protection of federal land for environmental and recreational purposes

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment endorsing the protection of federal land for environmental and recreational purposes.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Boxer?s amendment would have no practical impact on federal policy; rather, it amounted to a ?sense of Congress? statement that public land is an important part of American heritage and gives a boost to local economies. The amendment asserted that the designation of federally protected land should continue where it is appropriate and endorsed by local citizens.

Sen. Boxer said she offered the amendment because Republicans were considering legislation that would make it harder for the federal government to protect sensitive public land from development. As a result, it was important for Congress to reaffirm its commitment to setting aside land for the benefit of all Americans, she said.

?Can my colleagues imagine America without Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, the Statue of Liberty, Natural Bridges in Utah, Scottsbluff in Nebraska, Muir Woods in California, Glacier Bay in Alaska?? Sen. Boxer said.

Opponents of Sen. Boxer?s amendment said Congress should be encouraging the federal government to give up some of its land, not protect more of it. Federal protection of land stifles economic growth by limiting recreational activities and economic development opportunities, they said.

?We don?t need to be encouraging the federal government to make it even harder on our state and local communities,? Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said. ?In fact, quite the opposite. We need to give states more control over the land within their borders and leave more of the management, maintenance, and conservation up to local officials.?

Even though 55 senators voted in favor of Sen. Boxer?s amendment and only 44 voted against it, the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 44 Republicans. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to endorse the protection of federal land for environmental and recreational purposes.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 12
Jan 21, 2015
(S. 1) On an amendment to put Congress on record as believing that human activity contributes ?significantly? to climate change

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

 

This vote was on an amendment putting Congress on record as believing that human activity contributes ?significantly? to climate change.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Schatz?s amendment would have no practical impact on federal policy; rather, it called for a ?sense of Congress? statement that climate change is real, and that humans contribute ?significantly? to the phenomenon. 

Supporters of Sen. Schatz?s amendment argued that it was a common-sense affirmation of the views of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. Congress had not been able to pass legislation addressing climate change in any real way, they said, but it should at least be able to come together and acknowledge that the warming climate is a problem.

?We may not agree on the solutions, on the path forward or even on some of the details, but I do believe it is time for us to begin to agree on a basic set of facts,? Sen. Schatz said. ?The purpose of my amendment is to take a step back, to take a deep breath on a very contentious issue, and to give the Senate an opportunity to come together and state with no value judgment that we accept the work of thousands of the world's brightest and most dedicated scientists.?

Opponents of Sen. Schatz?s amendment said they took issue with the inclusion of the word ?significantly? in the amendment ? as in, human activity ?significantly contributes to climate change.? This was an ?arrogant? idea that had been ?cooked up by the United Nations,? Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said.

?Go back and look at the archeological findings. They talk about climate from the beginning of time having changed and changed both ways. The Scriptures talk about it,? Sen. Inhofe said. ?Yes, (the climate) is changing ? no question about that. But the hoax is that there are people who are so arrogant they think they have the power to change climate.?

Even though 50 senators voted in favor of Sen. Schatz?s amendment and only 49 voted against it, the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 45 Democrats and 5 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 49 Republicans. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to put Congress on record as believing that human activity contributes ?significantly? to climate change.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 11
Jan 21, 2015
(S. 1) On an amendment to put Congress on record believing that climate change is real, but that construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline would not make it worse

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment putting Congress on record believing that climate change is real, but that construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline would not make it worse.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. In response to a Democratic amendment stating that human activity contributes ?significantly? to climate change, Sen. Hoeven offered one of his own. The amendment would have no real policy impact, but amounted to a statement by the Senate that climate change is real and caused at least in some part by humans. Sen. Hoeven?s amendment also stated ? quoting an Obama administration environmental impact statement ? that the Keystone XL pipeline could actually decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Supporters of Sen. Hoeven?s amendment argued that it was symbolically important for the Senate to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change was real and human-caused. While some might be concerned about the amendment?s assertions regarding the impact of the Keystone XL pipeline, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said, this was an accurate quotation of the Obama administration?s environmental impact statement, and therefore the amendment still merited support.

?We are about to vote on something that I think will be recorded as a breakthrough moment in the climate debate.  For the first time we will go on record saying the following: Climate change is real and human activity contributes to climate change,? Sen. Boxer said.

Opponents of the amendment ? a group that included Sen. Hoeven himself ? argued that they were not convinced that climate change was driven by human activity. 

Climate is changing. Climate has always changed, and it always will,? Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said. ?There is archaeological evidence of that, there is biblical evidence, and there is historical evidence. It will always change. The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant, who think that they are so powerful that they can change the climate. Man can't change the climate.?

Even though 59 senators voted in favor of Sen. Hoeven?s amendment and only 40 voted ?nay,? the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 44 Democrats and 15 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 39 Republicans and 1 Democrat. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to put Congress on record believing that climate change is real, but that construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline would not make it worse.



CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 9
Jan 21, 2015
(S. 1) On an amendment to give power plants an exemption from the Clean Air Act to burn coal waste that remained after previous mining activities

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have given power plants an exemption from the Clean Air Act to burn coal waste that remained after previous mining activities.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Toomey?s amendment dealt with waste that had been left behind after coal-mining operations ? in some cases, mining that took place in the 19th century. Sen. Toomey?s amendment would have allowed power plants to clean up these areas by burning the leftover waste, and without complying with the pollution restrictions that would normally apply under the Clean Air Act.

Supporters of Sen. Toomey?s amendment argued that it would provide a relatively cheap way to clean up dirty, dangerous coal waste sites. By burning the coal waste, the power plants would get it out of the soil and nearby streams, they said. This clean-up effort was important and merited the temporary exemption from air pollution restrictions, they said.

?These mountains of coal poison our water. They poison our air when they spontaneously combust and burn ? sometimes for over a year ? releasing pollutants with no controls whatsoever,? Sen. Toomey said. ?A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote to continue to clean up this environmental disaster that we have on our hands.?

Opponents of Sen. Toomey?s amendment took issue with the idea of giving power plants a special exemption from air pollution laws. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said lawmakers shouldn?t have to weaken environmental protections in order to protect the environment, calling the amendment an ?attack on the Clean Air Act.?

?I do not know why we should give some power plants in Pennsylvania an exemption to the Clean Air Act,? Sen. Cantwell said. ?Obviously, there are businesses all across America that have to comply with environmental laws. By voting against this amendment, we can continue to fight against these pollution issues and make sure that special interests are not getting another narrow carve-out in this legislation.?

Even though 54 senators voted in favor of Sen. Toomey?s amendment and only 45 voted ?nay,? the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 51 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 42 Democrats and 3 Republicans. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to give power plants an exemption from the Clean Air Act to burn coal waste that remained after previous mining activities.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Coal Industry
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
N N Won
Roll Call 8
Jan 21, 2015
(S. 1) On an amendment to delay construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline until the federal government issued rules on the storage and transportation of petroleum coke

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

 

This vote was on an amendment that would have delayed construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline until the federal government issued rules on the storage and transportation of petroleum coke.

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The Keystone pipeline would connect Canada?s oil sands to the United States and, by extension, the global market for petroleum. President Obama?s administration was in the process of reviewing TransCanada?s application to build the cross-border pipeline, but the process had dragged on and become a divisive political symbol. The underlying bill would authorize TransCanada?s permit, cutting short the Obama administration?s deliberations.

Sen. Durbin?s amendment would have delayed approval of the Keystone pipeline until the federal government had developed new regulations on petroleum coke ? or ?petcoke? ? a byproduct of the oil refining process that contains heavy metals. 

Sen. Durbin noted that the Keystone XL would transport massive amounts of petroleum coke-laden oil products through the U.S. mainland. This substance was potentially dangerous, not properly controlled, and raising concerns in communities around the country, he said. 

?When you think of all of the things blowing in the air, how in the world did petcoke end up being treated like fairy dust?? Sen. Durbin said. ?It is exempt from laws relating to hazardous waste and materials? It is time we put the health and well-being of Americans ahead of the profits of any industry involved in the processing of Canadian tar sands.?

Opponents of Sen. Durbin?s amendment argued that there was little proof that petroleum coke caused serious health problems. There was no reason for lawmakers to push for regulation of a substance that is not known to be harmful, they said.

?The EPA's own website states ? and this is from their website ? petroleum coke itself has a low level of toxicity, and there is no evidence of carcinogenicity,? Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said. ?I appreciate the concerns those in neighborhoods (near petroleum coke storage sites) have, but I think it is important that we recognize we are not trying to skip the science.?

The Senate defeated Sen. Durbin?s amendment by a vote of 41-58. Voting ?yea? were 40 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 1 Republican. Voting ?nay? were 53 Republicans and 5 Democrats. As a result, the Senate moved forward with a bill authorizing construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, but without adding a provision calling for regulation of petroleum coke.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 7
Jan 21, 2015
(S. 1) On an amendment to limit the attorneys? fees that can be awarded in cases related to the Endangered Species Act

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have limited the attorneys? fees that can be awarded in cases related to the Endangered Species Act.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill authorizing construction of a controversial oil pipeline. Sen. Lee?s amendment would have tacked on a provision capping the attorneys? fees awarded in endangered-species cases that are argued in federal court. Federal law did not limit these awards, but Sen. Lee?s amendment would have instituted a limit of $125 per hour.

Sen. Lee argued that the amendment would discourage a ?dishonest, distorted practice? in which activists sued the federal government, settled out of court for a more favorable outcome, and then collected attorney?s fees. He said the practice wasted money and encouraged legal outcomes weighted too heavily toward protection of endangered species.

?Congress must put an end to policymaking by litigation, and it must do so by removing the incentives to engage in this kind of litigation,? Sen. Lee said. ?This simple fix would deter the frivolous lawsuits that so often end up in closed-door settlements with federal agencies.?

Opponents of Sen. Lee?s amendment argued that it would jeopardize ordinary Americans? ability to challenge federal rulings that could harm them or the environment. The courts and Congress have allowed attorneys? fees to protect the interests of these less-politically powerful individuals, and lawmakers should not erode them, they said.

?Basically, what the Lee amendment does is say you will not be able to (recoup) the attorneys' fees at the cost of doing business, and their hope is that citizens will then not have representation before the courts on issues such as clean air, clean water, and other environmental issues,? Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said.

Even though Sen. Lee?s amendment received 54 ?yea? votes and only 45 senators voted ?nay,? the amendment was defeated because it was brought up under Senate rules that require 60 votes for passage. Voting ?yea? were 54 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 45 Democrats. As a result, the Senate defeated the effort to limit the attorneys? fees that can be awarded in cases related to the Endangered Species Act.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
N N Won
Roll Call 5
Jan 20, 2015
(S. 1) On a motion to table (kill) an amendment barring the use of foreign-made steel in construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to table (kill) an amendment barring the use of foreign-made steel in construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The vote came as the Senate debated Sen. John Hoeven?s (R-ND) bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The Keystone pipeline would connect Canada?s oil sands to the United States and, by extension, the global market for petroleum. President Obama?s administration was in the process of reviewing TransCanada?s application to build the cross-border pipeline, but the process had dragged on and become a divisive political symbol. Sen. Hoeven?s bill would authorize TransCanada?s permit, cutting short the Obama administration?s deliberations.

During debate on Sen. Hoeven?s bill, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) had offered an amendment requiring TransCanada to use only American-made iron and steel when constructing the Keystone XL pipeline. Under the terms of the amendment, foreign-made steel could have been used only if U.S. steel would have driven up the price of construction by 25 percent or more.

However, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) offered a ?motion to table? Sen. Franken?s amendment. This motion would essentially kill the amendment, preventing an up-or-down vote on the proposal.

Supporters of Sen. Franken?s amendment argued that it would help make sure the construction of the pipeline benefited American workers. Construction of the pipeline would bring greater risk of pollution to U.S. soil, and so lawmakers had a responsibility to make sure it also delivered benefits ? such as a boost to the U.S. steel industry, they said.

?A vote to table this (amendment) is a vote against American jobs,? Sen. Franken said. ?It is a vote against jobs in Ohio and Minnesota. It is a vote against the shippers who ship our iron ore over the Great Lakes or by rail or over the Mississippi so it can be used to make steel.?

Supporters of the motion to table argued that it would be unfair to force TransCanada, a private company, to buy its raw materials from certain suppliers. This would create a potentially harmful precedent of federal micromanagement of private industry, they argued.

?I think all of us want to buy American and buy local whenever and wherever we can,? Sen. Murkowski said. ?But I think the bigger question here ? and what we have in front of us with the Keystone XL pipeline ? is what this amendment would do? This would be the first time that Congress has directed or forced private parties to purchase domestic goods and materials.?

The Senate agreed to the motion to table by a vote of 53-46. Voting ?yea? were 53 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 45 Democrats and 1 Republican. As a result, the Senate killed an amendment barring the use of foreign-made steel in construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.



LABOR RIGHTS Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas
N N Lost
Roll Call 4
Jan 20, 2015
(S. 1) On a motion to table (kill) an amendment requiring oil companies to sell their petroleum in the United States, rather than on the world market, if it was transported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to table (kill) an amendment requiring oil companies to sell their petroleum in the United States, rather than on the world market, if it was transported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

The vote came as the Senate debated Sen. John Hoeven?s (R-ND) bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The Keystone pipeline would connect Canada?s oil sands to the United States and, by extension, the global market for petroleum. President Obama?s administration was in the process of reviewing TransCanada?s application to build the cross-border pipeline, but the process had dragged on and become a divisive political symbol. Sen. Hoeven?s bill would authorize TransCanada?s permit, cutting short the Obama administration?s deliberations.

During the debate on Sen. Hoeven?s bill, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) had offered an amendment stating that petroleum that traveled through the Keystone pipeline could not be sold on the world market. However, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) offered a ?motion to table? Sen. Markey?s amendment. This motion would essentially kill the amendment, preventing an up-or-down vote on the proposal.

Sen. Markey argued that lawmakers should allow a vote on his proposal because it was the only way to ensure that the Keystone pipeline would benefit the United States, as its supporters insisted it would. TransCanada was simply looking for a cheap way to get its product to the world market, and without the amendment, Americans would get nothing in return for the increased risk of oil spills and pollution, Sen. Markey said.

?We import 5 million barrels of oil per day into the United States. We should not allow the Canadians to use the United States as a straw to be able to then go down to the Gulf of Mexico and send that oil out of the country,? Sen. Markey said. ?We should be working to have energy independence in America. When we are importing 5 million barrels of oil a day from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, we are in no way independent.?

Supporters of the motion to table Sen. Markey?s amendment argued that, if the Keystone pipeline were not built, then TransCanada would find a different way to get its oil to the market. This would probably mean sending it to Canada?s west coast, where it would all be shipped overseas, Sen. Hoeven argued.

?(Sen. Markey) is making an argument that doesn?t work in a global economy, where he is saying if we can?t have 100 percent of it every single day ? not one drop leaves ? then export all of it. I want 100 percent or nothing. That doesn?t make sense,? Sen. Hoeven said. ?As we produce more oil, we not only help ourselves, we help our allies. So we have to understand what it takes to build an energy plan and do it the right way rather than blocking the very infrastructure and doing the very things that have led to incredible benefits today for our consumers at the pump.?

The Senate agreed to the motion to table by a vote of 57-42. Voting ?yea? were 54 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 42 Democrats. As a result, the Senate killed an amendment requiring oil companies to sell their petroleum in the United States, rather than on the world market, if it was transported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 3
Jan 12, 2015
(S. 1) On a motion aimed at allowing the Senate to formally consider a bill authorizing construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion aimed at allowing the Senate to formally consider a bill authorizing construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The bill, which was sponsored by Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND), was aimed at giving official U.S. government approval to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. TransCanada, the company that wanted to build the pipeline, was seeking to connect Canada?s oil sands to the United States and, by extension, the global market for petroleum.

President Obama?s administration was in the process of reviewing TransCanada?s application to build the cross-border pipeline, but the process had dragged on and become a divisive political symbol. Sen. Hoeven?s bill would authorize TransCanada?s permit, cutting short the Obama administration?s deliberations.

However, the Senate could not hold its formal debate on Sen. Hoeven?s bill unless it first approved a ?motion to proceed? to the legislation. Senate Republicans offered the motion to proceed, but this in turn could not get an up-or-down vote unless the Senate first agreed to a separate ?motion for cloture.? A motion for cloture limits the time that a proposal can be debated. If the motion for cloture is not approved, senators can drag the debate on literally forever ? effectively using the endless delay of a ?filibuster? to kill Sen. Hoeven?s bill.

Supporters of the motion for cloture argued that Sen. Hoeven?s bill enjoyed wide majority support among members of Congress. If approved, the bill would also help create jobs by stimulating construction of the pipeline, they argued. As a result, the Senate should take up the legislation as soon as possible, they argued.

?That is important, not just because this is bipartisan legislation,? Sen. Hoeven said. ?This is an opportunity for all the members of this body ? Republican and Democrat ? to come forward with their amendments in an open amendment process and really have an energy debate.  Let's talk about the energy future of this country and let's bring forward amendments to this legislation that can be good amendments and help us build the right kind of energy plan for our country.?

Opponents of the motion for cloture argued that the Obama administration was doing the right thing by carefully considering the proposal pipeline, and that the process should be allowed to continue. The Keystone pipeline would bring very few jobs to the United States and do nothing to lower gas prices, but it would exacerbate climate change and endanger water supplies, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) said.

?Anyone who looks at the facts and does the math ought to oppose this bill and oppose construction of the Keystone XL pipeline,? Sen. Schatz said. ?For me and for many Americans, a vote against this bill is a vote to preserve and protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. It is a vote to ensure that we continue to reduce carbon pollution and fight climate change. It is a vote to leave our children a healthy world.?

The Senate agreed to the motion for cloture by a vote of 63-32. Voting ?yea? were 52 Republicans and 11 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 32 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. As a result, the Senate ended debate and moved on to a separate, up-or-down vote on whether to formally consider legislation authorizing construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 1
Jan 08, 2015
(H.R. 26) On an amendment that would have stripped the underlying terrorism-insurance bill of an unrelated provision weakening regulation of financial markets

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have stripped the underlying terrorism-insurance bill of an unrelated provision weakening regulation of financial markets.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill reauthorizing the U.S. terrorism risk insurance program (TRIA). The underlying bill dealt mainly with managing risk for large-scale construction projects, and had little to do with the oversight of financial markets. However, House Republicans had added a provision that rolled back a piece of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law that Congress passed in 2010. The Dodd-Frank law had given federal regulators oversight of the trading of financial assets known as ?derivatives.? The provision added by Republicans sought to remove many companies ? especially those that were not banks ? from federal regulators? oversight.

Sen. Warren?s amendment would have deleted the Republicans? provision, thus preserving the authority given to federal regulators under the Dodd-Frank bill.

Sen. Warren argued that the effort to undermine federal regulations was a bad omen for the American economy. Progressive groups had fought hard to get meaningful financial reform after Wall Street created the financial crisis of 2008, she said, and lawmakers should not allow House Republicans to use an unrelated bill to roll back that progress.

?If Republicans want to try to roll back financial reforms, let's have that debate on the merits of each proposal,? Sen. Warren said. ?But we cannot have that debate if we permit Republicans to attach financial reform rollbacks to must-pass pieces of legislation such as government funding bills and the TRIA reauthorization bill.?

Opponents of Sen. Warren?s amendment argued that the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress had been too aggressive in regulating the financial industry. Federal regulators did not need oversight over ?Main Street? businesses such as farms and small businesses that use derivatives to manage their risk, they argued. The extra provision in the underlying terrorism-insurance bill would roll back those overzealous regulations and give relief to the business community, they argued. 

?These are organizations that are trying to manage their own economic risk in their businesses. This is not Wall Street. This is Main Street,? Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) said. ?(The provision in the underlying terrorism-insurance bill) would allow them to keep their limited funds and capital in play for their use for investment, growth, and for expansion and job development in our economy.? 

The Senate defeated Sen. Warren?s amendment by a vote of 31-66. Voting ?yea? were 31 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. Voting ?nay? were 53 Republicans and 13 Democrats. As a result, the Senate moved forward with a bill that would roll back some of federal regulators? authority to oversee the trading of financial assets known as ?derivatives.?


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 366
Dec 17, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Stephen R. Bough, of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Missouri )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 365
Dec 17, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Stephen R. Bough, of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Missouri )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 363
Dec 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Colette Dodson Honorable, of Arkansas, to be a Member of FERC )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 362
Dec 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Antony Blinken, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of State )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 361
Dec 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Antony Blinken, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of State. )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 360
Dec 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Sarah R. Saldana, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 359
Dec 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Sarah R. Saldana, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 358
Dec 15, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Frank A. Rose, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary of State )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 357
Dec 15, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Daniel J. Santos, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 356
Dec 15, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Vivek Hallegere Murthy to be Surgeon General )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 355
Dec 15, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Vivek Hallegere Murthy )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 354
Dec 14, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 83 )
On the Motion

N N Lost
Roll Call 353
Dec 14, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Point of Order (Is the Point of Order Well Taken Re: Cruz Constitutional Point of Order )
On the Point of Order

N N Won
Roll Call 351
Dec 14, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Stephen R. Bough )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 350
Dec 14, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 349
Dec 14, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Christopher Smith )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 348
Dec 14, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 347
Dec 14, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: John Charles Cruden )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 346
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 345
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Jonathan Nicholas Stivers )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 344
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 343
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Marcus Dwayne Jadotte )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 342
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 341
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Estevan R. Lopez )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 340
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 339
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Daniel J. Santos )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 338
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 337
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Colette Dodson Honorable )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 336
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 335
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Frank Rose )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 334
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 333
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Antony Blinken )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 332
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 331
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Vivek Murthy )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 330
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 329
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Carolyn Watts Colvin )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 328
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Legislative Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 327
Dec 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session Re: Sarah R. Saldana )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 326
Dec 12, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation David Nathan Saperstein, of D.C., to be Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 324
Dec 12, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate Re: Coburn Appeal )
On the Decision of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 319
Dec 09, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Ronald Walter, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 318
Dec 09, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Virginia Tyler Lodge, of Tennessee, to be a Member of Board of Directories of TVA )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 317
Dec 08, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Lauren McGarity McFerran, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 316
Dec 08, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Jeffery Martin Baran, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 315
Dec 04, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Ellen Dudley Williams, of Maryland, to be Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 314
Dec 04, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Lauren McGarity McFerran, of the District of Columbia, to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 313
Dec 04, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jeffery Martin Baran, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 311
Dec 04, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Lydia Kay Griggsby, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 310
Dec 04, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 309
Dec 04, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Gregory N. Stivers, of Kentucky, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 307
Dec 03, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Joseph S. Hezir, of Virginia, to be Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 306
Dec 03, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Franklin M. Orr, Jr., of California, to be Under Secretary for Science, Department of Energy )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 305
Dec 03, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Gerald J. Pappert, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 304
Dec 03, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Mark A. Kearney, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 303
Dec 03, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on David J. Hale, of Kentucky, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 302
Dec 03, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation P. David Lopez, of Arizona, to be General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 300
Dec 02, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motoin to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of P. David Lopez, of AZ, to be General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 299
Dec 02, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Charlotte A. Burrows, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 298
Dec 02, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Robert S. Adler, of the District of Columbia, to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 297
Dec 02, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Nani A. Coloretti, of California, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 296
Dec 02, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Robert S. Adler, of the District of Columbia, to be Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 295
Dec 02, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Nani A. Coloretti, of California, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 294
Dec 02, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Colleen Bradley Bell, of California, to be Ambassador of the USA to Hungary )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 293
Dec 02, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Noah Bryson Mamet, of California, to be Ambassador of the USA to the Argentine Republic )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 292
Dec 01, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Colleen Bradley Bell, of California, to be Ambassador to Hungary )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 291
Dec 01, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Noah Bryson Mamet, of California, to be Ambassador to the Argentine Republic )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 290
Nov 20, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Victor Allen Bolden, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 287
Nov 19, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Victor Allen Bolden, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 286
Nov 19, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Wendy Beetlestone, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 285
Nov 19, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Madeline Cox Arleo, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 284
Nov 19, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Brenda K. Sannes, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 283
Nov 19, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Pamela Pepper, of Wisconsin, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 282
Nov 19, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2685 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 280
Nov 18, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (S.2280 )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Won
Roll Call 279
Nov 17, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Eleanor Louise Ross, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 278
Nov 17, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Mark Howard Cohen, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 277
Nov 17, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Leslie Joyce Abrams, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 273
Nov 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Randolph D. Moss, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 272
Nov 12, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Leigh Martin May, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for Northern District of Georgia )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 271
Nov 12, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Randolph D. Moss, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for D.C. )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 268
Sep 18, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Amdt. No. 3852 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 266
Sep 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Stephen G. Burns, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 265
Sep 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Jeffery Martin Baran, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 264
Sep 15, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Stephen G. Burns, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 263
Sep 15, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jeffery Baran, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 262
Sep 15, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2199 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 261
Sep 11, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.J.Res. 19 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 260
Sep 10, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2199 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 258
Sep 08, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Henry J. Aaron, of D.C., to be a Member of the Social Security Advisory Board )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 256
Aug 01, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jill A. Pryor, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 252
Jul 31, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: S.2648 )
On the Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 251
Jul 31, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Reid Amdt. No. 3751 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 250
Jul 30, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2648 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 249
Jul 30, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2569 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 247
Jul 29, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Toomey Amdt. No. 3585 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 246
Jul 29, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 3584 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 245
Jul 29, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Carper Amdt. No. 3583 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 244
Jul 29, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Wyden Amdt. No. 3582 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 242
Jul 28, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Pamela Harris, of Maryland, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 241
Jul 24, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Pamela Harris, of Maryland, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 236
Jul 22, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on John W. deGravelles, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 235
Jul 22, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Robin L. Rosenberg, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 234
Jul 22, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Andre Birotte, Jr., of California, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 232
Jul 17, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Julie E. Carnes, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 229
Jul 17, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline re: Coburn Amdt. No. 3549 )
On the Motion

N N Won
Roll Call 228
Jul 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S.2578 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 227
Jul 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Ronnie L. White, of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 226
Jul 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Ronnie L. White, of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 224
Jul 15, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Norman C. Bay, of New Mexico, to be a Member of FERC )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 222
Jul 15, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Norman C. Bay, of New Mexico, to be a Member of FERC )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 219
Jul 09, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Julian Castro, of Texas, to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 215
Jun 26, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Cheryl Ann Krause, of New Jersey, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 213
Jun 25, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Lee Amdt. No. 3380 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 212
Jun 25, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Flake Amdt. No. 3379 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 211
Jun 24, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Leon Rodriguez, of Maryland, to be Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 210
Jun 24, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Leon Rodriguez, of Maryland, to be Director of the U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 205
Jun 23, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Geoffrey Crawford, of Vermont, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 204
Jun 23, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Beth Bloom, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 203
Jun 23, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Carlos Mendoza, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 202
Jun 23, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Paul G. Byron, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 201
Jun 19, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Gustavo Velasquez Aguilar, to be Assistant Secretary of HUD )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 199
Jun 17, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Peter Joseph Kadzik, of New York, to be an Assistant Attorney General )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 198
Jun 17, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Peter Kadzik, of New York, to be Assistant Attorney General )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 196
Jun 17, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Staci Michelle Yandle, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 194
Jun 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Darrin P. Gayles, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 193
Jun 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Staci Michelle Yandle, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 192
Jun 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Salvador Mendoza, Jr., of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 191
Jun 12, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Stanley Fischer, of New York, to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 190
Jun 12, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Jerome H. Powell, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 189
Jun 12, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Lael Brainard, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 188
Jun 12, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Crystal Nix-Hines, of California, to be Ambassador United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 185
Jun 11, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S.2432 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 184
Jun 10, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Stanley Fischer, of New York, to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 183
Jun 10, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jerome H. Powell, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 182
Jun 10, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Lael Brainard, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 181
Jun 10, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation of Richard Franklin Boulware II, of Nevada, to be United States District Judge for the District of Nevada )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 178
Jun 09, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Richard Franklin Boulware II, of Nevada, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 177
Jun 09, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Leo T. Sorokin, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 176
Jun 09, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of M. Hannah Lauck, of Virginia, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 174
Jun 04, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Sylvia Matthews Burwell to be Secretary of Health and Human Services )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 170
Jun 03, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Tanya S. Chutkan, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 169
Jun 03, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Bruce Hendricks, of South Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 168
Jun 03, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Mark G. Mastroianni, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 167
Jun 03, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Sharon Y. Bowen, of New York, to be Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 166
Jun 03, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Sharon Y. Bowen, of New York, to be Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 165
Jun 03, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Keith M. Harper, of Maryland, for the Rank of Ambassador as U.S. Representative to the U.N. Human Rights Council )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 164
Jun 02, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Keith M. Harper, of Maryland, for the rank of Ambassador as U.S. Representative to UN Human Rights Counsel )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 162
May 22, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation David Jeremiah Barron, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the First Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 161
May 21, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: David Jeremiah Barron, of Massachusetts, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 160
May 21, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Stanley Fischer, of New York, to be a Member of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 159
May 20, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Stanley Fischer, of New York, to be a Member of the Board of Governors )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 157
May 15, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 3060 to H.R. 3474 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 156
May 15, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture of Gregg Jeffrey Costa, of Texas, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 152
May 15, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on James Alan Soto, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 151
May 15, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Douglas L. Rayes, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 150
May 15, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke cloture on Rosemary Marquez, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 146
May 14, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Diane J. Humetewa, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 145
May 14, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of John Joseph Tuchi, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 144
May 14, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Steven Paul Logan, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 142
May 12, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2262 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 140
May 08, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Robin S. Rosenbaum, of Florida, to be U.S. Circuit Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 138
May 08, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation James D. Peterson, of Wisconsin, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 136
May 08, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Nancy J. Rosenstengel, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 135
May 08, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of James D. Peterson, of Wisconsin, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 134
May 08, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Indira Talwani, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 133
May 07, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


N N Won
Roll Call 132
May 07, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


N N Won
Roll Call 129
May 01, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 127
May 01, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 126
May 01, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 125
May 01, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 124
May 01, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 117
Apr 30, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Lost
Roll Call 116
Apr 29, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 115
Apr 29, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 114
Apr 29, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 113
Apr 29, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 112
Apr 29, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 111
Apr 29, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 110
Apr 28, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 109
Apr 28, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 108
Apr 28, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 107
Apr 10, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Absent Y Won
Roll Call 106
Apr 10, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Absent Y Won
Roll Call 103
Apr 09, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Lost
Roll Call 102
Apr 08, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 101
Apr 07, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 100
Apr 03, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 99
Apr 03, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 98
Apr 02, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Absent Y Won
Roll Call 97
Apr 02, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Close Vote Absent N Won
Roll Call 96
Apr 02, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 93
Mar 31, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 92
Mar 31, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 91
Mar 31, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 90
Mar 27, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 89
Mar 27, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 87
Mar 26, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


N N Lost
Roll Call 86
Mar 26, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 82
Mar 26, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 81
Mar 26, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 80
Mar 26, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 71
Mar 12, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 66
Mar 11, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 65
Mar 11, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 64
Mar 11, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 63
Mar 11, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 61
Mar 10, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 59
Mar 06, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Lost
Roll Call 58
Mar 06, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 57
Mar 05, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 56
Mar 05, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 55
Mar 05, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 53
Mar 05, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 51
Mar 05, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 49
Mar 05, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 48
Mar 05, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Lost
Roll Call 46
Feb 27, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Lost
Roll Call 45
Feb 27, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


N N Won
Roll Call 42
Feb 25, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 40
Feb 25, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 38
Feb 25, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 36
Feb 24, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 34
Feb 12, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 33
Feb 12, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 24
Feb 06, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Lost
Roll Call 23
Feb 06, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Lost
Roll Call 21
Feb 04, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


N Y Won
Roll Call 19
Jan 30, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 18
Jan 30, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


N N Won
Roll Call 16
Jan 30, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


N N Won
Roll Call 15
Jan 29, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 13
Jan 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 12
Jan 16, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 10
Jan 14, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Lost
Roll Call 9
Jan 14, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Lost
Roll Call 8
Jan 14, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


N N Won
Roll Call 7
Jan 13, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 6
Jan 09, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 5
Jan 09, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 4
Jan 09, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 3
Jan 09, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


N N Won
Roll Call 2
Jan 07, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Y Y Won
Roll Call 1
Jan 06, 2014

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.


Absent Y Won
Roll Call 291
Dec 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Janet L. Yellen to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 290
Dec 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Brian J. Davis, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 289
Dec 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Brian J. Davis, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 288
Dec 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation John A. Koskinen, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 287
Dec 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of John A. Koskinen, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 286
Dec 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 285
Dec 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 283
Dec 19, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to Senate Amendment with Amendment to H.R. 3304 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 282
Dec 18, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3304 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 281
Dec 18, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.J.Res. 59 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 280
Dec 17, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.J.Res. 59 )
On the Motion to Table

N N Won
Roll Call 279
Dec 17, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to Senate Amendment to H.J.Res. 59 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 278
Dec 16, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 277
Dec 16, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Executive Session )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 275
Dec 16, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Jeh Charles Johnson, of New Jersey, to be Secretary of Homeland Security )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 273
Dec 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Anne W. Patterson, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 271
Dec 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Heather Higginbottom to be Deputy Secretary of State )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 269
Dec 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Deborah Lee James, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Air Force )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 267
Dec 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Susan P. Watters, of Montana, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 265
Dec 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Brian Morris, of Montana, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 264
Dec 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Patricia M. Wald, of D.C. to be a Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 263
Dec 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Patricia M. Wald, to be a Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 261
Dec 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Landya B. McCafferty, of N.H., to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 260
Dec 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation: Elizabeth A. Wolford, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 259
Dec 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Elizabeth A. Wolford, of N.Y., to be U.S. District Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 258
Dec 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Chai Rachel Feldblum, of D.C., to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 257
Dec 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Chai Rachel Feldblum to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 256
Dec 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Cornelia T.L. Pillard, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 255
Dec 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Cornelia Pillard to be U.S. Circuit Judge )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 254
Dec 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Reconsider (Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Cornelia Pillard to be U.S. Circuit Judge )
On the Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 253
Dec 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Cornelia Pillard )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 252
Dec 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Melvin L. Watt, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 251
Dec 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Melvin L. Watt, of North Carolina, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 250
Dec 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? (McConnell Appeal) )
On the Decision of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 249
Dec 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Reconsider (Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Melvin L. Watt to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency )
On the Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 248
Dec 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Melvin Watt )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 247
Dec 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Patricia Ann Millett, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 246
Nov 21, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 28 )
On the Concurrent Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 245
Nov 21, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 1197 )
On the Cloture Motion

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 244
Nov 21, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Patricia Ann Millett )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 243
Nov 21, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? (McConnell Appeal) )
On the Decision of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 242
Nov 21, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? (Reid Appeal) )
On the Decision of the Chair

N N Won
Roll Call 241
Nov 21, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Reconsider (Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Patricia Ann Millett )
On the Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 240
Nov 21, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Adjourn (McConnell Motion to Adjourn until 5 p.m. )
On the Motion to Adjourn

N N Won
Roll Call 239
Nov 21, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to the Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Patricia A. Millett )
On the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 238
Nov 19, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Levin Amdt. No. 2175 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 237
Nov 19, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Ayotte Amdt. No. 2255 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 235
Nov 18, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Robert L. Wilkins, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C. Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 233
Nov 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Cornelia T.L. Pillard, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C. Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 232
Nov 07, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (S. 815 As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 231
Nov 07, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 815, As Amended )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 230
Nov 07, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Toomey Amdt. No. 2013 )
On the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 229
Nov 04, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 815 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 227
Oct 31, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Patricia Ann Millett, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 226
Oct 31, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Melvin L. Watt, of North Carolina, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 225
Oct 30, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Katherine Archuleta, of Colorado, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 222
Oct 29, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Richard F. Griffin, Jr. to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 221
Oct 29, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Richard F. Griffin, Jr., of the District of Columbia, to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 220
Oct 29, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to S.J.Res. 26 )
On the Motion to Proceed

N N Won
Roll Call 216
Oct 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1569 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 212
Oct 01, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the House Message to Accompany H.J. Res. 59 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 211
Oct 01, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.J. Res. 59 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 210
Sep 30, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table House Amdts. to Senate Amdt. to H.J.Res. 59 )
On the Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 209
Sep 27, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 59 As Amended )
On the Joint Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 208
Sep 27, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Reid Amdt. No. 1974 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 207
Sep 27, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budget Points of Order re: H.J. Res. 59 and Amdt. No. 1974 )
On the Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 202
Sep 17, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Elaine D. Kaplan, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 201
Sep 09, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Valerie E. Caproni, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 199
Aug 01, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 1243 )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 197
Jul 31, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Byron Todd Jones, of Minnesota, to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 196
Jul 31, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Byron Todd Jones, of Minnesota, to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 194
Jul 30, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Mark Gaston Pearce, of New York, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 193
Jul 30, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Mark Gaston Pearce, of New York, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 192
Jul 30, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Nancy Jean Schiffer, of Maryland, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 191
Jul 30, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Nancy Jean Schiffer, of Maryland, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 190
Jul 30, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Kent Yoshiho Hirozawa, of New York, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 189
Jul 30, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Kent Yoshiho Hirozawa, of New York, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 187
Jul 25, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Motion to Table the Motion to Recommit (Motion to Table the Toomey Motion to Recommit to the Committee on Appropriations )
On the Motion to Table the Motion to Recommit

Y Y Won
Roll Call 185
Jul 24, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1911 As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 184
Jul 24, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 1774 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 183
Jul 24, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Amendment (Reed Amdt. No. 1778 )
On the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 181
Jul 23, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1243 )
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed

Y Y Won
Roll Call 180
Jul 18, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Regina McCarthy, of Massachusetts, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 179
Jul 18, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Confirmation of Regina McCarthy, of Massachusetts, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 178
Jul 18, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Thomas Edward Perez, of Maryland, to be Secretary of Labor )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 177
Jul 17, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Thomas Edward Perez, of Maryland, to be Secretary of Labor )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 174
Jul 16, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Nomination (Confirmation Richard Cordray, of Ohio, to be Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection )
On the Nomination

Y Y Won
Roll Call 173
Jul 16, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Richard Cordray, of Ohio, to be Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection )
On the Cloture Motion

Y Y Won
Roll Call 353
Jul 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2642 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 352
Jul 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2642 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 351
Jul 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 2642 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 350
Jul 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 2642 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 349
Jul 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 295 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2642) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 348
Jul 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 347
Jul 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H RES 295 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2642) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 346
Jul 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 345
Jul 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2609 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 344
Jul 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2609 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 343
Jul 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 66 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 342
Jul 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 64 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 341
Jul 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 60 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 340
Jul 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 59 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 338
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 45 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 337
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 336
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 335
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 334
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 332
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 331
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 330
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 329
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 328
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 327
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 326
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 325
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 324
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 323
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 322
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 321
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 320
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 319
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 318
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 317
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 316
Jul 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 315
Jul 09, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 313
Jul 09, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 312
Jul 09, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 311
Jul 09, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 309
Jul 09, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 288 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2609) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 308
Jul 09, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 288 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2609) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 306
Jul 08, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1564 To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to prohibit the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board from requiring public companies to use specific auditors or require the use of different auditors on a rotating basis
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 304
Jun 28, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2231 Offshore Energy and Jobs Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 303
Jun 28, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2231 Offshore Energy and Jobs Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 302
Jun 28, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2231
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 301
Jun 28, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2231
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 300
Jun 28, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2231
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 299
Jun 28, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2231
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 298
Jun 27, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2231
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 297
Jun 27, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2231
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 296
Jun 27, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2231
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 295
Jun 27, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2231
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 293
Jun 27, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1613 To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide for the proper Federal management and oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 292
Jun 27, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1613 To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide for the proper Federal management and oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 291
Jun 27, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1613
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 290
Jun 26, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 274 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1613, Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act; providing for consideration of H.R. 2231, Offshore Energy and Jobs Act; and providing for consideration of H.R. 2410, making appropriations for Agriculture, FY 2014
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 289
Jun 26, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 274 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1613, Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act; providing for consideration of H.R. 2231, Offshore Energy and Jobs Act; and providing for consideration of H.R. 2410, making appropriations for Agriculture, FY 2014
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 286
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1947 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act
On Passage

Absent N Won
Roll Call 285
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1947 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 284
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 56 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 283
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 55 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 282
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 54 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 281
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent N Won
Roll Call 280
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 279
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 43 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 277
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 276
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 41 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 275
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 274
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 272
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 271
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 270
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 269
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 268
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 267
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 265
Jun 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 262
Jun 19, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 261
Jun 19, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 260
Jun 19, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 259
Jun 19, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 256
Jun 19, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1947
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 254
Jun 19, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 271 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1947) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal years 2018, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 253
Jun 19, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 271 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1947) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal years 2018, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 251
Jun 18, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1797 District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 249
Jun 18, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 266 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1947, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through FY 2018; and providing for consideration of H.R. 1797, to amend title 18, U.S. Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 248
Jun 18, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 266 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1947, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through FY 2018; and providing for consideration of H.R. 1797, to amend title 18, U.S. Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 244
Jun 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1960 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 243
Jun 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1960 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 240
Jun 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 239
Jun 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 238
Jun 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 237
Jun 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 236
Jun 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 235
Jun 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 234
Jun 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 233
Jun 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 232
Jun 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 231
Jun 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 230
Jun 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 229
Jun 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 228
Jun 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 227
Jun 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 225
Jun 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 224
Jun 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent N Won
Roll Call 223
Jun 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 222
Jun 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1960
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 221
Jun 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 260 Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 220
Jun 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 260 Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 218
Jun 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1256 Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 217
Jun 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1256 Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 214
Jun 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 256 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2014; and providing for consideration of H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 211
Jun 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2217 Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 210
Jun 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2217 Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 209
Jun 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 208
Jun 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 207
Jun 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 205
Jun 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 204
Jun 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 203
Jun 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 201
Jun 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 200
Jun 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 198
Jun 05, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 197
Jun 05, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 196
Jun 05, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 195
Jun 05, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 194
Jun 05, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 192
Jun 04, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2216 Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 191
Jun 04, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2216
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 190
Jun 04, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2216
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 189
Jun 04, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2216
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 188
Jun 04, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2216
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 187
Jun 04, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 243 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2216, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014; and providing for consideration of H.R. 2217, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 186
Jun 04, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 243 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2216, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014; and providing for consideration of H.R. 2217, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 183
May 23, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1911 Smarter Solutions for Students Act
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 182
May 23, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1911 Smarter Solutions for Students Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 181
May 23, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 232 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1911) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish interest rates for new loans made on or after July 1, 2013, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 180
May 23, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 232 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1911) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish interest rates for new loans made on or after July 1, 2013, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 179
May 22, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3 To approve the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Keystone XL pipeline, and for other purposes
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 178
May 22, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3 To approve the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Keystone XL pipeline, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 177
May 22, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 176
May 22, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 175
May 22, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 174
May 22, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 173
May 22, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 172
May 22, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 171
May 22, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 170
May 22, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 169
May 22, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 168
May 22, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 228 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3) to approve the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Keystone XL pipeline, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 167
May 22, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 228 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3) to approve the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Keystone XL pipeline, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 160
May 17, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1062 To improve the consideration by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 159
May 17, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1062 To improve the consideration by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 158
May 17, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1062
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 157
May 17, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1062
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 156
May 17, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 216 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 155
May 17, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 216 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 154
May 16, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 45 To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 153
May 16, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 45 To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 151
May 16, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 215 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 45) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 150
May 16, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 215 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 45) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 142
May 09, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 807 To require that the Government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 141
May 09, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 807 To require that the Government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 140
May 09, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 807
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 139
May 08, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 202 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 807) to require that the Government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 138
May 08, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 202 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 807) to require that the Government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 137
May 08, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1406 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector
On Passage

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 136
May 08, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1406 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 133
May 07, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 198 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 132
May 07, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 198 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 127
Apr 26, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 527 To amend the Helium Act to complete the privatization of the Federal helium reserve in a competitive market fashion that ensures stability in the helium markets while protecting the interests of American taxpayers, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 124
Apr 25, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 178 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 527) to amend the Helium Act to complete the privatization of the Federal helium reserve in a competitive market fashion that ensures stability in the helium markets while protecting the interests of American taxpayers, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 122
Apr 24, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 175 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1549, Helping Sick Americans Now Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 121
Apr 24, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 175 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1549, Helping Sick Americans Now Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 117
Apr 18, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 624 Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 116
Apr 18, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 624 Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 109
Apr 17, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 164 Providing for consideration of H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 105
Apr 15, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 249 To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for Federal employment
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Absent N Won
Roll Call 101
Apr 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1120 Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 100
Apr 12, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1120 Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 98
Apr 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 146 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1120) Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 97
Apr 11, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 146 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1120) Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 95
Apr 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 678 To authorize all Bureau of Reclamation conduit facilities for hydropower development under Federal Reclamation law, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 94
Apr 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 678
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 93
Apr 10, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 140 Providing for consideration of H.R. 678, Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 91
Apr 09, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 1033 To authorize the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 under the American Battlefield Protection Program
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 89
Mar 21, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments: H R 933 Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments

N N Lost
Roll Call 88
Mar 21, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Concurrent Resolution: H CON RES 25 Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2014 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023
On Agreeing to the Concurrent Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 87
Mar 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H CON RES 25
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 85
Mar 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 25
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 84
Mar 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 25
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 83
Mar 20, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 25
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 82
Mar 19, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 115 Providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 80
Mar 19, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 122 Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 25) Congressional Budget, 2014; providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House Representatives in the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress; and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 79
Mar 19, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 122 Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 25) Congressional Budget, 2014; providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House Representatives in the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress; and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 75
Mar 15, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 803 Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act
On Passage

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 74
Mar 15, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 803 Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 73
Mar 15, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 803
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 71
Mar 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 113 Providing for consideration of H.R. 803, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 70
Mar 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 113 Providing for consideration of H.R. 803, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 68
Mar 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 890 To prohibit waivers relating to compliance with the work requirements for the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 67
Mar 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 890 To prohibit waivers relating to compliance with the work requirements for the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 65
Mar 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 107 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 890) to prohibit waivers relating to compliance with the work requirements for the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 64
Mar 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 107 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 890) to prohibit waivers relating to compliance with the work requirements for the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 62
Mar 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 933 Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 61
Mar 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 933 Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 60
Mar 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 99 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 933) making appropriations for the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 59
Mar 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 99 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 933) making appropriations for the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 55
Feb 28, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 47 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 54
Feb 28, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to S 47
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 51
Feb 27, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 83 Providing for consideration of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 44
Feb 15, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 273 To eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 43
Feb 15, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 15 Providing for the conditional adjournment of the House and Senate
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 42
Feb 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 66 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 273) to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 41
Feb 14, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 66 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 273) to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 39
Feb 13, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 592 To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to clarify that houses of worship are eligible for certain disaster relief and emergency assistance on terms equal to other eligible private nonprofit facilities, and for other purposes
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Lost
Roll Call 38
Feb 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 444 To require that, if the President?s fiscal year 2014 budget does not achieve balance in a fiscal year covered by such budget, the President shall submit a supplemental unified budget by April 1, 2013, which identifies a fiscal year in which balance is achieved, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 37
Feb 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 444 To require that, if the President?s fiscal year 2014 budget does not achieve balance in a fiscal year covered by such budget, the President shall submit a supplemental unified budget by April 1, 2013, which identifies a fiscal year in which balance is achieved, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 35
Feb 06, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 444
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 34
Feb 05, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 48 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 444) to require that, if the President?s fiscal year 2014 budget does not achieve balance in a fiscal year covered by such budget, the President shall submit a supplemental unified budget by April 1, 2013, which identifies a fiscal year in which balance is achieved
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 33
Feb 05, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 48 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 444) to require that, if the President?s fiscal year 2014 budget does not achieve balance in a fiscal year covered by such budget, the President shall submit a supplemental unified budget by April 1, 2013, which identifies a fiscal year in which balance is achieved
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 30
Jan 23, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 325 To ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 29
Jan 23, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 325 To ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 27
Jan 23, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 39 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 325) to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 26
Jan 23, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 39 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 325) to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 23
Jan 16, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 152 Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 22
Jan 16, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 152
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 21
Jan 16, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 152
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 20
Jan 15, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 152
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 19
Jan 15, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 152
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 18
Jan 15, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 152
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 17
Jan 15, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 152
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 16
Jan 15, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 152
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 14
Jan 15, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 152
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 11
Jan 15, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 23 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 152) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 6
Jan 03, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 5 Adopting rules for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 5
Jan 03, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Commit: H RES 5 Adopting rules for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress
On Motion to Commit

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 4
Jan 03, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 5 Adopting rules for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 3
Jan 03, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Motion to Refer: H RES 5 Adopting rules for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress
On Motion to Table the Motion to Refer

N N Lost
Roll Call 659
Jan 01, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments: H R 8 To extend certain tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and to provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing for comprehensive tax reform, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments

Y Y Won
Roll Call 655
Jan 01, 2013

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6726 To prevent the 2013 pay adjustment for Members of Congress and persons holding other offices or positions in the Federal Government from being made
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Lost
Roll Call 645
Dec 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4310 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 644
Dec 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6684 Spending Reduction Act of 2012
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 643
Dec 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6684 Spending Reduction Act of 2012
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 642
Dec 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 840 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 641
Dec 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 840 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 640
Dec 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 841 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 66, approving the renewal of impact restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003; and providing for consideration of H.R. 6684, Spending Reduction Act of 2012
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 639
Dec 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 841 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 66, approving the renewal of impact restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003; and providing for consideration of H.R. 6684, Spending Reduction Act of 2012
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 623
Dec 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6190 Asthma Inhalers Relief Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 622
Dec 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 827 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 621
Dec 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 827 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 613
Nov 30, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6429 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote innovation, investment, and research in the United States, to eliminate the diversity immigrant program, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 612
Nov 30, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6429 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote innovation, investment, and research in the United States, to eliminate the diversity immigrant program, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 611
Nov 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 821 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6429, STEM Jobs Act of 2012
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 606
Nov 15, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 808 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6156, to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to products of the Russian Federation and Moldova and to require reports on the compliance of the Russian Federation with its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 605
Nov 15, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 808 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6156, to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to products of the Russian Federation and Moldova and to require reports on the compliance of the Russian Federation with its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 603
Sep 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3409 To limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations before December 31, 2013, under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 602
Sep 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3409 To limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations before December 31, 2013, under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 601
Sep 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3409
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 600
Sep 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3409
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 599
Sep 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3409
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 598
Sep 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3409
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 597
Sep 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3409
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 596
Sep 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3409
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 595
Sep 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3409
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 594
Sep 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3409
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 593
Sep 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3409
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 592
Sep 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3409
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 591
Sep 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5987 To establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, Washington, and for other purposes
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y N Won
Roll Call 590
Sep 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6429 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote innovation, investment, and research in the United States, to eliminate the diversity immigrant program, and for other purposes
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 589
Sep 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 118 Providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of HHS relating to waiver and expenditure authority under the Social Security Act with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 588
Sep 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 788 Providing for consideration of (H.J.Res. 118) and (H.R. 3409)
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 587
Sep 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 788 Providing for consideration of (H.J.Res. 118) and (H.R. 3409)
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 586
Sep 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5912 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of public funds for political party conventions, and to provide for the return of previously distributed funds for deficit reduction
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 584
Sep 14, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6213 No More Solyndras Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 583
Sep 14, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6213 No More Solyndras Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 582
Sep 14, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 6213
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 581
Sep 14, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 6213
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 578
Sep 13, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 117 Making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 577
Sep 13, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6365 National Security and Job Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 576
Sep 13, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6365 National Security and Job Protection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 574
Sep 13, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 779 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6213, the No More Solyndras Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 573
Sep 13, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 778 Providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 117, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes; H.R. 6365, the National Security and Job Protection Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 572
Sep 13, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 778 Providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 117, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes; H.R. 6365, the National Security and Job Protection Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 569
Sep 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5949 To extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for five years
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 568
Sep 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5544 Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 567
Sep 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5544 Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 566
Sep 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5544
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 565
Sep 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5544
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 564
Sep 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5544
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 563
Sep 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5544
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 561
Sep 11, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 773 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5544, to authorize and expedite a land exchange involving National Forest System land in the State of Minnesota for the public school system, and for consideration of H.R. 5949, to extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for 5 years
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 560
Sep 11, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 773 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5544, to authorize and expedite a land exchange involving National Forest System land in the State of Minnesota for the public school system, and for consideration of H.R. 5949, to extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for 5 years
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 556
Aug 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: S CON RES 56 Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an adjournment of the House of Representatives
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Won
Roll Call 554
Aug 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6233 Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2012
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 553
Aug 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6233 Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2012
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 552
Aug 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6169 To provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing for comprehensive tax reform
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 551
Aug 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6169 To provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing for comprehensive tax reform
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 550
Aug 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 6169
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 549
Aug 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 752 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6233) to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance available for fiscal year 2012 with the costs of such assistance offset by changes to certain conservation programs, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 548
Aug 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 752 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6233) to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance available for fiscal year 2012 with the costs of such assistance offset by changes to certain conservation programs, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 545
Aug 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 8 To extend certain tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 544
Aug 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 8 To extend certain tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 543
Aug 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 8 To amend title 5, United States Code, to make clear that accounts in the Thrift Savings Fund are subject to certain Federal tax levies
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 542
Aug 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended: H RES 747 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6169) Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act of 2012; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8) Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 541
Aug 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 747
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 540
Aug 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 747 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6169) Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act of 2012; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8) Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 539
Jul 31, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3803 District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 538
Jul 31, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 828 Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2012
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 537
Jul 31, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 679 To reduce the number of executive positions subject to Senate confirmation
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Won
Roll Call 536
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4078 To provide that no agency may take any significant regulatory action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 6.0 percent
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 535
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4078 To provide that no agency may take any significant regulatory action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 6.0 percent
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 534
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 533
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 532
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 531
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 530
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 529
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 528
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 527
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 526
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 525
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 524
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 523
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 522
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 521
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 520
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 519
Jul 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 741 Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4078) to provide that no agency may take any significant regulatory action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 6.0 percent
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 518
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 517
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 516
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 515
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 514
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4078
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 513
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 459 To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States before the end of 2012, and for other purposes
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 512
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6168 President Obama?s Proposed 2010-2017 Offshore Drilling Lease Sale Plan Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 511
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6082 Congressional Replacement of President Obama?s Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 510
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6082 Congressional Replacement of President Obama?s Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 509
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 6082
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 508
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 6082
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 507
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 6082
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 506
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 6082
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 505
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 6082
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 504
Jul 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 6082
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 503
Jul 24, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 738 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4078), Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act of 2012, and providing for the bill (H.R. 6082), Congressional Replacement of President Obama?s Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 502
Jul 24, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 738 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4078), Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act of 2012, and providing for the bill (H.R. 6082), Congressional Replacement of President Obama?s Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 500
Jul 23, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2039 To allow a State or local government to construct levees on certain properties otherwise designated as open space lands
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 499
Jul 23, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 2362 Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act of 2011
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 498
Jul 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5856 Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 495
Jul 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 54 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 494
Jul 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 53 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 493
Jul 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 50 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 492
Jul 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 49 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 491
Jul 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 489
Jul 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 488
Jul 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 487
Jul 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 486
Jul 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 485
Jul 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 484
Jul 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 483
Jul 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 482
Jul 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 481
Jul 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 480
Jul 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 479
Jul 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 478
Jul 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 477
Jul 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 476
Jul 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 475
Jul 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 473
Jul 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 472
Jul 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 468
Jul 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4402 National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 467
Jul 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4402 National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 466
Jul 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4402
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 465
Jul 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4402
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 464
Jul 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4402
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 463
Jul 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4402
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 462
Jul 12, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4402
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 461
Jul 11, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 726 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4402, to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to United States economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 460
Jul 11, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6079 To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 2010
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 459
Jul 11, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6079 To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 2010
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 457
Jul 10, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 724 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6079) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 456
Jul 10, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 724 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6079) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 450
Jun 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5972 Making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 449
Jun 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5972 Making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 448
Jun 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 447
Jun 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 51 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 446
Jun 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 445
Jun 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 444
Jun 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 717 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5856, Defense Appropriations for FY 2013; consideration of H.R. 6020, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations for FY 2013; consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 443
Jun 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 718 Raising a question of the privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 442
Jun 28, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 706 Authorizing the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 440
Jun 28, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Refer the Resolution to Oversight and Government Reform: H RES 711 Recommending that the House of Representatives find Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
On Motion to Refer the Resolution to Oversight and Government Reform

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 437
Jun 28, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 708 Relating to the consideration of House Report 112-546 and an accompanying resolution, and providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 706) authorizing the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 436
Jun 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 435
Jun 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 433
Jun 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 432
Jun 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 431
Jun 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 430
Jun 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 429
Jun 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 428
Jun 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 427
Jun 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 426
Jun 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 425
Jun 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 424
Jun 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 423
Jun 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 422
Jun 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 421
Jun 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 420
Jun 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 419
Jun 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 418
Jun 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 417
Jun 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 416
Jun 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5972
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 415
Jun 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Black of Tennessee Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes
On Black of Tennessee Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 414
Jun 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Hoyer of Maryland Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes
On Hoyer of Maryland Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 413
Jun 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 697 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5973, Agriculture Appropriations 2013, and providing for consideration of H.R. 5972, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations 2013
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 412
Jun 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 697 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5973, Agriculture Appropriations 2013, and providing for consideration of H.R. 5972, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations 2013
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 411
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On McKinley of West Virginia Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes
On McKinley of West Virginia Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 410
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4480 Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 409
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4480 Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 408
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 407
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 406
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 405
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 404
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 403
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 402
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 401
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 400
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 399
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 398
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 397
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 396
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 395
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 394
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 393
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 392
Jun 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4480
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 390
Jun 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 691 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4480), the Strategic Energy Production Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 389
Jun 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 691 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4480), the Strategic Energy Production Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 388
Jun 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 2938 Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 387
Jun 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2578 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 386
Jun 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2578 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 385
Jun 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 384
Jun 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 383
Jun 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 382
Jun 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 688 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2578) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 381
Jun 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 688 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2578) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 377
Jun 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5882 Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 374
Jun 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5882
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 373
Jun 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5882
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 372
Jun 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5882
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 371
Jun 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5882
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 370
Jun 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5855 Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 369
Jun 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5855 Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 366
Jun 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 365
Jun 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 364
Jun 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 363
Jun 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 362
Jun 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 361
Jun 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 436 Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2012
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 360
Jun 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 436 Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2012
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 359
Jun 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 679 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 436) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5882) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 358
Jun 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 679 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 436) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5882) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 357
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 356
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 354
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 353
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 352
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 351
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 350
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 349
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 348
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 347
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 346
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 345
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5855
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 344
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Doggett Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes
On Doggett Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 343
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Flake Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes
On Flake Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 342
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5325 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 341
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5325 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 340
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 338
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 49 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 337
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 59 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 336
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 335
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 334
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 333
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 332
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 331
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 330
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Won
Roll Call 329
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 326
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 324
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 323
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 322
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 321
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 319
Jun 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 318
Jun 05, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 316
Jun 05, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 314
Jun 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 313
Jun 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 312
Jun 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 311
Jun 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 310
Jun 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 309
Jun 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 308
Jun 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 307
Jun 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 306
Jun 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5325
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 304
May 31, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5854 Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 303
May 31, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5854
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 302
May 31, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5854
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 300
May 31, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5743 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 299
May 31, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3541 Prenatal Non-discrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 298
May 31, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 667 Providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 5743) Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2013; (H.R. 5854) Military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriation; (H.R. 5855) Department of Homeland Security Appropriation; and (H.R. 5325) Energy and Water Development Appropriation
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 297
May 31, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 667 Providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 5743) Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2013; (H.R. 5854) Military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriation; (H.R. 5855) Department of Homeland Security Appropriation; and (H.R. 5325) Energy and Water Development Appropriation
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 293
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Rahall Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes
On Rahall Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 292
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Barrow Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes
On Barrow Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 291
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4310 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 290
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4310 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 288
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 287
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 286
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 285
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 284
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 283
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 282
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 281
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 280
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 279
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 278
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 277
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 275
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 273
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 272
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 271
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 270
May 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 269
May 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 268
May 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 267
May 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 266
May 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 264
May 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 260
May 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 661 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 259
May 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 661 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 258
May 16, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4970 To reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 257
May 16, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4970 To reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 255
May 16, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 656 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4970) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4310) National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 254
May 16, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 656 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4970) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4310) National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 253
May 16, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Question of Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 656 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4970) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4310) National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
On Question of Consideration of the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 249
May 10, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5326 Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 248
May 10, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5326 Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 247
May 10, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5652 To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 246
May 10, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5652 To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 245
May 10, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 648 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5652 to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 244
May 10, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 648 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5652 to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 243
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 61 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 242
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 60 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 241
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 55 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 240
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 54 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 239
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 238
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 51 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 237
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 236
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 235
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 63 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 234
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 46 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 233
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 45 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 232
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 231
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 230
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 41 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 229
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 228
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 227
May 09, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 223
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 221
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 220
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 219
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 218
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 217
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 216
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 215
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 214
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 213
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 212
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 211
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 210
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 209
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 208
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 207
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 206
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 205
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 204
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 203
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 202
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5326
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 200
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 643 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5326, making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 199
May 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 643 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5326, making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 195
Apr 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4628 To extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 194
Apr 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4628 To extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 192
Apr 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3523 To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 191
Apr 26, 2012
(H.R. 3523) On an amendment to ensure a cybersecurity bill could not be used as justification for the U.S. government to restrict internet access or for an employer to ask job applicants to disclose their passwords for Facebook and other social media sites

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have ensured a cybersecurity bill could not be used as justification for the U.S. government to restrict internet access or for an employer to ask job applicants to disclose their passwords for Facebook and other social media sites.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) offered the amendment during consideration of a controversial bill allowing private companies and the federal government to share cybersecurity-related intelligence information. Rep. Perlmutter said his amendment would make clear that the bill was not intended to open the door to China-style ?command and control? regulation of the internet by the U.S. government.

Rep. Perlmutter also cited recent reports that employers had asked job applicants for social media passwords. The passwords were used to access the job applicants? accounts as part of a vetting process for potential hires. Rep. Perlmutter called this practice ?alarming? and a violation of privacy, and said his amendment would make clear that the cybersecurity bill was not an endorsement of this practice, either.

?There are plenty of vehicles by which to check out somebody's employment references, but we're not going to allow lie detectors, and we should not allow that the Facebook passwords be given up as a condition of employment,? Rep. Perlmutter said.

Opponents of the amendment argued that it was a ?red herring? meant to stall a bill that he said would provide important protections for U.S. businesses.

?There are people out there today who are literally robbing the future of America for our jobs, our prosperity, and our economic prowess in the world, and they're doing it by design,? Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) said. ?We can talk about [an amendment] that does absolutely nothing to protect someone's private password at home, or we can get about the business of trying to give the private sector just a little bit of information to protect people's private information in the comfort of their homes, so that we can protect this nation from a catastrophic attack.?

Rep. Perlmutter offered his amendment as a ?motion to recommit with instructions.? A motion to recommit is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If passed, Republican leaders would have been forced to add the amendment before allowing a final vote to pass the bill.

Rep. Perlmutter?s motion was defeated by a vote of 183-233. Voting ?yea? were 182 Democrats and 1 Republican. Voting ?nay? were 233 Republicans. As a result, the House proceeded to a vote on passage of legislation allowing private companies and the federal government to share cybersecurity-related intelligence information.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Government Surveillance of Citizens
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Cyber Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 184
Apr 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3523
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 183
Apr 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 631 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3523) Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act; providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4628) to extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 182
Apr 26, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 631 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3523) Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act; providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4628) to extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 180
Apr 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3336 Small Business Credit Availability Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 179
Apr 25, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 177
Apr 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 9 Small Business Tax Cut Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 176
Apr 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 9 Small Business Tax Cut Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 175
Apr 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 9
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 173
Apr 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended: H RES 620 Providing for consideration of H.R. 9, Small Business Tax Cut Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 172
Apr 19, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 620 Providing for consideration of H.R. 9, Small Business Tax Cut Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 170
Apr 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 169
Apr 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4348 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 168
Apr 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4348
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 166
Apr 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 619 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4348) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 165
Apr 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 619 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4348) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 164
Apr 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4089 Sportsmen?s Heritage Act of 2012
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 163
Apr 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4089 Sportsmen?s Heritage Act of 2012
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 162
Apr 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4089
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 161
Apr 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4089
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 160
Apr 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4089
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 159
Apr 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4089
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 158
Apr 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4089
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 156
Apr 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 614 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4089) to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 155
Apr 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 614 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4089) to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 154
Apr 17, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Question of Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 614 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4089) to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other purposes
On Question of Consideration of the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 151
Mar 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 112 Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 150
Mar 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H CON RES 112
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 149
Mar 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H CON RES 112
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 148
Mar 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H CON RES 112
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 147
Mar 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4281 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 146
Mar 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 600 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4281) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 144
Mar 28, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 112
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 140
Mar 28, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 597 Providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 112, establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 139
Mar 28, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 597 Providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 112, establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 138
Mar 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3309 To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for greater transparency and efficiency in the procedures followed by the Federal Communications Commission
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 137
Mar 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3309 To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for greater transparency and efficiency in the procedures followed by the Federal Communications Commission
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 136
Mar 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3309
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 135
Mar 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3309
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 134
Mar 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3309
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 131
Mar 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 595 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3309, Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 130
Mar 27, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 595 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3309, Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 126
Mar 22, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5 To improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 125
Mar 22, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5 To improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 124
Mar 22, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 123
Mar 22, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 122
Mar 22, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 119
Mar 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 591 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 118
Mar 21, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 591 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 117
Mar 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2087 To remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 116
Mar 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2087 To remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 115
Mar 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2087
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 113
Mar 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 587 Providing for consideration of H. R. 2087, to remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 112
Mar 20, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 587 Providing for consideration of H. R. 2087, to remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia
On Consideration of the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 109
Mar 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3606 To increase American job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 108
Mar 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 3606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 107
Mar 08, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 3606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 106
Mar 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 105
Mar 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 104
Mar 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 103
Mar 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 102
Mar 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 572 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3606, to increase American job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 101
Mar 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 572 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3606, to increase American job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 100
Mar 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2842 Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 99
Mar 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2842 Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 98
Mar 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2842
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 97
Mar 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 570 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2842, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 93
Mar 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 1134 St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Lost
Roll Call 91
Feb 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1837 Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 90
Feb 29, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1837 Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 89
Feb 29, 2012
(H.R. 1837) On an amendment to require water resources in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to be managed in a way that complies with state and federal law and relies on the best available science

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have required water resources in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to be managed in a way that complies with state and federal law and relies on the best available science.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta supports sensitive bird and fish populations, but scarce water resources have jeopardized the health of the ecosystem. The bill would divert more water from the Delta south to water-thirsty farms and cities in the fertile San Joaquin Valley. It would also override state and federal environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act.

Democrats argued that Republicans were trying to turn back the clock nearly 20 years in the management of natural resources. If Congress removed environmental protections for the Delta, it should at least ensure that the water is managed using the best available science, they argued.

?Instead of using cutting-edge science, the Republican bill would take us back to 1994. So let me ask you: Are you willing to give up your 2012 iPhone for a 1994 brick of a cellular phone? How about giving up your Prius for a Yugo? Or using a phonebook instead of Facebook?? Rep. Markey said. ?The answer to those questions is easy. And so is this one: Would you trade the science of California water in 2012 for 1994 science??

Republicans argued that Democrats were actually defending ?ideology masquerading as science.? They argued that water restrictions implemented by environmentalists had resulted in drought-like conditions and job losses in California?s agricultural industry.

?It is time that the ideological zealotry that threw thousands of families into unemployment be replaced with practical and fact-based solutions that keep our promises. It's time that we placed a higher value on human lives than on the bureaucratic dictates of the environmental left,? Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said.

Rep. Markey?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 180-244. Voting ?yea? were 179 Democrats and 1 Republican. Voting ?nay? were 236 Republicans and 8 Democrats. As a result, the House defeated the effort to ensure management of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is conducted using the best available science.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 88
Feb 29, 2012
(H.R. 1837) On an amendment to prevent a Republican bill from diverting water supplies intended to protect the environment of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have prevented a Republican bill from diverting water supplies intended to protect the environment of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta supports sensitive bird and fish populations, but scarce water resources have jeopardized the health of the ecosystem. The bill would divert more water from the Delta south to water-thirsty farms and cities in the fertile San Joaquin Valley. It would also override state and federal environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act.

Rep. Garamendi?s amendment would have deleted a provision of the Republican bill that allows 800,000 acre-feet of water normally reserved for environmental protection to be diverted from the Delta to the San Joaquin Valley. Rep. Garamendi argued that this provision made the legislation ?the worst environmental bill in many, many decades.? Diverting the water would harm the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers all the way to the San Francisco Bay, he said.

?Whatever you may say about the species in the Delta, the salmon, the striped bass, the smelt or any other species, this theft of 800,000 acre-feet of water will have a profound and negative effect,? Rep. Garamendi said. ?It's water that is there to be used certain times of the year to carry out the necessary protection of species, water that would flow down the river when the salmon want to migrate up the river, water that would be there for the smelt when they are breeding or when they are moving into their breeding habitat. It is one of the biggest water grabs, at least in the last half century, and it will have profound negative effects.?

Republicans argued that the amount of water reserved for environmental purposes in the Delta is too large ? and that officials in the Clinton Administration had unfairly rigged the system in the 1990s. They argued that the 800,000 acre-feet of water was set aside for the environment temporarily, and that farmers should now be able to access it to support their crops.
 
?This amendment, more than any other, focuses on the central issues surrounding the bill. What comes first, people or fish?? Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said.

Rep. Garamendi?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 178-247. Voting ?yea? were 178 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 239 Republicans and 8 Democrats. As a result, the House moved forward with legislation that would allow water supplies in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to be diverted to farms in the San Joaquin Valley at the expense of efforts to help fish populations and restore the ecosystem of the Delta.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 87
Feb 29, 2012
(H.R. 1837) On an amendment to require farmers to pay interest on the debt used to construct irrigation projects that benefit them

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have required farmers to pay interest on the debt used to construct irrigation projects that benefit them.

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests. Delivering irrigated water to these farms means constructing water delivery systems. This is generally done using taxpayer dollars that are repaid over time by recipients of the water. However, farms in the San Joaquin Valley are exempt from paying interest on this debt. Rep. Napolitano?s amendment would have ended that exemption.

Rep. Napolitano noted that the Republican bill would divert scarce water resources from the environmentally sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta south to farms and cities. It would also override state and federal laws meant to protect the environment. This would jeopardize the health of the ecosystem and the water quality for people living in the Delta, she argued, and so the farms that benefit should not be allowed to skirt the full cost of the projects.

?If we are removing the role of the federal government in protecting the environment and public good, as we plan to do, we should also remove the federal subsidy associated with renewed or new water contracts,? Rep. Napolitano said. ?My constituency and anybody else's must be treated fairly and must be required to pay equally any additional interest on any future water contract and project.?

Republicans argued that Rep. Napolitano?s amendment unfairly targeted farmers. They said her amendment would force farmers and communities in the San Joaquin Valley to pay a ?punitive surtax? that would result in higher water prices.

?I believe that beneficiaries should pay the cost of the water projects, but they should pay only the cost of those projects and no more. These are not cash cows for the federal government to milk until they're dry,? Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said.

Rep. Napolitano?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 174-250. Voting ?yea? were 173 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 1 Republican. Voting ?nay? were 237 Republicans and 13 Democrats. As a result, the House defeated the effort to require farmers to pay interest on the debt used to finance public irrigation projects that benefit them.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 86
Feb 29, 2012
(H.R. 1837) On an amendment to scrap an attempt to extend and lengthen contracts to ship water from the environmentally sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to farms and communities in the San Joaquin Valley of California

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have scrapped an attempt to extend and lengthen contracts to ship water from the environmentally sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to farms and communities in the San Joaquin Valley of California.

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests. Under the bill, farmers with contracts to receive water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta could unilaterally request a renewal of those contracts. If the request is made, the federal government would renew the contract for 40 years ? longer than the 25-year limit currently in effect.

Rep. Garamendi argued that this provision of the bill overrides California?s ability to make decisions about how its water resources should be allocated. He argued that other states should also be concerned about the precedent this would set.

?What's happening here in this bill is the removal of the power of the state to allocate its water, to look at the water resources and to make some sense out of what is happening with water,? Rep. Garamendi said. ?Apparently, we're not going to care about that anymore, and we're simply going to bring to the federal government the power to appropriate water in California. That's precisely what happens here.?

Republicans argued that 40-year water contracts are necessary because their long-term nature helps farmers gain access to credit. They noted that 40-year contracts are common, and that in fact the contracts for Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water had been shortened to 25 years only in 1992.

?Why did they move in 1992 to 25 years? Conveniently that made it very hard for farmers to get loans on their land, especially when they were not sure if they were going to have a water supply. That's what this bill tries to fix,? Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said. ?That's why we should vote ?no? on this amendment because I believe our Founding Fathers and previous members of Congress who came before us knew at the time that a 40-year agreement would be enough for farmers and people trying to borrow money to go and borrow that money so they could put their families to work and provide for their families.?

Rep. Garamendi?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 181-243. Voting ?yea? were 179 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 236 Republicans and 7 Democrats. As a result, the House moved forward with legislation that would extend and lengthen contracts to ship water from the environmentally sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to farms and communities in the San Joaquin Valley of California.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 85
Feb 29, 2012
(H.R. 1837) On an amendment to put off a change in the management plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta until federal agencies can show the new plan will not harm the quality of the water supply for Delta farmers

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have put off a change in the management plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta until federal agencies can show the new plan will not harm the quality of the water supply for Delta farmers.

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta supports sensitive bird and fish populations, but scarce water resources have jeopardized the health of the ecosystem. The bill would divert more water from the Delta south to water-thirsty farms and cities in the fertile San Joaquin Valley. It would also override state and federal environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act.

Rep. McNerney, who represents a district that includes much of the San Joaquin Delta, argued that this change would benefit farmers in the San Joaquin Valley at the expense of farmers in the Delta. His amendment would have barred the new water shipments from taking place until the U.S. Secretary of Interior could conclude that farmers in the Delta would not be hurt.

?Simply put, this bill will steal water from northern California and devastate water quality for our delta farmers. Farmers need fresh water. They don't need salt water for their harvest. That is why I'm offering a simple amendment to make sure that the most harmful provisions of this bill do not come into effect until the Secretary of the Interior certifies that they will not harm the water quality or water availability for Delta farmers,? Rep. McNerney said.

Republicans argued that the amendment, if enacted into law, would delay help for other communities that need water. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) argued that the Republican bill would do more to protect Delta communities because it would prevent state and federal governments from taking action that would impact private property rights. Most of the water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers would still flow through the Delta and on to the ocean, he said.

Rep. McNerney?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 177-243. Voting ?yea? were 176 Democrats and 1 Republican. Voting ?nay? were 234 Republicans and 9 Democrats. As a result, the House killed the effort to ensure water quality for farmers in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta was not harmed by a change in the management of the area?s water resources.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 84
Feb 29, 2012
(H.R. 1837) On an amendment to put off a change in the management plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta until federal agencies can show the new plan will not harm the safety of the water supply for area residents

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have put off a change in the management plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta until federal agencies can show the new plan will not harm the safety of the water supply for area residents.

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta supports sensitive bird and fish populations, but scarce water resources have jeopardized the health of the ecosystem. The bill would divert more water from the Delta south to water-thirsty farms and cities in the fertile San Joaquin Valley. It would also override state and federal environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act.

Rep. McNerney, who represents a district that includes much of the San Joaquin Delta, said he was concerned that diverting more water away from the Delta would harm water quality for those who live in the Delta region. If the result was a saltier water supply, this would require communities in the Delta region to pay more to treat their water. Sending water to agribusinesses is not fair if it results in greater costs and threats to public health elsewhere, he said.

?Many communities in the Delta region are struggling with budget and public health challenges as it is,? Rep. McNerney said. ?The last thing we need is for the Congress to pass a bill that threatens our well-being and forces us to spend millions more to just treat our water. It's bad enough to steal somebody's water. It's even worse to steal their water and then charge them millions of dollars for the privilege.?

Republicans argued that their bill, not Rep. McNerney?s amendment, would offer ?ultimate protections for Delta communities.? Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) argued that the current management plan was an ?attack on farmers all over the state and communities all over the state.? Allowing farmers to take water from the Delta, as they have done for a century, would help protect private property rights and therefore benefit all property owners, they said.

Rep. McNerney?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 178-242. Voting ?yea? were 177 Democrats and 1 Republican. Voting ?nay? were 236 Republicans and 6 Democrats. As a result, the House defeated the effort to put off new management rules for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta until federal agencies can show the new plan will not harm the safety of the water supply for area residents.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 83
Feb 29, 2012
(H.R. 1837) On an amendment to put off a change in management of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta unless federal agencies can be sure no jobs in northern California would be lost

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have put off a change in management of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta unless federal agencies can be sure no jobs in northern California would be lost.

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) offered the amendment during consideration of a bill that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta supports sensitive bird and fish populations, but scarce water resources have jeopardized the health of the ecosystem. The bill would divert more water from the Delta south to water-thirsty farms and cities in the fertile San Joaquin Valley. It would also override state and federal environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act.

Proponents of the bill argued that it would help farmers and businesses that are suffering drought-like conditions. But opponents said those jobs would come at the cost of jobs in northern California, which depends on a healthy Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to maintain fishing, recreation, and other industries.

Rep. Thompson?s amendment required a certification from the Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, and Secretary of Labor that no jobs would be lost in northern California. Management of the water resources would not change until the certification could be given.

?The bill does the exact opposite of what it claims to do. It's a job-killer bill. It creates economic winners and losers based on south-of-Delta interests. The livelihoods and concerns of individuals outside of this limited area are ignored in order to support well-heeled agricultural interests south of the Delta,? Rep. Thompson said.

Republicans accused Democrats of hypocrisy, saying many of them represent districts that also receive water diverted from environmentally sensitive areas.

?Silicon Valley gets their water from Hetch Hetchy. San Francisco gets their water from Hetch Hetchy. What's Hetch Hetchy? Hetch Hetchy was dammed up. It's in Yosemite, and they pipe their water,? Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said. ?So if they care about the fish and the fishermen, tear down the dam, send their water out to the Delta.?

Rep. Thompson?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 178-239. Voting ?yea? were 176 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 231 Republicans and 8 Democrats. As a result, the House defeated the effort to put off new management rules for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta until federal agencies could ensure they would not result in job losses.

 


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 81
Feb 29, 2012
(H.Res. 566) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests. The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question" -- which would effectively end debate and set up an immediate vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and the amendments that can be offered to the California water bill. The second vote was on passage of the resolution.

At issue was a Republican bill that would alter agreements that guide the management of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers in northern California. Proponents of the bill sought to divert more water resources for agribusinesses and cities in central California?s San Joaquin Valley. They also sought to override state and federal laws that protect the environment. Opponents objected that this would upend hard-fought local agreements and harm the environment in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and downstream.

Republicans argued that under current rules for managing the waterways, environmental regulations were doing little good for wildlife but hurting farmers suffering from drought-like conditions.

?The movement for stronger environmental protections began over legitimate concerns to protect our vital natural resources; but like many movements, as it succeeded in its legitimate ends, it also attracted a self-interested constituency that has driven far past the borders of common sense and into the realms of political extremism and outright plunder,? Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said. ?This debate will determine if we are about to enter a new era when common sense can be restored to our public policy and when a sensible balance can be restored between environmental and human needs.?

Democrats argued that the bill represented needless meddling in an issue that should be decided at the state level. They also criticized Republicans for bringing up the bill instead of focusing on legislation that would address rising gasoline prices or the need for jobs.

?This bill is a blatant attempt to do two things: one, steal 800,000 acre feet of water and transfer it to heavily subsidized farmers on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley; and, secondly, completely overrule and override state law,? Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) said. ?This is a terrible precedent. If you care anything about your state's ability to control its own destiny insofar as water is concerned, you do not want this bill to pass because it is a blatant attempt by the Westside Farmers to simply grab water and take total control of the California water system.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 241-178. Voting ?yea? were 235 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 177 Democrats and 1 Republican. As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the California water rights bill.

The House then agreed by a vote of 245-173 to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and amendments that could be offered to the California water bill. Voting ?yea? were 236 Republicans and 9 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 173 Democrats. As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor upstream agribusinesses over downstream environmental and conservation interests.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
N N Lost
Roll Call 80
Feb 29, 2012
(H.Res. 566) On a motion to end debate and immediately vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and amendments that can be offered to legislation altering the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor agribusiness over environmental and conservation interests. The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question" -- which would effectively end debate and set up an immediate vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and the amendments that can be offered to the California water bill. The second vote was on passage of the resolution.

At issue was a Republican bill that would alter agreements that guide the management of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers in northern California. Proponents of the bill sought to divert more water resources for agribusinesses and cities in central California?s San Joaquin Valley. They also sought to override state and federal laws that protect the environment. Opponents objected that this would upend hard-fought local agreements and harm the environment in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and downstream.

Republicans argued that under current rules for managing the waterways, environmental regulations were doing little good for wildlife but hurting farmers suffering from drought-like conditions.

?The movement for stronger environmental protections began over legitimate concerns to protect our vital natural resources; but like many movements, as it succeeded in its legitimate ends, it also attracted a self-interested constituency that has driven far past the borders of common sense and into the realms of political extremism and outright plunder,? Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said. ?This debate will determine if we are about to enter a new era when common sense can be restored to our public policy and when a sensible balance can be restored between environmental and human needs.?

Democrats argued that the bill represented needless meddling in an issue that should be decided at the state level. They also criticized Republicans for bringing up the bill instead of focusing on legislation that would address rising gasoline prices or the need for jobs.

?This bill is a blatant attempt to do two things: one, steal 800,000 acre feet of water and transfer it to heavily subsidized farmers on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley; and, secondly, completely overrule and override state law,? Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) said. ?This is a terrible precedent. If you care anything about your state's ability to control its own destiny insofar as water is concerned, you do not want this bill to pass because it is a blatant attempt by the Westside Farmers to simply grab water and take total control of the California water system.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 241-178. Voting ?yea? were 235 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 177 Democrats and 1 Republican. As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the California water rights bill.

The House then agreed by a vote of 245-173 to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and amendments that could be offered to the California water bill. Voting ?yea? were 236 Republicans and 9 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 173 Democrats. As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation that would alter the management of one of California?s largest waterways to favor upstream agribusinesses over downstream environmental and conservation interests.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
N N Lost
Roll Call 79
Feb 28, 2012
(H.R. 2117) On passage of legislation that would overturn federal standards for colleges and universities that qualify for federal student aid

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on final passage of Republican legislation that would overturn federal standards for colleges and universities that qualify for federal student aid.

The standards targeted by the bill were developed by the U.S. Department of Education in an attempt to ensure college and universities that receive federal student aid meet minimum standards for the integrity of their programs. The regulations set a minimum standard for the work required to earn a ?credit hour.? They also required that schools receiving federal aid must be legally authorized by the states in which they operate.

The standards were meant to protect federal student aid programs from waste, fraud, and abuse, but Republicans argued that they represented an overreach by the federal government. By overturning the standards, the bill would keep the federal government from meddling in issues best handled by local and state officials, they said.

?Helping more students realize the dream of an affordable higher education is a shared goal. However, solving a problem like rising college costs starts with recognizing that, as is so often the case, Washington is part of the problem,? Rep. John Kline (R-MN) said. ?In order to best prepare today's students to join tomorrow's workforce, we must not overwhelm schools with poorly conceived regulations that lead to wasted time and money.?

Democrats argued that the bill would remove important protections for taxpayers and students. The Department of Education has a responsibility to ensure that federal student aid dollars are being used to support quality higher education, not to fill the coffers of institutions that game the system or provide substandard programs, they said.

?In this tough budget environment, we should be concerned with how the federal government spends the limited resources we dedicate to federal student aid,? Rep. George Miller (D-CA) said. ?The bill before us today explicitly increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse in our federal student aid programs. At a time when the higher education market is in so much flux, with new kinds of programs popping up around the country and online, this is the wrong time to open this loophole against the taxpayers' best interest.?

The bill was passed by a vote of 303-114. Voting ?yea? were 234 Republicans and 69 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 114 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. As a result, the House approved legislation that would overturn federal standards for colleges and universities that qualify for federal student aid. However, to become law, the bill would also have to be approved by the Senate and signed by the president. The White House has voiced strong opposition to the bill, and Bloomberg News reported after the bill?s passage that its prospects were ?dim? in the Senate.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 78
Feb 28, 2012
(H.R. 2117) On an amendment to ensure the U.S. Department of Education has authority to take action to reduce the cost of higher education

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have ensured the U.S. Department of Education has authority to take action to reduce the cost of higher education. The amendment was offered as a ?motion to recommit.? A motion to recommit is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) offered the motion on Republican legislation that would overturn federal standards for colleges and universities that qualify for federal student aid. The standards were set by the Department of Education as a way to ensure schools that are eligible for federal student aid are meeting minimum requirements for the integrity of their programs.

Rep. Capps? motion would have forced House leaders to add an amendment to the bill clarifying that it did not prevent in any way the authority of the Secretary of Education to take action to reduce higher education costs.

?Incredibly, this bill limits the Education Secretary's ability to protect students and taxpayers from higher education costs. With more than $200 billion in aid distributed each year, the Secretary must have the tools to lower costs for students and their families and to protect our nation's investment in education,? Rep. Capps said. ?The cost of borrowing for a student loan is already too high. Let's not make the problem worse.?

Republicans argued that the Democratic amendment would give too much power to the Department of Education, allowing the agency to create unnecessary rules and regulations.

?My colleagues should all vote against (this motion). We have a situation where our colleagues across the aisle want to take the Secretary of Education and make him a Czar of Education,? Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said. ?We do not need more government rules and regulations. We don't need the federal government picking winners and losers, and we don't need this kind of authority ceded to the Secretary of the Department of Education. The Congress needs to be dealing with these issues.?

The motion to recommit was defeated by a vote of 176-241. Voting ?yea? were 176 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 233 Republicans and 8 Democrats. As a result, the House moved to a final vote on Republican legislation that would overturn federal standards for colleges and universities that qualify for federal student aid.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 77
Feb 28, 2012
(H.R. 2117) On an amendment to require the Department of Education to formally outline a plan to protect federal student aid dollars from waste, fraud, and abuse

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have required the U.S. Department of Education to formally outline a plan to protect federal student aid dollars from waste, fraud, and abuse.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) offered the amendment to Republican legislation that would overturn federal standards for colleges and universities that qualify for federal student aid. The standards were set by the Department of Education as a way to ensure schools that are eligible for federal student aid are meeting minimum requirements for the integrity of their programs.

Rep. Polis noted that the regulations overturned by the Republican legislation were aimed at safeguarding the taxpayer dollars invested in federal student aid. To compensate, he argued, Congress should require the Department of Education to outline an alternative plan to protect aid programs from waste, fraud, and abuse.

?The reason we're talking about rules and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse is not somehow the government is going someplace that's unwarranted, but these are federal student loans, these are federal programs we're talking about,? Rep. Polis said. ?We do not want taxpayers to be ripped off, and we do not want students to be ripped off. I believe that directing the Secretary (of Education) to come up with an alternative plan to the one we're stripping out would go a long way toward accomplishing that.?

Republicans argued that requiring a new proposal from the Department of Education would accomplish nothing. Rather than try to solve problems, the federal government should simply get out of the way, they argued.

?I don't think ? that we need to ask the Department of Education to present more plans or more rules and regulations,? Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said. ?It is certainly doing a lot to present rules and regulations that are totally unnecessary.?

Rep. Polis? amendment was defeated by a vote of 199-217. Voting ?yea? were 178 Democrats and 21 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 214 Republicans and 3 Democrats. As a result, the House voted not to require the Department of Education to develop a plan to combat waste, fraud, and abuse, and moved forward with legislation that would overturn federal standards for colleges and universities that qualify for federal student aid.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 76
Feb 28, 2012
(H.R. 2117) On an amendment to preserve the Department of Education?s ability to establish a national standard for the definition of a ?credit hour? at colleges and universities eligible for federal student aid

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have preserved the Department of Education?s ability to establish a national standard for the definition of a ?credit hour? at colleges and universities eligible for federal student aid.

Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) offered the amendment to Republican legislation that would overturn federal standards for colleges and universities that qualify for federal student aid. The standards were set by the Department of Education as a way to ensure schools that are eligible for federal student aid are meeting minimum requirements for the integrity of their programs.

Among the regulations scrapped by the Republican bill is a minimum standard for the definition of a ?credit hour.? Most higher education institutions require their students to earn a specified number of credit hours before receiving a degree. The Department of Education was seeking to set a minimum standard for the amount of time and work required to earn a credit hour. Schools that did not meet that standard could be declared ineligible for federal student aid.

Rep. Bishop argued that this standard was critical to ensure federal student aid was supporting high-quality education. Without the standard, the Department of Education would be powerless to take action in a situation where institutions are gaming the system or providing substandard education, he said.

?We provide over $200 billion in federal student aid, either in the form of grants or in the form of guarantees. And the basis, at least in part, on which we provide that is students' adherence to the minimum number of credit hours that they must take and institutions' adherence to that which they define as a credit hour,? Rep. Bishop said. ?To put the Secretary of Education in a position where he or she would be unable to act ? is simply unwise.?

Republicans argued that the credit hour standard would represent a ?federal overreach into an area that should be left to colleges and universities.? Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued that Congress, not the Department of Education, should be responsible for taking action if schools abuse the federal student aid program.

?The word ?education? is no place in the Constitution, but Article I, section 1 does talk about the House of Representatives and the Congress,? Rep. Foxx said. ?That's where the Founders wanted the power to lie, where the authority is to lie. We are accountable to the people whom we represent. We are the people's House. We should not be abrogating our responsibility to unelected bureaucrats.?

Rep. Bishop?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 160-255. Voting ?yea? were 159 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 1 Republican. Voting ?nay? were 232 Republicans and 23 Democrats. As a result, the House moved forward with legislation that would bar the Department of Education from defining a minimum standard for ?credit hours? at colleges and universities eligible for federal student aid.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 75
Feb 28, 2012
(H.R. 2117) On an amendment to preserve the ability of students to file a complaint against higher education institutions that do not maintain the integrity of their programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have preserved the ability of students to file a complaint against higher education institutions that do not maintain the integrity of their programs.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered the amendment to Republican legislation that would overturn federal standards for colleges and universities that qualify for federal student aid. The federal standards were set by the Department of Education as a way to ensure schools that are eligible for federal student aid are meeting minimum requirements for the integrity of their programs.

Among the regulations scrapped by the Republican bill is a requirement that states maintain a student complaint process. The process would allow students to voice their concerns in an official setting if they felt their school treated them unfairly or did not meet its obligation to provide a quality education. Rep. Grijalva?s amendment would have allowed this regulation to stand.

?The vast majority of institutions work in a student's best interest and will seek to guide students and address concerns when they arise. This amendment ensures that students have a place to air their concerns when that is not the case,? Rep. Grijalva said. ?My amendment protects students and taxpayers by ensuring that each state has a process in place to receive and review student complaints and by promoting good practices and addressing abuses.?

Rep. Foxx argued that the amendment as unnecessary because accrediting agencies and many states already have complaint processes in place. The Department of Education regulation would just place an extra, costly burden on states, she said.

?During a time when states, institutions, parents, and students are worried about ways to increase college affordability, I think it would be better for states to put their limited resources towards helping colleges and universities keep their tuitions down rather than adding another layer of state bureaucracy,? she said.

Rep. Grijalva?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 170-247. Voting ?yea? were 170 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. Voting ?nay? were 236 Republicans and 11 Democrats. As a result, the House defeated an attempt to ensure college students have a way to file a complaint against higher education institutions that do not maintain the integrity of their programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 74
Feb 28, 2012
(H.Res. 563) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would overturn federal standards for college and universities that qualify for federal student aid

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would overturn federal standards for college and universities that qualify for federal student aid.

The legislation, which was introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), took aim at new regulations from the Department of Education. The regulations were an attempt to ensure colleges and universities that receive federal student aid meet minimum standards for the integrity of their programs. The regulations set a minimum standard for the work required to earn a ?credit hour.? They also required that schools receiving federal aid must be legally authorized by the states in which they operate.

Rep. Foxx argued that the regulations would be an unnecessary intrusion by the federal government into states? rights to regulate higher education.

?These regulations will restrict innovation, limit flexibility, and pave the way for additional federal overreach into higher education,? Rep. Foxx said.

Democrats opposed Rep. Foxx?s bill because it would weaken the Department of Education?s ability to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used to support quality higher education and protected from waste, fraud, and abuse. They criticized Republicans for bringing Rep. Foxx?s bill to the House floor at a time when most Americans wanted Congress to take action to create jobs.

?Here we go again. Another day in the House of Representatives and another day without a jobs bill,? Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) said. ?The economy may be inching along, recovering slowly, but it still needs some help. We need a real, comprehensive jobs package. Instead, we just get a bill to dismantle a few regulations with no attempt to make our education system better. This is no way to run the House of Representatives.?

The resolution was passed by a vote of 244-171. Voting ?yea? were 234 Republicans and 10 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 171 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. As a result, the House moved to a floor debate on legislation that would overturn federal standards for college and universities that qualify for federal student aid.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 71
Feb 16, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On final passage of Republican legislation that would open vast new stretches of federally owned territory to energy exploration

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of Republican legislation that would open vast new stretches of federally owned territory to energy exploration.

The legislation would open publicly owned areas such as Alaska?s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, oil shale deposits in the Rocky Mountains, and much of the U.S. coastline to oil and gas exploration. It would also override President Obama?s denial of a permit to build a controversial oil pipeline. The pipeline would connect oilfields in Alberta, Canada, to markets in the United States. Environmental groups were concerned about the potential for oil spills and its impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans successfully passed legislation in late 2011 requiring a quick decision on the project?s permit, and the White House responded by rejecting the application on the grounds that there would not be time for a full assessment.

Republicans argued that the bill was needed to help expand domestic production of energy. That would help bring down fuel prices, reduce the federal budget deficit, and reduce America?s dependence on foreign sources of energy, they argued.

"Since this President took office ? gasoline prices have climbed by 91 percent. Meanwhile, Iran is threatening to close off the Strait of Hormuz, which is responsible for transportation of almost 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 20 percent of all oil traded,? Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) said. ?Prices will only climb higher if we don't take action now to increase our energy independence and develop our own energy resources.?

Democrats called the bill a massive giveaway to the oil industry. They said the bill would sacrifice some of the most pristine areas of the country and jeopardize other sectors of the economy just to allow oil companies to reap profits.

?Subsidizing the oil industry in 2012 to drill for oil is like subsidizing fish to swim or birds to fly: You don't have to do it. The consumer is already doing it at the pump. They're being tipped upside down,? Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) said. ?The oil industry right now is having it both ways. They're getting tax breaks from the taxpayers at the same time that they're taking the other pocket of every American as consumers, and they're taking money out of that pocket as well.?

The Republican bill was passed by a vote of 237-187. Voting ?yea? were 216 Republicans and 21 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 166 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 21 Republicans. As a result, the House approved legislation that would open vast new stretches of federally owned territory to energy exploration. However, to become law, the bill would first need to be passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate and signed by the president.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 70
Feb 16, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to bar oil drilling within five miles of the Great Lakes or the Florida Everglades

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have barred oil drilling within 5 miles of any of the Great Lakes or the Florida Everglades.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) offered the amendment to Republican legislation that would open vast new stretches of federally owned territory to energy exploration. She offered the amendment as a ?motion to recommit.? A motion to recommit is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If approved, the House Republican leaders would have been forced to add the amendment to the bill before allowing a final up-or-down vote.

Rep. Castor argued that Republicans? advocacy for the bill was evidence of ?blind passion for Big Oil.? She said the bill would jeopardize the tourism industry in her home state by allowing drilling ?right off of the beaches of Florida.? She said her amendment would provide a ?test? of whether Congress believed there was any place that is not appropriate to drill.

?Is nothing sacred in this country anymore? Is nothing off limits? How about Mount Vernon, George Washington's home? Would we drill there if Big Oil could make a few bucks? How about Gettysburg National Battlefield? I hear there may be some natural gas nearby,? Rep. Castor said. ?There are places in America that are not for sale and should be protected.?

Republicans argued that Democrats were ?playing politics? with the amendment. They argued that the Republican bill was a common-sense plan to develop domestic energy resources and reduce the nation?s dependence on foreign energy.

?This is one more example where the other side is playing politics with American energy and American job creation,? Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) said. ?At a time ? when Iran is threatening a global energy meltdown, the Middle East is undergoing numerous uprisings, China's thirst for oil is growing and our consumers are facing rising prices at the pump, it's time to secure our own future with American-made energy.?

Rep. Castor?s motion to recommit was defeated by a vote of 176-241. Voting ?yea? were 174 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 232 Republicans and 9 Democrats. As a result, the House moved to a final vote on Republican legislation that would open vast new stretches of federally owned territory to energy exploration.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 69
Feb 16, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to sharply cut back requirements for an environmental review of geothermal energy projects on publicly owned land

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would cut back requirements for an environmental review for geothermal energy projects on publicly owned land.

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) offered the amendment to a Republican bill that would open vast new stretches of federally owned territory to energy exploration. Rep. Labrador?s amendment would exempt geothermal projects from normal environmental reviews. Instead, the U.S. Department of Interior would be given 10 days to give the go-ahead to the project.

Rep. Labrador argued that the current environmental review process stifles expansion of geothermal energy because it can sometimes take as long as 2 years to complete. Cutting down on that process will help expand the use of a renewable form of energy, supporters of the amendment said.

?As our nation heads down the path of energy security, we should be facilitating the development of renewable energy on federal land,? Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) said. ?This is a good amendment that could potentially shave years off the process of geothermal energy exploration and contribute to our increasing domestic energy portfolio in the United States.?

Democrats argued that it was not necessary to cut down on environmental review, and warned that the move would lead to problems for the geothermal industry. Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) pointed to the natural gas industry as an example, noting that an environmental review exemption for a process known as hydraulic fracturing led to a black eye for the industry when problems arose.

?We're all for geothermal. There's nobody on this side that's opposed to geothermal. We think it is a really good resource,? Rep. Garamendi said. ?What we're talking about here is tapping a hot portion of the Earth and extracting from that the energy that's possible. Do it with care, because there is the potential for very serious problems if you do it incorrectly.?
 
Rep. Labrador?s amendment was passed by a vote of 244-177. Voting ?yea? were 230 Republicans and 14 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 172 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 5 Republicans. As a result, the House moved forward with legislation that would drastically reduce environmental review of geothermal energy projects.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Lost
Roll Call 68
Feb 16, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment that would prevent oil companies from drilling in newly opened federal territory if they are exempt from paying royalties for drilling in other federal territory

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have prevented oil companies from gaining access to newly opened federal territories ? unless they agreed to renegotiate older leases that allowed them to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without paying royalties to the federal government.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) offered the amendment to a Republican bill that would open vast new stretches of federally owned territory to energy exploration. The new areas included Alaska?s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and areas off the U.S. coast.

Rep. Markey?s amendment would have used the new opportunity presented by the bill to renegotiate leases that some oil companies had purchased between 1996 and 2000. As a result of a court challenge, companies that purchased leases to drill on public land during that time do not have to pay royalties to the federal government.

Rep. Markey argued that this arrangement was unfair because oil companies were harvesting on publicly owned land and profiting handsomely thanks to high oil prices. His amendment said those companies could buy leases on the newly opened land only if they agreed to renegotiate the old leases and pay royalties to the American people.

?These companies get a complete windfall profit by paying no taxes for drilling off of the coastline of the United States, owned by the American people. What kind of plan can that be to make sure that we have sufficient funding in order to pay for Medicare, pay for kids going to college, pay for the research to find a cure for cancer?? Rep. Markey said. ?Of all the companies that should be kicking in their fair share of the dues to run this country, it should be the companies who made $137 billion last year.?

Republicans argued that the arrangement would unfairly penalize companies that had invested millions of dollars in a risky search for oil on public land. They accused Democrats of trying to ?extort? the oil companies into breaking old contracts. This would drive companies to look to other countries to explore for oil, they said.

?There is a very important principle here, and that is a contract is a contract. You abide by what you negotiate under the existing law,? Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) said. ?Why would we want to jeopardize and send the wrong message to those who would want to take the risk and make the investments under this law? It would send a very, very wrong signal, in my view.?

Rep. Markey?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 183-238. Voting ?yea? were 169 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 14 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 222 Republicans and 16 Democrats. As a result, the House defeated the attempt to prevent oil companies from drilling in newly opened federal territory unless they agreed to pay royalties for drilling in other federal territory.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 67
Feb 16, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to prevent natural gas harvested off the U.S. coast from being sold to foreign countries

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have prevented natural gas harvested off the U.S. coast from being sold to foreign countries.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) offered the amendment to Republican legislation that would open vast new stretches of federally owned territory to energy exploration. Republicans argued that the bill would allow more energy production in the United States and reduce America?s dependence on foreign energy sources.

Rep. Markey argued that if the bill?s goal is energy security, it should prohibit energy companies from selling the natural gas they harvest in American waters to buyers in other countries. Energy companies would seek a higher price in international markets, but to promote national energy security, the natural gas should be sold and used in the United States, he said.

?When do American consumers get a break? When do American manufacturers get a break? When do the plastics, the chemical, the steel industries get a break in low energy prices? Is it all a one-way street for ExxonMobil and these big multinationals?? Rep. Markey said. ?This amendment, the Markey amendment, is aimed straight at the Strait of Hormuz, and it's saying to them, ?We've got the natural gas here in America. We're going to drill for it, but we're keeping it here because it's six times lower in price than it is in Asia and in Europe, and that's (why) we're going to keep it here for our American citizens.??

Republicans argued that the amendment was actually aimed at preventing new oil and gas exploration in Alaska?s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Complying with Rep. Markey?s amendment would be prohibitively expensive because the refuge is so far from U.S. markets, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) said. Others argued that by passing the amendment, America would ?shoot ourselves in the foot? by hurting international trade.

?We insist that China play by the rules. In fact, they've been hoarding their raw materials and holding them back from export to America, which harms American companies,? Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) said. ?We just won an important ruling around the world that says China has to stop that. Yet here we are on the House floor, trying to do the exact same thing to our export of natural gas, and we're going to be called on it just like we called it out on China.?

Rep. Markey?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 168-254. Voting ?yea? were 159 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 9 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 227 Republicans and 27 Democrats. As a result, the House moved forward with legislation opening vast new stretches of federally owned land to energy exploration without requiring the natural gas harvested to be sold in the United States.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 66
Feb 16, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment attempting to speed approval of offshore renewable energy projects by limiting environmental reviews

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that aims to speed up approval of offshore renewable energy projects by limiting environmental reviews.

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) offered the amendment to Republican legislation that would open vast new stretches of federally owned territory to energy exploration. Rep. Hastings argued that government regulations often slow down development of renewable energy projects in federally owned waters.

Rep. Hastings? amendment would limit the environmental reviews done on these projects. Under the amendment, federal agencies would be required to review the proposed project and either approve or deny the application. Agencies would no longer be able to suggest changes in the project that would minimize environmental impact.

?This amendment will facilitate the development of clean, renewable energy on Federal lands by providing a clear, simple process for completing important environmental reviews,? Rep. Hastings said. ?The amendment would require an environmental review to be conducted only for the specific location where the renewable energy project would be located, rather than requiring thousands of pages of environmental review for numerous different locations. This would significantly reduce the number of years it takes to develop clean, renewable energy projects.?

Democrats argued that Rep. Hastings? amendment would actually kill renewable energy projects. Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) said that by limiting agencies? freedom to work with the companies and limiting opportunities for the public to weigh in, the projects were more likely to be hit with lawsuits. Rep. Holt noted that even the renewable energy industry had not come out in favor of the proposal.

?This (amendment) is not intended to accelerate renewable energy. It is to remove protections for the environment,? Rep. Holt said. ?This amendment would slow things down, would throw things into court, would result in rejected projects. If the Republicans really want to help renewable energy, you don't need to gut environmental safeguards.?

Rep. Hastings? amendment was passed by a vote of 250-171. Voting ?yea? were 232 Republicans and 18 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 167 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 4 Republicans. As a result, the House moved forward with legislation that would limit environmental reviews of offshore renewable energy projects.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
N N Lost
Roll Call 65
Feb 16, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to require stricter safety requirements for offshore oil drilling

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.


This vote was on an amendment that would have required stricter safety requirements for offshore oil drilling.

Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI) offered the amendment to Republican legislation that would open vast new stretches of federally owned territory to energy exploration. Rep. Hanabusa argued that the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrated that stricter safety standards were needed for offshore drilling. She cited an independent report that concluded the spill was preventable but caused by corner-cutting and bad decision-making.

Rep. Hanabusa?s amendment would have required that oil companies drilling on federally owned offshore territory would need to accept inspections from third-party experts, establish procedures to minimize the risk of explosions, and take other precautions to avoid disaster.

?We have the opportunity of being the safest offshore oil industry in the world, and this amendment would help us get there. That's what we owe the people,? Rep. Hanabusa said. ?We owe those people who suffered through this, and we owe the rest of this nation a sense of being secure and knowing that when we are drilling that we are drilling safely, and we will not see those fatalities again.?

Republicans argued that oversight of safety on the oil rigs should be left to federal agencies. They said the oil industry had also taken steps to avoid another spill. They accused Democrats of raising the safety issue to divert attention from the issue of energy prices and energy independence.

?We have the regulations. We have to have American energy and the ensuing jobs that that has created, and I'm afraid that adopting this amendment would hinder that,? Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) said.

Rep. Hanabusa?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 189-228. Voting ?yea? were 177 Democrats and 12 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 220 Republicans and 8 Democrats. As a result, the House defeated the attempt to establish stricter safety requirements for offshore oil drilling.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 64
Feb 16, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to ensure offshore oil exploration is off limits in northern California

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would ensure offshore oil exploration is off limits in northern California.

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) offered the amendment to a Republican bill that would open up vast new stretches of federally owned territory to energy exploration. Rep. Thompson said the area of northern California that he represents has very little oil but a large number of earthquakes and marine life. That combination makes it a bad place to drill for oil, he said. His amendment would have ensured the federal government could not sell leases to drill for oil off the shore of California from San Francisco to the Oregon border.

?The waters off our shore are quite simply the most abundant and exquisitely beautiful on the face of the Earth. Our commercial fishing industry depends on this thriving marine ecosystem. These waters are invaluable to the research of university scientists, and more than 16,000 tourism jobs in Sonoma County alone depend on these open, beautiful waters,? Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) said. ?If the majority were truly interested in helping job creators, they would not be supporting a drill-everywhere approach.?

Republicans argued that the amendment would unwisely limit options for energy exploration. Even though the northern California coast does not appear to be a good place for oil and gas drilling, there is no reason to put up legal barriers that would prevent exploration in the future, they said.

?This legislation ? aims to open up our federal resources and increase energy production despite President Obama's failure to do just the opposite. This amendment would simply block additional areas from energy production in the future,? Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) said.

Rep. Thompson?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 167-253. Voting ?yea? were 162 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 5 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 229 Republicans and 24 Democrats. As a result, the House did not exempt the waters off northern California from legislation opening vast new stretches of federally owned territory to energy exploration.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 63
Feb 15, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to require oil companies who want to lease federally owned territory to estimate the impact an oil spill would have on the local economy

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have required oil companies who want to lease federally owned territory to estimate the impact an oil spill would have on the local economy.

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) offered the amendment to Republican legislation that would open vast new stretches of publicly owned territory to oil exploration. Much of the new drilling would take place offshore. Rep. Deutch noted that the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico caused environmental and economic damage that was still not fully understood. Requiring oil companies to provide an estimate of the ?worst-case scenario? would ensure those companies are prepared if disaster strikes, he said.

?Opening these areas to drilling exposes the coastal communities and coastal states to significant economic impact and job losses should a large-scale oil spill like BP Deepwater Horizon occur,? Rep. Deutch said. ?The federal government has a real interest in ensuring that companies applying for new oil drilling leases are aware of and are prepared for the potential economic impact and job losses resulting from a worst-case scenario spill. It only makes sense that these applications require an economic, in addition to the environmental, estimate of such disasters.?

Republicans argued that the amendment was unnecessary because regulations from the Obama Administration were likely to require worst-case scenario estimates. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) argued that the amendment was a distraction from the need for legislation that would reduce the United States? dependence on foreign energy sources.

?We obviously ought to be trying to be less dependent on foreign oil, and yet that debate isn't even going on. We are talking about a debate on an amendment that is simply redundant of current law,? Rep. Hastings said.

Rep. Deutch?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 188-236. Voting ?yea? were 174 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 14 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 225 Republicans and 11 Democrats. As a result, the House moved forward with legislation to open vast new stretches of federal territory to oil exploration without requiring oil companies to estimate the environmental and economic effects of a potential oil spill.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 62
Feb 15, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to allow four Gulf Coast states to receive more of the profits from leasing federally owned areas offshore to oil companies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would allow four Gulf Coast states to receive more of the profits from leasing federally owned areas offshore to oil companies.

Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA) introduced the amendment to a Republican bill that would open vast new stretches of publicly owned land to energy exploration. Rep. Landry?s amendment would raise the cap on the amount of revenue that four Gulf Coast states ? Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas ? can receive from the sale of oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The amendment would raise the cap from $500 million to $750 million per year.

Rep. Landry argued that the amendment would ensure the four states received a fair share of the proceeds from offshore drilling.

?We are simply asking for fundamental fairness here in that the cap of $500 million be raised to $750 million,? Rep. Landry said.

Democrats argued that the amendment would divert money that belongs to all Americans ? because it comes from the leasing of federally owned land ? to benefit a small number of states.

?If this amendment passes, Mardi Gras will come on the Wednesday before Fat Tuesday this year. That's because the Landry amendment delivers up to $6 billion in a financial King Cake to Louisiana and to the other Gulf States at the expense of the other 46 States in the Union,? Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) said. ?These oil and gas resources ? are public resources that belong as much to someone living in Kansas, Massachusetts, or Hawaii as they do to someone living in Louisiana or Texas. These are resources that should help every American, not just a select few.?

Rep. Landry?s amendment was passed by a vote of 266-159. Voting ?yea? were 228 Republicans and 38 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 149 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 10 Republicans. As a result, the House moved forward with legislation that would give four Gulf Coast states up to $750 million in revenue annually from allowing oil companies to drill in federal government-owned areas offshore.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 61
Feb 15, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to prevent energy exploration in publicly owned areas off the coast of the northeastern United States

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have prevented new energy exploration in publicly owned areas off the coast of New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine.

Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) offered the amendment to a Republican bill that would open vast new stretches of publicly owned land to energy exploration. Rep. Bishop?s amendment would have prevented drilling off the coast of the northeastern United States. It would also have eliminated a provision that gave states a share of the income from selling leases to oil companies.

Democrats argued that Rep. Bishop?s amendment would protect the economy in an area that depends on a healthy coastline. Opening these areas to drilling would demonstrate that Congress had learned nothing from the devastating 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, he said.

?We have not put in place a single piece of legislation that would make offshore drilling safer. We have not put in place a single piece of legislation designed to prevent the kind of disaster that took place in the Gulf,? Rep. Bishop said ?We are continuing to rely on the sort of slipshod environmental reviews that preceded the granting of leases in the Gulf, and I think to expose certainly my region ? to the kind of disaster that the Gulf was exposed to without putting in place those safeguards is simply unwise.?

Republicans argued that exploiting resources off the U.S. coast would help lower gasoline prices and reduce the United States? dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas. The territory off the coast belongs to all Americans, not just those of the northeastern states, and Congress has a right to call for drilling, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) said.

?Federal assessments estimate that the North Atlantic contains nearly two billion barrels of oil and nearly 18 trillion cubic feet of gas. Using modern technology, it's highly likely that the find could be even more than what is estimated. This amendment, then, would lock away those resources from the American people who ? own them,? Rep. Hastings said. ?The American people want to increase American energy production and jobs, not stifle American energy production.?

Rep. Bishop?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 169-257. Voting ?yea? were 162 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 7 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 232 Republicans and 25 Democrats. As a result, the Republican legislation to open vast new stretches of federally owned territory to drilling moved forward without exempting the northeastern United States.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 60
Feb 15, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to prevent oil exploration in publicly owned territory off the coast of California

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have prevented new oil exploration that Republicans wanted to establish off the coast of California.

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) offered the amendment to a Republican bill that would open vast new stretches of publicly owned land to energy exploration. One of the areas that would be newly opened is an area in the waters near Santa Barbara and Ventura, California.

Rep. Capps, whose Congressional district includes these areas, said her constituents were not interested in allowing offshore drilling that could jeopardize the environment, wildlife, and the economy in the area. She noted that officials from a nearby Air Force Base had also expressed concern that drilling could conflict with military operations in the area. Her amendment would have deleted the section of the Republican bill that opened the area to oil exploration. It also would have deleted a provision giving coastal states a share of revenue from sales of the new offshore leases.

?I find it ironic that some of the same people in this body who decry an overarching federal government seem to have no qualms about forcing new drilling upon a local population which is directly against its wishes,? Rep. Capps said. ?This heavy-handed, know-it-all approach rubber-stamps destructive drilling, cuts out environmental reviews, and closes down the public input. Might be good policy for oil companies; but it's bad policy for my constituents, and it's bad energy policy for our nation.?

Republicans argued that the drilling could be done in an environmentally friendly way that would minimize the risk of an oil spill. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) said oil companies would use infrastructure that is already in place to access the oil. This new energy source would be important at a time when gasoline prices are rising and most petroleum is imported, he said.

?The underlying bill is a drill-smart plan that directly focuses on those offshore areas where there are known resources. That includes the vast resources of southern California,? Rep. Hastings said. ?This amendment would lock away significant resources that belong to the American people. It would keep our country shackled to the foreign powers upon whom we rely for oil and gas imports. It would also hinder our nation's energy security.?

Rep. Capps? amendment was defeated by a vote of 160-267. Voting ?yea? were 158 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 2 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 237 Republicans and 30 Democrats. As a result, the House moved forward with Republican legislation that would open areas off the coast of California to oil exploration.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 59
Feb 15, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to exempt oil shale from a bill that would open vast new expanses of federally owned land to energy development

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have exempted oil shale deposits from a Republican bill that would open vast new stretches of federally owned land to energy development.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) offered the amendment to the Republican bill. Among the land that would be opened to energy exploration were areas with significant deposits of oil shale. Most of these deposits are located in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah.

The Republican bill would have opened some of this federally owned land to energy companies interested in exploiting the resource. But Rep. Polis noted that no one yet knows how to use oil shale to profit in a commercial setting. To lease the land would not yield any tax revenue or jobs, but it would jeopardize the health of the environment and the livelihoods of farmers, ranchers, and others.

?There's no feasible, cost-effective commercial process for extracting oil from shale. We're talking about a potential technology, one that will have profound implications on water, profound implications on land use, and yes, profound implications on national energy policy, but it's a technology that doesn't exist,? Rep. Polis said.

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) argued that the federal government should lease the land so that energy companies can experiment with ways to exploit the oil shale. The country of Estonia uses it to produce energy, he said, and U.S. companies may also find a way if allowed to explore on federal lands.

?The (U.S. Geological Survey) has estimated that there are 1.5 trillion ? with a ?T? ? barrels of oil equivalent in these oil shale formations. I think it's worth at least experimenting to see if it can be commercially extracted,? Rep. Lamborn said. ?We have nothing to lose. This is a great win for the American consumer, especially should a commercial application and scalable venture be produced. It would create energy, jobs, and money for the Treasury.?

Rep. Polis? amendment was defeated by a vote of 160-265. Voting ?yea? were 158 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 2 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 235 Republicans and 30 Democrats. As a result, the House moved forward with Republican legislation that would open oil shale deposits in the western United States to energy exploration.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 58
Feb 15, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment requiring most of the steel and iron used to build a controversial oil pipeline be produced in North America

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have required most of the steel and iron used to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline be produced in North America.

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) offered the amendment to a Republican bill that would override President Obama?s denial of a permit to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would connect the oil-rich ?tar sands? of Alberta, Canada, to markets in the United States.

Rep. Doyle?s amendment would have required the company hoping to build the pipeline, TransCanada, to document the source of its steel and iron. The permit to build the pipeline would not have been issued until TransCanada showed that North American steel and iron makers were the source of at least 75 percent of the material used in the stretch of pipeline on the U.S. side of the border.

?I support building this pipeline in a way that protects the environment and helps create American jobs,? Rep. Doyle said. ?All my amendment does is ask for some truth in advertising. TransCanada has told us that they make every effort to source as much steel from U.S. mills as they can. I'm simply asking the applicant to certify their claims.?

Republicans argued that the amendment would kill the pipeline project because TransCanada had already purchased all of its raw construction materials. While most of it was milled in North America, some came from other sources, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) said.

?There's nothing we can do about the material that's already been acquired. It's already purchased. So all we would do if we pass this amendment is we would make sure that the permit for this pipeline would not be issued,? Rep. Whitfield said. ?If you would basically stop the building of this pipeline, we would lose all those jobs, we would lose all the additional oil that we would be getting, and we believe that there would be more negatives from it than there would be positives.?

Rep. Doyle?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 193-234. Voting ?yea? were 179 Democrats and 14 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 225 Republicans and 9 Democrats. As a result, Republican legislation to authorize construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline moved forward without requiring that most of the steel and iron used in construction come from North America.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
LABOR RIGHTS Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 57
Feb 15, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to restrict the use of eminent domain during construction of a controversial oil pipeline

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have restricted the use of eminent domain during construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) offered the amendment to a Republican bill that would override President Obama?s denial of a permit to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would connect the oil-rich ?tar sands? of Alberta, Canada, to markets in the United States.

Rep. Rush cited reports that TransCanada, the company that hoped to build the pipeline, had been ?threatening American citizens with eminent domain, basically telling people, ?If you don't give us access to your land, ? then we're going to take it.?? Eminent domain is the government?s power to seize private property needed for public use, as long as the landowner is compensated.

?People might be surprised to learn that TransCanada has been bullying the American people ? American landowners ? and has been pressuring them to allow the company to build a pipeline through their land,? Rep. Rush said. ?We have a duty to protect our citizens from being bullied into giving up their land against their will for the gain of private foreign companies.?

Republicans accused Rep. Rush of trying to kill the pipeline project. They said states have processes in place to resolve disputes about allowing pipelines and other infrastructure right-of-way through private land. Restricting eminent domain would allow a few opponents of the pipeline to derail the entire project, they said.

?This amendment, in essence, is a way of killing this pipeline. Let's be clear about this,? Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) said. ?The pipeline is 1,700 miles, and through each state this proposed pipeline would pass, the pipeline company would negotiate with the landowners on the proposed routes. So, if you have one person who objects, then he can ostensibly kill the pipeline.?

Rep. Rush?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 149-276. Voting ?yea? were 146 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 3 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 235 Republicans and 41 Democrats. As a result, Republican legislation to authorize construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline moved forward without restrictions on the use of eminent domain.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 56
Feb 15, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to require that oil imported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline must be used in the United States

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have required oil imported through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to be used in the United States.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) offered the amendment to a Republican bill that would override President Obama?s denial of a permit to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would connect the oil-rich ?tar sands? of Alberta, Canada, to markets in the United States.

Supporters of the pipeline argued that it would help make the United States less dependent on foreign sources of oil. Rep. Markey argued that the pipeline would actually be used to send the oil to the Gulf of Mexico, where it could be sold on international markets. The only way to ensure it was used to strengthen American energy independence would be to require that oil imported through the pipeline stays in the United States, he said.

?It appears right now that if this pipeline is built, it will be for the purpose of transporting tar sands oil from Canada down to Houston for refining and then export to Latin America and China. That's very much what is on the mind of many people,? Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) said. ?You can't have both ? have that pipeline be essentially a conduit for export and claim that it's going to reduce American dependence on overseas oil. This amendment speaks directly to that and it allows those who claim that Keystone will allow us energy independence to guarantee in law that that will happen.?

Republicans argued that if the pipeline was not built, Canada would likely move to sell its oil directly to China and other foreign nations. Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) cited news reports that Canada was preparing to build a pipeline to its own west coast if the Keystone XL pipeline could not be built.

?The reality is if you want this oil to go to China, kill the XL pipeline, the Keystone pipeline, and let this one be built in Canada, which Canada is already preparing to do,? Rep. Terry said.

Rep. Markey?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 173-254. Voting ?yea? were 164 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 9 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 230 Republicans and 24 Democrats. As a result, the House moved forward with a bill authorizing construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline without a requirement that oil imported through the pipeline be used in the United States.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 55
Feb 15, 2012
(H.R. 3408) On an amendment to put off approval of the controversial Keystone oil pipeline until a report on its safety is completed

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have put off approval of the controversial Keystone oil pipeline until a report on its safety is completed.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) offered the amendment to a Republican bill that would open up vast new expanses of federally owned land to energy development. The bill would also override President Obama?s denial of a permit to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would connect the oil-rich ?tar sands? of Alberta, Canada, to markets in the United States.

The pipeline was challenged by environmental groups worried about potential oil spills and the pipeline?s effect on greenhouse gas emissions. The international project, which required approval from the Obama Administration, became a hot political topic in 2011, leading President Obama to postpone a decision until 2013. However, Republicans successfully passed legislation in late 2011 requiring a quick decision on the project, and the White House responded by rejecting the application on the grounds that there would not be time for a full assessment.

Rep. Eshoo argued that Republicans? attempt to override this decision should wait until a U.S. Department of Transportation report on the pipeline?s safety was finished. Oil from the Canadian fields ?has the consistency of peanut butter and is similar to sending heavy grit sandpaper down the steel pipe,? she said, and the report would allow everyone involved to evaluate whether the pipeline had sufficient safeguards against a potential spill.

?This is not a subject to be taken lightly. We've seen in my neck of the woods, in the northern part of the county where I live, in San Bruno, California, an explosion, natural-gas pipeline explosion that killed eight people. It injured dozens, and it destroyed 38 homes,? Rep. Eshoo said. ?I think it's dangerous ? to move forward with a tar sands pipeline before we have the proper safety knowledge and procedures in place.?

Republicans argued that the amendment was unnecessary because the oil carried in the Keystone pipeline would not be new to American pipelines. In the meantime, Congress could act in the future if the Department of Transportation report revealed problems.

?If the study comes back and comes up with significant, or any, safety issues, I can assure you that Congress is ready to act to address those. But there's no indication that there will be a problem,? Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) said. ?So for that reason, we feel quite confident that this pipeline should be built. We want the study to go forward, but we want the permit to be issued to build it now.?

Rep. Eshoo?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 173-249. Voting ?yea? were 171 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 2 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 231 Republicans and 18 Democrats. As a result, the bill moved forward with its approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline without first requiring a report on its safety.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 51
Feb 15, 2012
(H.Res. 547) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to Republican-designed legislation that would extend programs funding roads, mass transit, and other transportation projects

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to Republican-designed legislation that would extend programs funding roads, mass transit, and other transportation projects. The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question" ? which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The second vote was on passage of the resolution itself.

Republican leadership brought the bill to the floor as Congress was debating how to extend federal transportation programs. The programs were set to expire in less than two months, and if Congress did not act before the deadline, thousands of construction workers would be laid off as funding dried up for construction projects around the country.

The Republican bill would make significant changes to federal transportation programs while extending them through 2016. The bill would cut spending on roads, bridges, and public transit, and use new energy development ? such as opening Alaska?s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling ? to provide a new source of funding for highway construction. The bill also included a requirement that federal employees pay a larger share of the costs of their pensions.

Democrats took issue with the legislation, noting that transportation bills had historically been passed by large bipartisan majorities. But they also objected to the process Republican leadership had set up to consider the bill. It set up a floor debate on the entire bill and separate debates on two smaller pieces of the bill, and members said they wanted House leaders to assure that more amendments could be offered.

?This process is so convoluted and it lacks transparency. I, quite frankly, think my colleagues should be ashamed of bringing this kind of a bill under this kind of process to the floor,? Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) said.

Republicans argued that Democrats were responsible for the partisan nature of the bill because they did not cooperate with members who wrote it. They said the new approach taken by the bill would give states more flexibility to design their own transportation programs.

?The background or the basis of their arguments against this particular rule for this particular bill is they wish to fund transportation programs the old-fashioned way, which means we spend money we don't have,? Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT). ?What we're trying to do with this particular bill is go outside of the box and find a way to actually pay for infrastructure improvements, a way to pay for our transportation needs, and to do it with energy development, like we all have a problem with escalating prices of gas at the pump.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 229-181. Voting ?yea? were 227 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 181 Democrats. As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the legislation.

The House then agreed by a vote of 235-186 to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and amendments that could be offered to the transportation bill. Voting ?yea? were 232 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 182 Democrats and 4 Republicans. As a result, the House approved the time and number of amendments that could be offered during debate of Republican-designed legislation that would extend programs funding roads, mass transit, and other transportation projects.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 50
Feb 15, 2012
(H.Res. 547) On a motion to end debate and immediately vote on a resolution setting a time limit and the amendments that could be offered to Republican-designed legislation that would extend programs funding roads, mass transit, and other transportation projects

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to Republican-designed legislation that would extend programs funding roads, mass transit, and other transportation projects. The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question" ? which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The second vote was on passage of the resolution itself.

Republican leadership brought the bill to the floor as Congress was debating how to extend federal transportation programs. The programs were set to expire in less than two months, and if Congress did not act before the deadline, thousands of construction workers would be laid off as funding dried up for construction projects around the country.

The Republican bill would make significant changes to federal transportation programs while extending them through 2016. The bill would cut spending on roads, bridges, and public transit, and use new energy development ? such as opening Alaska?s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling ? to provide a new source of funding for highway construction. The bill also included a requirement that federal employees pay a larger share of the costs of their pensions.

Democrats took issue with the legislation, noting that transportation bills had historically been passed by large bipartisan majorities. But they also objected to the process Republican leadership had set up to consider the bill. It set up a floor debate on the entire bill and separate debates on two smaller pieces of the bill, and members said they wanted House leaders to assure that more amendments could be offered.

?This process is so convoluted and it lacks transparency. I, quite frankly, think my colleagues should be ashamed of bringing this kind of a bill under this kind of process to the floor,? Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) said.

Republicans argued that Democrats were responsible for the partisan nature of the bill because they did not cooperate with members who wrote it. They said the new approach taken by the bill would give states more flexibility to design their own transportation programs.

?The background or the basis of their arguments against this particular rule for this particular bill is they wish to fund transportation programs the old-fashioned way, which means we spend money we don't have,? Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT). ?What we're trying to do with this particular bill is go outside of the box and find a way to actually pay for infrastructure improvements, a way to pay for our transportation needs, and to do it with energy development, like we all have a problem with escalating prices of gas at the pump.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 229-181. Voting ?yea? were 227 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 181 Democrats. As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the legislation.

The House then agreed by a vote of 235-186 to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and amendments that could be offered to the transportation bill. Voting ?yea? were 232 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 182 Democrats and 4 Republicans. As a result, the House approved the time and number of amendments that could be offered during debate of Republican-designed legislation that would extend programs funding roads, mass transit, and other transportation projects.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 46
Feb 08, 2012
(H.R. 3521) On passage of a bill that would allow the president to ask for clearance from Congress to cut individual items from spending bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of a bill that would allow the president to ask for clearance from Congress to cut individual items from spending bills.

The legislation would give the president a new, altered form of the ?line-item veto? power that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998. Under the bill, after Congress approved a spending bill, the president could comb through the legislation to identify wasteful or unnecessary items. The White House would send a list of proposed cuts to Congress and, if approved, could effectively veto those items.

Supporters of the bill argued that it would help cut wasteful spending. The new process would help the president cut pork barrel projects that are often slipped unnoticed into large pieces of legislation, they said.

?Spending has run rampant in Washington, and it's because ?no? is not a word that Congress is used to when it comes to spending,? Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI) said. ?There are far too many examples of spending absurdity to share today; but the fact is that needless projects are squandering away millions of dollars at a time when our country is facing a record-breaking $15 trillion debt. It's time to start changing the way Congress budgets and spends taxpayer money, and the line-item veto is a positive step.?

Opponents of the bill argued that it inappropriately surrendered power to the executive branch of government. The Constitution gives the legislative branch the ?power of the purse,? and Congress should maintain it, they said. Opponents also argued that the bill would do very little to address the federal budget deficit because it was aimed at a tiny portion of federal spending.

?This bill grants the executive branch more power, and it will do little to reduce our deficit,? Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) said. ?Make no mistake: This bill sacrifices congressional authority.?

The bill was passed by a vote of 254-173. Voting ?yea? were 197 Republicans and 57 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 132 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 41 Republicans. As a result, the House approved legislation that would allow the president to ask for clearance from Congress to cut individual items from spending bills. However, to become law, the bill would have to be passed by the Senate and signed into law by the president.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
N N Lost
Roll Call 44
Feb 08, 2012
(H.R. 3521) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two separate bills ? one that would allow the president to force Congress to vote individually on spending items seen as wasteful, and the other aimed at preventing members of Congress from using their access to inside information to make profitable trades in the stock market

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two separate bills ? one that would allow the president to force Congress to vote individually on spending items seen as wasteful, and the other aimed at preventing members of Congress from using their access to inside information to make profitable trades in the stock market. The first of these two separate procedural votes was on a motion known as the ?previous question" -- which effectively ends debate and sets up an immediate vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and amendments that can be offered. The second vote was on passage of the resolution.

Both bills that Republicans sought to bring to the floor enjoyed strong support from members of both political parties. However, disagreement erupted over Republicans? attempt to prevent Democrats from offering more amendments to the bill that would prevent members of Congress from profiting from their access to inside information.

The bill, known as the STOCK Act, had originally included a requirement that employees of ?political intelligence firms? register with the federal government as lobbyists. Political intelligence firms focus on gathering inside information about future government decisions or actions. The firms sell that information to stock traders or other investors.

Republicans were asking the House to consider a version of the STOCK Act that exempted political intelligence firms. Democrats objected to this omission and argued that they should be allowed to offer an amendment restoring the requirement.

?This is yet another example of this Congress' remarkable ability to take commonsense measures and churn them, through partisan posturing, into measures that not only put in jeopardy broad, bipartisan support from this body, but significantly weaken them and reduce the quality of the work product for the American people,? Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) said.

Republicans noted that the STOCK Act had first been introduced several years earlier ? when Democrats controlled Congress ? but had never been brought up for consideration. While the bill may not be exactly as they would like it, its arrival on the House floor would be a ?step in the right direction,? Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) said.

?What this rule does is it provides the first opportunity that this Congress has had to vote on the STOCK Act,? Rep. Woodall said. ?That's not a topic for the gnashing of teeth. That's a topic for the clapping of hands.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 240-184. Voting ?yea? were 234 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 183 Democrats and 1 Republican. As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the two bills.

The House then agreed by a vote of 238-175 to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and amendments that could be offered to the two separate bills. Voting ?yea? were 228 Republicans and 10 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 174 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 1 Republican. As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate with limited opportunity to amend two bills ? one that would allow the president to force Congress to vote individually on spending items seen as wasteful, and the other aimed at preventing members of Congress from using their access to inside information to make profitable trades in the stock market.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
N N Lost
Roll Call 43
Feb 08, 2012
(H.R. 3521) On a motion to end debate and immediately vote on a resolution setting a time limit and amendments that can be offered to two separate bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two separate bills ? one that would allow the president to force Congress to vote individually on spending items seen as wasteful, and the other aimed at preventing members of Congress from using their access to inside information to make profitable trades in the stock market. The first of these two separate procedural votes was on a motion known as the ?previous question" -- which effectively ends debate and sets up an immediate vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and amendments that can be offered. The second vote was on passage of the resolution.

Both bills that Republicans sought to bring to the floor enjoyed strong support from members of both political parties. However, disagreement erupted over Republicans? attempt to prevent Democrats from offering more amendments to the bill that would prevent members of Congress from profiting from their access to inside information.

The bill, known as the STOCK Act, had originally included a requirement that employees of ?political intelligence firms? register with the federal government as lobbyists. Political intelligence firms focus on gathering inside information about future government decisions or actions. The firms sell that information to stock traders or other investors.

Republicans were asking the House to consider a version of the STOCK Act that exempted political intelligence firms. Democrats objected to this omission and argued that they should be allowed to offer an amendment restoring the requirement.

?This is yet another example of this Congress' remarkable ability to take commonsense measures and churn them, through partisan posturing, into measures that not only put in jeopardy broad, bipartisan support from this body, but significantly weaken them and reduce the quality of the work product for the American people,? Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) said.

Republicans noted that the STOCK Act had first been introduced several years earlier ? when Democrats controlled Congress ? but had never been brought up for consideration. While the bill may not be exactly as they would like it, its arrival on the House floor would be a ?step in the right direction,? Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) said.

?What this rule does is it provides the first opportunity that this Congress has had to vote on the STOCK Act,? Rep. Woodall said. ?That's not a topic for the gnashing of teeth. That's a topic for the clapping of hands.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 240-184. Voting ?yea? were 234 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 183 Democrats and 1 Republican. As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the two bills.

The House then agreed by a vote of 238-175 to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and amendments that could be offered to the two separate bills. Voting ?yea? were 228 Republicans and 10 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 174 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 1 Republican. As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate with limited opportunity to amend two bills ? one that would allow the president to force Congress to vote individually on spending items seen as wasteful, and the other aimed at preventing members of Congress from using their access to inside information to make profitable trades in the stock market.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
N N Lost
Roll Call 42
Feb 07, 2012
(H.R. 3581) On passage of a bill changing the way costs are estimated for federal programs providing loans and other forms of credit

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on final passage of a Republican bill that would change the way costs are estimated for federal programs that provide credit. The legislation would generally make those programs appear more expensive than they do currently.

Republicans offered the legislation as part of a series of bills to reform the budget process in Congress. They argued that the budget consistently understates the cost of loan programs. The legislation they offered would require Congress to use ?fair value? estimates. Compared to the method the government currently uses, these estimates assume credit programs impose a greater cost on taxpayers.

The bill would also require federal agencies to post online their annual budget requests, and require the operations of government-sponsored companies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to be factored into the federal budget.

Republicans argued that these changes would provide more honesty and transparency in the budget process.

?While it's well known that Washington has a spending problem, it is less well known that Washington isn't being fully honest about how much it is spending,? Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said. ?No budget process reform can substitute for political will when it comes to tackling our greatest fiscal and economic challenges. Getting America back on track will require a Senate and a president willing to get serious about the structural drivers of the debt and the continued impediments we have to economic growth. But being honest about the size and scope of our challenges, as this reform calls for, offers us a concrete step in the right direction.?

Democrats argued that the bill would actually be a departure from the principles of budget honesty and transparency. They noted that ?fair value? accounting would consistently lead Congress to overestimate the amount that would be spent on credit programs. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) noted that the Budget Committee had not held a hearing to investigate this new accounting method and whether it was appropriate to apply it to all federal credit programs. Others argued that Republicans were trying to drive up cost estimates as a way of justifying spending cuts.

?This bill is nothing more than a backdoor method to politicize and eliminate important federal investments,? Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) said. ?It hurts the middle class, hurts the working folks, and it hurts the economy. The use of the fair value accounting is the ax that these extreme methods will take to spending on our education, our small businesses, and the next generation of clean technology.?

The bill was passed by a vote of 245-180. Voting ?yea? were 238 Republicans and 7 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 178 Democrats and 2 Republicans. As a result, the House approved legislation that would change the way costs are estimated for federal programs that provide loans and other forms of credit.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
N N Lost
Roll Call 41
Feb 07, 2012
(H.R. 3581) On an amendment to exempt loan programs for veterans and students from new accounting methods that would increase the programs? estimated costs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have exempted loan programs for veterans and students from new accounting methods that would increase the programs? estimated costs.

Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN) offered the amendment to Republican-sponsored legislation that would change the way costs are estimated for federal credit programs. The Republican bill would require Congress to use ?fair value? estimates. Compared to the method the government currently uses, ?fair value? estimates assume credit programs impose a greater cost on taxpayers.

Rep. Walz said that while the goal of the Republican bill was ?noble,? nonpartisan accounting experts are still debating the merits of ?fair value? estimates. Until the effect of these new accounting methods are clearer, Congress should ?make sure there's a firewall between those that can least afford to have this go bad,? Rep. Walz said.

?We've heard concerns today that enactment of this bill could result in us systematically overestimating the cost of federal loan programs. This will not just be inaccurate accounting; it could cause significant harm to millions of Americans who depend on these loans,? Rep. Walz said. ?(My amendment) simply ensures that until we know how this policy is going to work out, we won't insist that we make it any harder for an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran to get a home loan. At the same time, when economic hardships and rising tuition costs are making it harder for our best and brightest, those very students that we depend on to make this nation profitable, we need to make sure that they're not harmed by this process.?

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) argued that the amendment would ?undercut? the Republican bill. While Rep. Walz was concerned with fairness to students and veterans, he said, Republicans were advocating their bill because of their concern about fairness to all Americans.

?We know that the budget process in this country is broken. We know that there is no fairness in that. This amendment will undercut the legislation before us, and the underlying bill will try to restore it,? Rep. Garrett said. ?Let me just say this: As we here in Washington travel through that great twilight which is that murky area of obscure accounting rules, let us commit ourselves to one thing ? that we will bring clarity, that we will bring transparency, that we will bring sunshine, and, most importantly, that we will bring fairness to the American public as to the spending of their tax dollars.?

Rep. Walz offered his amendment as a ?motion to recommit.? A motion to recommit is the minority?s opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If passed, House leaders would have been forced to add Rep. Walz?s amendment before allowing a vote on final passage of the bill.

Rep. Walz?s motion was defeated by a vote of 190-238. Voting ?yea? were 189 Democrats and 1 Republican. Voting ?nay? were 238 Republicans. As a result, the House declined to exempt programs for students and veterans from new accounting methods that would increase estimated costs of federal credit programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 40
Feb 07, 2012
(H.R. 3581) On an amendment to establish a commission to study accounting methods that Congress could use to estimate the cost of federal credit programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have established a commission to study accounting methods that Congress could use to estimate the cost of federal credit programs.

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) offered the amendment to Republican-sponsored legislation that changed the way costs are estimated for federal credit programs. The Republican bill would require Congress to use ?fair value? estimates. Compared to the method the government currently uses, these estimates assume credit programs impose a greater cost on taxpayers.

Rep. Tonko?s amendment would have put off this change until an independent commission, with members appointed by Democrats and Republicans, came up with a recommendation for the best accounting method to use. He noted that Congress hadn?t held a single hearing to gather facts on accounting methods. To make sure ?fair value? estimation is the best method, Congress should appoint a commission to study the issue, he said.

?At a time when our housing market has been devastated, when our workforce is struggling to attain the knowledge and skill set it needs in a difficult job market, when small businesses are fighting their way out of the worst recession since our Great Depression, and when our vets are facing a higher jobless rate than the rest of the country, why on Earth would we make a change of this magnitude without consulting with the best budget and accounting minds in our country?? Rep. Tonko said.

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) objected that Rep. Tonko?s amendment would have the effect of ?gutting? the Republican bill. He said that fair value accounting had been studied for many years, including by the House Budget Committee.

?So this bill is not precipitous. This bill is not rash. This bill is not extreme,? Rep. Garrett said. ?This bill takes a cautious approach and applies fair value budgeting in those areas where we have the most experience while calling for a further study of those areas in which it makes sense to do study.?

Rep. Tonko?s amendment was defeated by a vote of 187-238. Voting ?yea? were 185 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Voting ?nay? were 236 Republicans and 2 Democrats. As a result, the House defeated the effort to establish a commission to study accounting methods that Congress could use to estimate the costs of federal credit programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 39
Feb 07, 2012
(H.Res. 539) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation changing the way costs are estimated for federal programs providing loans and other forms of credit

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote to set a time limit for debate and determine which amendments could be offered to legislation that would change the way costs are estimated for federal programs that provide loans and other forms of credit. The legislation would generally make those programs appear more expensive than they do currently.

Republicans offered the legislation as part of a series of bills to reform the budget process in Congress. They argued that the budget consistently understates the cost of loan programs. The legislation they offered would require Congress to use ?fair value? estimates. Compared to the method the government currently uses, these estimates assume credit programs impose a greater cost on taxpayers.

The bill would also require federal agencies to post online their annual budget requests, and require the operations of government-sponsored companies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to be factored into the federal budget.

Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) said the bill was meant to ?try to align the kind of accounting and budgeting that we do in Washington with the kind of accounting and budgeting that happens in the real world.?

?We know transparency and sound accounting matter,? he said. ?We know that it matters on Wall Street. We know that it matters on Main Street. And it matters right here.?

Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) argued that the legislation was an attempt to ?artificially inflate the cost of federal credit programs.? Rather than debating this ?sham bill,? he said, the House should be focused on legislation that would help stimulate the economy. In addition, Rep. McGovern said, Republicans were stifling debate by trying to bring the bill up under rules that limited the number of amendments that could be offered.

?If some of these recent budget bills are any indication, the House Republican leadership cares more about rigging the budget process just to dismantle the federal safety net instead of actually working to reduce the deficit and at the same time spur job creation,? Rep. McGovern said.

The resolution was passed by a vote of 239-181. Voting ?yea? were 235 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 181 Democrats. As a result, the House set the stage for a debate with a limited number of amendments on a bill that would change the way costs are estimated for federal programs that provide loans and other forms of credit.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 38
Feb 07, 2012
(H.R. 1734) On passage of legislation to sell property that the federal government owns but does not need

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on final passage of legislation designed to reduce the federal government?s portfolio of property. The bill would establish a commission to identify property that the government no longer needs. By selling off the property, members of Congress hoped to both raise money in the short term and save money in the long term by eliminating the cost of upkeep.

President Obama had pursued an initiative to sell off unused federal property, and Republicans touted the idea as an opportunity for bipartisan action to reduce the deficit.

?Our federal government has a horrible track record of selling properties that aren't being used,? Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA) said. ?We can do much better, and the American taxpayers demand that we do much better. Here's a bipartisan opportunity to get both parties to come together and just sell things that we don't need. If you want to bring in revenue to reduce our debt, here's an opportunity to get rid of the things we don't need, redevelop the things that aren't being used, and get rid of the waste in government.?

However, Democrats said that while they supported the idea of selling unneeded property, they objected to a number of items in the Republican bill, including a waiver of rules requiring a full environmental review before selling property. They said Republicans had turned a bipartisan concept into a partisan wedge.

?Both Democrats and Republicans agree that we need a system to dispose of and consolidate excess federal property,? Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) said. ?However, the bill before us does not reflect the bipartisan compromise I agreed to? This is a tragic collapse of what had been a bipartisan process.?

The bill was passed by a vote of 259-164. Voting ?yea? were 238 Republicans and 21 Democrats. Voting ?nay? were 163 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, and 1 Republican. As a result, the House approved legislation that would create a commission to identify unneeded federal property to sell. However, to become law, the bill would need to be approved by the Senate and signed by the president.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 37
Feb 07, 2012
(H.R. 1734) On an amendment to exempt buildings that provide services to veterans from a program that would sell off unneeded federal property

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment to exempt buildings that provide services to veterans from a program that would sell off unneeded federal property.

Rep. Mike Michaud (D-ME) offered the amendment during consideration of legislation that would establish a commission designed to identify property that the federal government owns but does not need. The commission would then recommend properties to the president and Congress for sale. The goal was to reduce the federal government?s portfolio of unnecessary property, raise money, and save in the long term by eliminating the cost of keeping up the property.

Some property like military installations and national parks would not be eligible for sale under the program, and Rep. Michaud argued that Congress should also exempt properties that are used to provide health care, housing assistance, and other services to military veterans.

?The VA already provides health care to approximately 7.8 million veterans. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, more and more of the 2.3 million soldiers from those wars will start to seek care from the Veterans Administration,? Rep. Michaud said. ?I can understand why it makes sense to target the poor management and underutilization of government properties to reduce government waste, but I don't think our desire to address these issues should come at the expense of our veterans.?

Republicans argued that if the property-sale program must look at every federal agency ? including the veterans? programs ? to accomplish its mission of addressing waste in government.

?If we're going to do the best interest of American taxpayers, we've got to address waste in government overall, across the entire nation, across every agency,? Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA) said. ?If there's a property not being used today, then we ought to look at either redeveloping it or selling it off.?

Rep. Michaud offered his amendment as a ?motion to recommit.? A motion to recommit is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If approved, the House Republican leaders would have been forced to add the amendment to the bill before allowing a final up-or-down vote.

Rep. Michaud?s motion was defeated by a vote of 186-238. Voting ?yea? were 185 Democrats and 1 Republican. Voting ?nay? were 237 Republicans and 1 Democrat. As a result, the House moved to a final vote on legislation to sell off unneeded federal property without adding an exemption for buildings that provide health care and other services to veterans.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 36
Feb 07, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1734
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 34
Feb 06, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 537 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1734) to decrease the deficit by realigning, consolidating, selling, disposing, and improving the efficiency of Federal buildings and other civilian real property, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 33
Feb 03, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 658 FAA Modernization and Reform Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 32
Feb 03, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3578 To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 31
Feb 03, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3578 To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 30
Feb 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3582 To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 29
Feb 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3582 To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 28
Feb 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3582
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 27
Feb 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3582
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 26
Feb 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3582
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 25
Feb 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3582
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 24
Feb 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3582
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 23
Feb 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3630 Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 22
Feb 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 534 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3578, to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline, and providing for consideration of H.R. 3582, to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 21
Feb 02, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 534 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3578, to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline, and providing for consideration of H.R. 3582, to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 20
Feb 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3567 Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 19
Feb 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 3835 To extend the pay limitation for Members of Congress and Federal employees
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Lost
Roll Call 18
Feb 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1173 Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 17
Feb 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1173 Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 16
Feb 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1173
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 15
Feb 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1173
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 14
Feb 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1173
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 13
Feb 01, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1173
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 12
Jan 31, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 522 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1173) to repeal the CLASS program
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 4
Jan 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 98 Relating to the disapproval of the President?s exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, United States Code, on January 12, 2012
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 2
Jan 18, 2012

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 515 Addressing a motion to proceed under section 3101A of title 31, United States Code
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 949
Dec 20, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 501 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding any final measure to extend the payroll tax holiday, extend Federally funded unemployment insurance benefits, or prevent decreases in reimbursement for physicians who provide care to Medicare beneficiaries
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 948
Dec 20, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3630 To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 947
Dec 20, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 504 Resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 946
Dec 20, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Go to Conference: H R 3630 To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes
On Motion to Go to Conference

N N Lost
Roll Call 945
Dec 20, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 502 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs; and providing for consideration of the resolution (H.Res. 501)
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 944
Dec 20, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 502 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs; and providing for consideration of the resolution (H.Res. 501)
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 942
Dec 16, 2011
On Agreeing to the Concurrent Resolution: H CON RES 94 Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 3672

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

N N Lost
Roll Call 938
Dec 16, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 500 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2055, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies Appropriations for FY 2012; providing for consideration of H.R. 3672, making appropriations for disaster relief requirements for FY 2012
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 937
Dec 16, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 500 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2055, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies Appropriations for FY 2012; providing for consideration of H.R. 3672, making appropriations for disaster relief requirements for FY 2012
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 932
Dec 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1540 To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 931
Dec 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1540 To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 926
Dec 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 493 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1540, to authorize appropriations for FY 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 925
Dec 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 493 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1540, to authorize appropriations for FY 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 923
Dec 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3630 To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 922
Dec 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3630 To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 919
Dec 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 491 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 918
Dec 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 491 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 917
Dec 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Question of Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 491 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act
On Question of Consideration of the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 912
Dec 08, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1633 To establish a temporary prohibition against revising any national ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse particulate matter, to limit Federal regulation of nuisance dust in areas in which such dust is regulated under State, tribal, or local law, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 911
Dec 08, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1633 To establish a temporary prohibition against revising any national ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse particulate matter, to limit Federal regulation of nuisance dust in areas in which such dust is regulated under State, tribal, or local law, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 910
Dec 08, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1633
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 909
Dec 08, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1633
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 908
Dec 08, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1633
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 907
Dec 08, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1633
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 906
Dec 08, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1633
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 904
Dec 08, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1254 Synthetic Drug Control Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 903
Dec 08, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 487 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 902
Dec 08, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 487 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 901
Dec 07, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 10 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 900
Dec 07, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 10 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 899
Dec 07, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 898
Dec 07, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 897
Dec 07, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 896
Dec 07, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 895
Dec 07, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 891
Dec 06, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 2471 To amend section 2710 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that a video tape service provider may obtain a consumer?s informed, written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the Internet
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 890
Dec 06, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 479 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 10) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, and for other purposes.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 889
Dec 06, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 479 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 10) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, and for other purposes.
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 888
Dec 02, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3010 Regulatory Accountability Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 887
Dec 02, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3010 Regulatory Accountability Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 886
Dec 02, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 885
Dec 02, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 884
Dec 02, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 883
Dec 02, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 882
Dec 02, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 880
Dec 01, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 527 To amend chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the Regulatory Flexibility Act), to ensure complete analysis of potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 879
Dec 01, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 527 To amend chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the Regulatory Flexibility Act), to ensure complete analysis of potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 878
Dec 01, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 527
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 877
Dec 01, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 527
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 876
Dec 01, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 527
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 875
Dec 01, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 527
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 874
Dec 01, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 527
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 873
Dec 01, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3463 To reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions and by terminating the Election Assistance Commission
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 872
Dec 01, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3463 To reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions and by terminating the Election Assistance Commission
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 871
Nov 30, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 477 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3463; Providing for consideration of H. R. 527; and Providing for consideration of H. R. 3010
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 870
Nov 30, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 477 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3463; Providing for consideration of H. R. 527; and Providing for consideration of H. R. 3010
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 869
Nov 30, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3094 Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 868
Nov 30, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3094 Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 867
Nov 30, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3094
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 866
Nov 30, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3094
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 865
Nov 30, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3094
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 864
Nov 30, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3094
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 863
Nov 30, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Rise With Recommendation That Enacting Clause Be Stricken: H R 3094 Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act
On Motion to Rise With Recommendation That Enacting Clause Be Stricken

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 859
Nov 18, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 470 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3094, to amend the National Labor Relations Act with respect to representation hearings and the timing of elections of labor organizations under that Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 858
Nov 18, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H J RES 2 Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 856
Nov 17, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 467 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2112, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 855
Nov 17, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 466 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 854
Nov 17, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 466 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 852
Nov 16, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 822 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 851
Nov 16, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 822 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 850
Nov 16, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 822
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 849
Nov 16, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 822
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 848
Nov 16, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 822
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 847
Nov 16, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 822
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 846
Nov 16, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 822
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 845
Nov 16, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 822
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 844
Nov 16, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 822
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 843
Nov 16, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 822
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 842
Nov 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 463 Providing for consideration of H.R. 822, National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 841
Nov 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2838 Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 836
Nov 04, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2838
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 835
Nov 04, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2838
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 833
Nov 04, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2838
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 832
Nov 04, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2838
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 830
Nov 04, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 455 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2838) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2012 through 2015, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 829
Nov 04, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 455 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2838) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2012 through 2015, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 827
Nov 03, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2940 To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to eliminate the prohibition against general solicitation as a requirement for a certain exemption under Regulation D
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 826
Nov 03, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2940
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 824
Nov 03, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2930 To amend the securities laws to provide for registration exemptions for certain crowdfunded securities, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 823
Nov 03, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2930
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 822
Nov 03, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2112 Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 821
Nov 03, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 453 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2930, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act and H.R. 2940, the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 814
Oct 27, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 674 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 813
Oct 27, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2576 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility for certain healthcare-related programs
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 811
Oct 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 448 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2576 and H.R. 674
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 810
Oct 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 448 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2576 and H.R. 674
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 809
Oct 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1904 Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 808
Oct 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1904 Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 807
Oct 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1904
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 806
Oct 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1904
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 805
Oct 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1904
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 803
Oct 25, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 444 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1904) to facilitate the efficient extraction of mineral resources in southeast Arizona by authorizing and directing an exchange of Federal and non-Federal land, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 800
Oct 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2273 To amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use, and provide for the proper management and disposal, of materials generated by the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 799
Oct 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2273 To amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use, and provide for the proper management and disposal, of materials generated by the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 798
Oct 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2273
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 797
Oct 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2273
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 796
Oct 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2273
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 795
Oct 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2273
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 794
Oct 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2273
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 793
Oct 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 431 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2273, Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 792
Oct 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 431 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2273, Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 791
Oct 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2250 To provide additional time for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and incinerators, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 790
Oct 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2250 To provide additional time for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and incinerators, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 789
Oct 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 358 To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 788
Oct 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 358 To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 787
Oct 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 786
Oct 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 430 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 358) to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 784
Oct 12, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment: H R 2832 To extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 783
Oct 12, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3080 To implement the United States-Korea Trade Agreement
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 782
Oct 12, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3079 To implement the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 781
Oct 12, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3078 To implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 780
Oct 12, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3078 To implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 779
Oct 11, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 778
Oct 11, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 777
Oct 11, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 776
Oct 11, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 775
Oct 11, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 774
Oct 11, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 773
Oct 11, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 772
Oct 11, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 771
Oct 11, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 425 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2832, to extend the Generalized System of Preferences; H.R. 3078, the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement; H.R. 3079, the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement; H.R. 3080, the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 770
Oct 06, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 769
Oct 06, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 768
Oct 06, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 767
Oct 06, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 766
Oct 06, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 765
Oct 06, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 764
Oct 06, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2681 To provide additional time for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for cement manufacturing facilities, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 763
Oct 06, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2681 To provide additional time for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for cement manufacturing facilities, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 762
Oct 06, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 761
Oct 06, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 760
Oct 06, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 759
Oct 05, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 758
Oct 05, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 757
Oct 05, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 756
Oct 05, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 755
Oct 05, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 754
Oct 05, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 753
Oct 05, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 752
Oct 05, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 751
Oct 05, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 750
Oct 05, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 749
Oct 05, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 748
Oct 05, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 747
Oct 05, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2681
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 746
Oct 04, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 419 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2681, to provide additional time for the EPA to issue standards for cement manufacturing facilities, and for consideration of H.R. 2250, to provide additional time for the EPA to issue standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and incinerators
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 741
Sep 23, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2401 To require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 740
Sep 23, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2401 To require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 739
Sep 23, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 738
Sep 23, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 737
Sep 23, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 735
Sep 23, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 734
Sep 23, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 733
Sep 23, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 732
Sep 23, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 731
Sep 23, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 729
Sep 23, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 728
Sep 23, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 727
Sep 22, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment: H R 2608 Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 2011
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 726
Sep 22, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 412 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2608) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 725
Sep 22, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 412 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2608) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 724
Sep 22, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 406 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2401) to require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 723
Sep 22, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 406 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2401) to require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 722
Sep 22, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 409 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 721
Sep 22, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 409 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 719
Sep 21, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment: H R 2608 Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 2011
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 716
Sep 21, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 405 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2608) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 715
Sep 21, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 405 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2608) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 711
Sep 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2587 Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 710
Sep 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2587 Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 708
Sep 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 372 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 707
Sep 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 372 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act.
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 706
Sep 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 77 Relating to the disapproval of the President?s exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, United States Code, on August 2, 2011
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 704
Sep 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2218 Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 702
Sep 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2218
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 697
Sep 09, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1892 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 694
Sep 08, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 392 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2218, to amend the charter school program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and for consideration of H.R. 1892, to authorize appropriations for FY 2012 for intelligence activities of the U.S. Government, the Community Management Account, and the CIA Retirement System
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 693
Sep 08, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 392 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2218, to amend the charter school program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and for consideration of H.R. 1892, to authorize appropriations for FY 2012 for intelligence activities of the U.S. Government, the Community Management Account, and the CIA Retirement System
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 690
Aug 01, 2011
(S. 365) Final passage of legislation that would raise the U.S. debt limit by $2.4 trillion (to $16.7 trillion) through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings (either from spending cuts or tax revenue increases)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation that would that would raise the U.S. debt limit (the maximum amount the United States can be in debt) by $2.4 trillion through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings (either from spending cuts or tax revenue increases).
 
The debt bill was the result of negotiations between President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). In previous years, Congress had voted to increase the debt limit with little controversy or fanfare, regardless of which party controlled the House, Senate, or the White House. This year?in 2011?House Republicans, who held a majority in that chamber, refused to raise the debt limit unless Democrats agreed to deep spending cuts. While most economists argued that defaulting on the nation?s debt could bring about an economic catastrophe, Republicans effectively held the debt limit hostage until Obama and Congressional Democrats agreed to make major concessions with respect to spending cuts.

The bill would cut more than $900 billion from discretionary spending (spending other than funds for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security). The bill did not, however, specify which programs would be cut. Rather, the measure simply limited discretionary spending overall. Thus, decisions regarding cuts to specific programs would be made by Congress and President Obama over the next few years. The bill did not cut funding from Pell Grants (which provide financial aid to low-income college students), as Republicans had previously insisted on. In order to preserve funding for Pell Grants, Democrats agreed to eliminate subsidized student loans for graduate students. (Under subsidized loans, students pay no interest on the borrowed amount during the period which they attended school. In other words, no interest accrues on the loan while the student is enrolled.) The measure preserved subsidized loans, however, for undergraduate students.

Finally, the measure also created a bi-partisan commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings?either from further spending cuts, tax revenue increases, or a combination. If the commission cannot agree on a proposal--or if Congress rejects the proposal--across-the-board spending cuts (to domestic programs as well as military spending) totaling $1.2 trillion would automatically be enacted.

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged support for this bill: ?Creating jobs, Democrats and Republicans alike talk about that. How is it that we're going to be able to do that? Getting our fiscal house in order is a very, very important step in our quest to ensure that the people who are hurting and looking for jobs will have an opportunity to get them. We are sending a positive signal to the global market that we are the world's economic, military and geopolitical leader. By increasing the debt ceiling, we are sending a positive signal that we are going to continue meeting our obligations and our responsibility but, at the same time, dramatically reducing spending?.After 75 times of increasing the debt ceiling, we are finally getting to the root cause. The problem, as has been said over and over again, is our debt, and we're going to turn the corner on that in a thoughtful and balanced way.?

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) also supported the bill: ?Ladies and gentlemen, I have said numerous times during the course of this debate about whether America was going to pay its bills and that we need to vote, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans: Americans concerned about the fiscal posture of their country, concerned about the confidence that people around the world have in the American dollar, which is, after all, the standard of the world. That is what I think this vote is about.  It should not be about partisan politics, and very frankly, it should not be about ideological extremes. It ought to be about responsibility. It ought to be about understanding that our oath of office is to preserve and protect the United States of America. This bill does that. Vote `yes.'

Rep. David Price (D-NC) opposed the bill: ??We should never have reached this point. Under Democratic and Republican presidents alike, Congress has always fulfilled its responsibility to pay our nation's bills when they come due. We have disagreed vehemently about matters of fiscal policy, but we have always recognized that the full faith and credit of the United States should remain above the partisan fray. Until now, that is?.For the last several weeks, Republicans have held our nation's economy hostage to their narrow and extreme ideological agenda, demanding a ransom of devastating cuts to critical domestic programs while protecting tax breaks for oil companies and other special interests?.apparently, economic calamity is a small price to pay for ideological purity?.That the House and Senate are just now considering legislation to stave off default is a tremendous failure by House Republicans, who could not bring the most extreme elements of their caucus to a more balanced legislative solution. The result is an agreement which could have been worse but is still not good enough. From the beginning, I have said that any serious approach to deficit reduction must do two things: protect the fragile recovery, because the best cure for a budget deficit is a growing economy, and take a balanced approach to finding savings by putting all types of spending and revenues on the table. This agreement meets neither of these tests.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 269-161. Voting ?yea? were 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats. 95 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 66 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation that would that would raise the U.S. debt limit by $2.4 trillion through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings. Following House passage, the Senate also passed the measure, and President Obama signed it into law.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 687
Aug 01, 2011
(S. 365) Legislation that would raise the U.S. debt limit by $2.4 trillion (to $16.7 trillion) through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings (either from spending cuts or tax revenue increases) ? On passage of a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the debt limit bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation that would that would raise the U.S. debt limit (the maximum amount the United States can be in debt) by $2.4 trillion (to $16.7 trillion) through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings (either from spending cuts or tax revenue increases). The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The second vote was on passage of the resolution itself.

The underlying debt bill was the result of negotiations between President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). In previous years, Congress had voted to increase the debt limit with little controversy or fanfare, regardless of which party controlled the House, Senate, or the White House. This year?in 2011?House Republicans, who held a majority in that chamber, refused to raise the debt limit unless Democrats agreed to deep spending cuts. While most economists argued that defaulting on the nation?s debt could bring about an economic catastrophe, Republicans effectively held the debt limit hostage until Obama and Congressional Democrats agreed to make major concessions with respect to spending cuts.

The underlying debt bill would cut more than $900 billion from discretionary spending (spending other than funds for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security). The bill did not, however, specify which programs would be cut. Rather, the measure simply limited discretionary spending overall. Thus, decisions regarding cuts to specific programs would be made by Congress and President Obama over the next few years. The bill did not cut funding from Pell Grants (which provide financial aid to low-income college students), as Republicans had previously insisted on. In order to preserve funding for Pell Grants, Democrats agreed to eliminate subsidized student loans for graduate students. (Under subsidized loans, students pay no interest on the borrowed amount during the period which they attended school. In other words, no interest accrues on the loan while the student is enrolled.) The measure preserved subsidized loans, however, for undergraduate students.

Finally, the bill created a bi-partisan commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings?either from further spending cuts, tax revenue increases, or a combination. If the commission cannot agree on a proposal--or if Congress rejects the proposal--across-the-board spending cuts (to domestic programs as well as military spending) totaling $1.2 trillion would automatically be enacted.

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying debt bill: ??After months and months of debate, we have arrived at the ultimate goal to which we are all committed: a bipartisan agreement to avert the debt ceiling crisis looming right before us. Even more importantly, we have crafted a plan that addresses the real underlying challenge of our ballooning national debt. The bipartisan agreement before us today is an historic achievement?.this is the 76th time that we have raised the debt ceiling since 1962. Seventy-five times it has been raised. This is the 76th time. Yet?it is the very first time that we have done so while making corresponding cuts in spending?To most of us, this is just good common sense. It's the only responsible thing to do. Yet 75 times before, no connection was made between the debt ceiling and efforts to tackle our debt. With today's underlying legislation, we are fundamentally changing the way business is done here in Washington. We are setting a new precedent for fiscal discipline and accountability. This is a tremendous achievement that will have a profound and lasting impact on our budget and our economy in both the short, medium and long term.?

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ??I'm extremely disappointed with the solution that is being proposed today. It's important that we raise the debt ceiling; in fact, it is the duty of every member of Congress to ensure we pay our bills. Unfortunately, we have reached this point because some on the other side see paying our bills as optional and have asked a king's ransom for doing so. In the process, the majority has shown the world that our democracy is currently dysfunctional. Even if we avoid default, the process that got us to this point has already shown the world that the greatest nation on Earth can barely keep the lights on?. Furthermore, today's agreement does nothing to create jobs for the 25 million Americans who failed to find full-time jobs last month. On Friday, we will receive a jobs report that will provide even more evidence that while Congress has shrugged aside the urgent need to create jobs, millions of Americans continue to suffer. This bill does nothing to serve them. The [Republican] majority has steadfastly refused to consider a balanced approach to reducing our deficit, rejecting attempts to close tax loopholes for the rich and extend unemployment benefits for those unable to find work. Instead, they have decided to only consider the draconian cuts that threaten to reverse whatever fragile economic recovery is underway.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 242-184. All 238 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted ?yea.? 184 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the debt limit bill. The House then passed the resolution by a vote of 249-178. All 239 Republicans present and 10 Democrats voted ?yea.? 178 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceed to formal floor debate on legislation that would raise the U.S. debt limit by $2.4 trillion (to $16.7 trillion) through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 686
Aug 01, 2011
(S. 365) Legislation that would raise the U.S. debt limit by $2.4 trillion (to $16.7 trillion) through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings (either from spending cuts or tax revenue increases) ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the debt limit bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation that would that would raise the U.S. debt limit (the maximum amount the United States can be in debt) by $2.4 trillion (to $16.7 trillion) through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings (either from spending cuts or tax revenue increases). The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The second vote was on passage of the resolution itself.

The underlying debt bill was the result of negotiations between President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). In previous years, Congress had voted to increase the debt limit with little controversy or fanfare, regardless of which party controlled the House, Senate, or the White House. This year?in 2011?House Republicans, who held a majority in that chamber, refused to raise the debt limit unless Democrats agreed to deep spending cuts. While most economists argued that defaulting on the nation?s debt could bring about an economic catastrophe, Republicans effectively held the debt limit hostage until Obama and Congressional Democrats agreed to make major concessions with respect to spending cuts.

The underlying debt bill would cut more than $900 billion from discretionary spending (spending other than funds for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security). The bill did not, however, specify which programs would be cut. Rather, the measure simply limited discretionary spending overall. Thus, decisions regarding cuts to specific programs would be made by Congress and President Obama over the next few years. The bill did not cut funding from Pell Grants (which provide financial aid to low-income college students), as Republicans had previously insisted on. In order to preserve funding for Pell Grants, Democrats agreed to eliminate subsidized student loans for graduate students. (Under subsidized loans, students pay no interest on the borrowed amount during the period which they attended school. In other words, no interest accrues on the loan while the student is enrolled.) The measure preserved subsidized loans, however, for undergraduate students.

Finally, the bill created a bi-partisan commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings?either from further spending cuts, tax revenue increases, or a combination. If the commission cannot agree on a proposal--or if Congress rejects the proposal--across-the-board spending cuts (to domestic programs as well as military spending) totaling $1.2 trillion would automatically be enacted.

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying debt bill: ??After months and months of debate, we have arrived at the ultimate goal to which we are all committed: a bipartisan agreement to avert the debt ceiling crisis looming right before us. Even more importantly, we have crafted a plan that addresses the real underlying challenge of our ballooning national debt. The bipartisan agreement before us today is an historic achievement?.this is the 76th time that we have raised the debt ceiling since 1962. Seventy-five times it has been raised. This is the 76th time. Yet?it is the very first time that we have done so while making corresponding cuts in spending?To most of us, this is just good common sense. It's the only responsible thing to do. Yet 75 times before, no connection was made between the debt ceiling and efforts to tackle our debt. With today's underlying legislation, we are fundamentally changing the way business is done here in Washington. We are setting a new precedent for fiscal discipline and accountability. This is a tremendous achievement that will have a profound and lasting impact on our budget and our economy in both the short, medium and long term.?

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ??I'm extremely disappointed with the solution that is being proposed today. It's important that we raise the debt ceiling; in fact, it is the duty of every member of Congress to ensure we pay our bills. Unfortunately, we have reached this point because some on the other side see paying our bills as optional and have asked a king's ransom for doing so. In the process, the majority has shown the world that our democracy is currently dysfunctional. Even if we avoid default, the process that got us to this point has already shown the world that the greatest nation on Earth can barely keep the lights on?. Furthermore, today's agreement does nothing to create jobs for the 25 million Americans who failed to find full-time jobs last month. On Friday, we will receive a jobs report that will provide even more evidence that while Congress has shrugged aside the urgent need to create jobs, millions of Americans continue to suffer. This bill does nothing to serve them. The [Republican] majority has steadfastly refused to consider a balanced approach to reducing our deficit, rejecting attempts to close tax loopholes for the rich and extend unemployment benefits for those unable to find work. Instead, they have decided to only consider the draconian cuts that threaten to reverse whatever fragile economic recovery is underway.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 242-184. All 238 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted ?yea.? 184 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the debt limit bill. The House then passed the resolution by a vote of 249-178. All 239 Republicans present and 10 Democrats voted ?yea.? 178 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceed to formal floor debate on legislation that would raise the U.S. debt limit by $2.4 trillion (to $16.7 trillion) through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending, and create a commission to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 682
Jul 30, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 2693 To cut spending, maintain existing commitments, and for other purposes
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 677
Jul 29, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 627 Budget Control Act of 2011
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 676
Jul 29, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: S 627 Budget Control Act of 2011
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 675
Jul 29, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 383 Providing for further consideration of the bill (S. 627) to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 672
Jul 29, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 382 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 671
Jul 29, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 382 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 670
Jul 28, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 45 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 668
Jul 28, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 43 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 666
Jul 28, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 665
Jul 28, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 663
Jul 28, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 375 Providing for consideration of S. 627, to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 662
Jul 27, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 661
Jul 27, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 660
Jul 27, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 659
Jul 27, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 658
Jul 27, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 657
Jul 27, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 656
Jul 27, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 654
Jul 27, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 653
Jul 27, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 652
Jul 27, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 651
Jul 27, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 650
Jul 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1938 North American-Made Energy Security Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 649
Jul 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1938 North American-Made Energy Security Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 648
Jul 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1938
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 647
Jul 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1938
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 646
Jul 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1938
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 645
Jul 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1938
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 644
Jul 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1938
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 643
Jul 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1938
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 642
Jul 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1938
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 641
Jul 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1938
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 640
Jul 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1938
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 637
Jul 26, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 370 Providing for consideration of H. R. 1938, North American-Made Energy Security Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 636
Jul 25, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 635
Jul 25, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 634
Jul 25, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 633
Jul 25, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 632
Jul 25, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2584
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 630
Jul 25, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 363 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2584, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 629
Jul 22, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2551 Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 628
Jul 22, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2551
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 627
Jul 22, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2551
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 626
Jul 22, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2551
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 625
Jul 22, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2551
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 624
Jul 22, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2551
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 623
Jul 22, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2551
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 621
Jul 21, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1315 To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 620
Jul 21, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1315 To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 619
Jul 21, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1315
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 618
Jul 21, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1315
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 617
Jul 21, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1315
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 616
Jul 21, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1315
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 615
Jul 21, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1315
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 614
Jul 21, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 358 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1315) to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 613
Jul 21, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 359 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2551) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 612
Jul 21, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Question of Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 358 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1315) to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and for other purposes
On Question of Consideration of the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 611
Jul 20, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2553 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 610
Jul 20, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2553 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 609
Jul 20, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 357 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2553) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 608
Jul 20, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 357 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2553) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 606
Jul 19, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2560 Cut, Cap, and Balance Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 605
Jul 19, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2560 Cut, Cap, and Balance Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 604
Jul 19, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 355 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2560) to cut, cap, and balance the Federal budget
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 603
Jul 19, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 355 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2560) to cut, cap, and balance the Federal budget
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 600
Jul 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2354 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 599
Jul 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2354 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 598
Jul 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 80 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 596
Jul 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 72 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 595
Jul 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 71 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 594
Jul 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 70 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 593
Jul 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 69 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 588
Jul 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 61 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 586
Jul 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 55 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 585
Jul 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 584
Jul 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 51 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 583
Jul 15, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 582
Jul 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 581
Jul 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 46 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 579
Jul 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 577
Jul 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 576
Jul 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 575
Jul 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 574
Jul 14, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 2354
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 573
Jul 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2018 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State?s water quality standards, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 572
Jul 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2018 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State?s water quality standards, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 571
Jul 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2018
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 570
Jul 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2018
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 569
Jul 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2018
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 568
Jul 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2018
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 567
Jul 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2018
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 566
Jul 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2018
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 565
Jul 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2018
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 564
Jul 13, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 347 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2018), to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State?s water quality standards, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 563
Jul 12, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 2417 Better Use of Light Bulbs Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 561
Jul 12, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1309 To extend the authorization of the national flood insurance program, to achieve reforms to improve the financial integrity and stability of the program, and to increase the role of private markets in the management of flood insurance risk, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 559
Jul 12, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1309
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 558
Jul 12, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 1309
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 557
Jul 12, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1309
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 556
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 1309) On an amendment that would eliminate a provision in a flood insurance bill that directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to designate areas behind levees and dams as ?residual risk? floodplains. (Such a designation would have required local residents to purchase more expensive flood insurance.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) that would eliminate a provision in a flood insurance bill that directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to designate areas behind levees and dams as ?residual risk? floodplains. (Such a designation would have required local residents to purchase more expensive flood insurance.)

Cardoza urged support for his amendment: ?I'm offering this amendment because large areas across the country, such as large parts of the Central Valley and Los Angeles and Orange Counties, are already protected by existing levees and have no history of flooding, but would find themselves in newly designated ``residual risk'' floodplains under H.R. 1309 [the underlying flood insurance bill]. Such a policy would essentially map the entire area in the new residual risk flood zone as though the levee that had been protecting the community for years had never existed. This would have a significant economic impact, and in many cases more than double the insurance premiums of those regions throughout the country.?

Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) opposed Cardoza?s amendment: ?Under H.R. 1309, FEMA is required to update its flood maps?As part of the new standard for the flood insurance rate maps, FEMA must include in any rate map areas of residual risk, including areas behind levees, dams and other manmade structures. I'm afraid that the Cardoza amendment would fail to provide homeowners with a real assessment of their risks, thereby impairing their ability to prepare for such natural disasters?.  The amendment I think would weaken these new mapping standards that are designed to give homeowners and the NFIP an accurate portrait of flood risk, and I would oppose the amendment.?

The House agreed to Cardoza?s amendment by a vote of 261-163. Voting ?yea? were 158 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 103 Republicans. 135 Republicans and 28 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would eliminate a provision in a flood insurance bill that directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to designate areas behind levees and dams as ?residual risk? floodplains. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Natural Disasters
N Y Won
Roll Call 554
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 1309) On an amendment that would have prohibited lenders from requiring homeowners to purchase flood insurance in an amount greater than the outstanding principal balance of a home loan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) that would have prohibited lenders from requiring homeowners to purchase flood insurance in an amount greater than the outstanding principal balance of a home loan. This amendment was offered to legislation that would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through 2016 (which would allow the program to continue operating for another five years). Speier argued that her amendment was intended to prevent homeowners from being forced to purchase a flood insurance policy that was greater than the annual cost of their home mortgages.

Speier urged support for her amendment: ?I would venture to say that we don't see ourselves as being in the insurance business by choice. We are in the flood insurance business out of necessity, and it would seem to me that it doesn't make a lot of sense to impose an obligation on homeowners to purchase insurance that exceeds the actual cost of their mortgage, especially when we note that the average flood damage claims are anywhere from $25,000 to $35,000. So to require someone who has a $13,000 loan balance to purchase flood insurance for $250,000 and pay a fee, a yearly premium of $2,400, is just, I think, unacceptable??

Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) opposed Speier?s amendment, arguing that it would effectively leave some homeowners without flood insurance, and force them to bear the full financial burden of flood damage on their homes: ?Limiting the amount of coverage to the unpaid principal balance leaves consumers at risk of having to incur the costs of repair on their own and, additionally, is not reflective of the current state of industry practices?Consumers, not lenders, will bear the financial brunt of a disaster. Limiting flood insurance to the unpaid principal balance may protect the lender's financial interest in the property; however, it doesn't protect the consumer's equity and investment in the property. NFIP establishes the minimum amount of coverage required at the lesser of the outstanding balance of the loan or the maximum available NFIP coverage, which today is $250,000 for residential and $500,000 for commercial properties.?

The House rejected Speier?s amendment by a vote of 195-230. Voting ?yea? were 172 Democrats and 23 Republicans. 215 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited lenders from requiring homeowners to purchase flood insurance in an amount greater than the outstanding principal balance of a home loan.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Natural Disasters
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 553
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $450 million for research and development of clean energy technology (such as wind and solar energy), and would also have cut $450 million from research and development of fossil fuel-based energy (such as oil and gas)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) that would have increased funding by $450 million for ?ARPA-E,? a program that funds research and development of clean energy technology (such as wind and solar energy). At the same time, the amendment would have cut $450 million from research and development of fossil fuel-based energy (such as oil and gas). This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) urged support for his amendment: ?The reason for the amendment is that we have to move off the 19th-century fuel, that is, coal and oil, and move to future energy sources, one of which I talked about a few moments ago, that is, the nuclear. The other energy sources are out there. We discussed on this floor here over the last hour the issue of solar. There are fuels, advanced biofuels. There are also wind, solar, wave, geothermal. All of these are being advanced at this time by the ARPA-E program within the Department of Energy. That's where the future is. Now, we can make a choice here about staying with the past and trying to figure out how to create clean coal, which is probably the oxymoron of the century, or we can simply shift our resources to look at other energy sources, and that's what we have to do.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed Garamendi?s amendment: ??Our colleague's amendment would add funding to ARPA-E, which receives some $100 million in our bill; but the way he would do it would be virtually to eliminate funding for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program, I think causing excessive job losses. And I think the program makes major contributions. Of course we can't forget that fossil fuels, coal, and natural gas generate about 70 percent of our Nation's electricity. ARPA-E may someday generate a much greater percentage than perhaps it potentially does today, but we're a long way from there. So I oppose the gentleman's amendment and certainly the source, using the Fossil Fuels account for this additional money, that he suggests.?

The House rejected Garamendi?s amendment by a vote of 145-276. Voting ?yea? were 141 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 4 Republicans. 233 Republicans and 43 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding by $450 million for research and development of clean energy technology (such as wind and solar energy), and would also have cut $450 million from research and development of fossil fuel-based energy (such as oil and gas).


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 552
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have required the Energy Department to set aside $10 million for the production of Plutonium 238, a radioactive isotope that can be used for the production of nuclear energy

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) that would have required the Energy Department to set aside $10 million for the production of Plutonium 238, a toxic, radioactive isotope that can be used for the production of nuclear energy. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Schiff?s amendment was strongly supported by proponents of space exploration, including physicists? groups; Plutonium 238 is used to provide power to places where no other sources exist--including deep space. Thus, supporters of Schiff?s amendment contend that Plutonium 238 is vital to space exploration.

Schiff urged support for his amendment: ?Advancing the state of nuclear energy technology was the initial mission of the DOE [the Department of Energy], and it was hugely successful, developing technologies now used in power plants, submarines and deep space missions. This last focus is now one of the smallest: DOE spends about $40 million a year building plutonium-238 radioisotope thermal generators, RTGs, for NASA and for national security purposes. This program began in the fifties. RTGs flew on all of the Apollo missions and many times since. In deep space, RTGs are often the only possible source of power. Unfortunately, in the early nineties, the U.S. shut down plutonium-238 production, and since then, the Department of Energy has been using stockpiled material and material purchased from Russia to build these devices. Recently, though, Russia refused to continue that relationship, and our supply of plutonium-238 is almost exhausted. There are no other viable ways to provide this power, so the U.S. must restart production to allow any deep space or national security uses to continue.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed Schiff?s amendment: ?The gentleman's [Rep. Schiff?s] amendment increases funding for the plutonium-238 production restart project, as it's called. To do so, funding for other valuable nuclear energy activities would have to be cut, including the advanced reactor concept research, fuel cycle development, and promising avenues like small modular reactors licensing and research. The [Obama] administration has proposed this new project for several years in order to increase domestic supplies of plutonium-238?.The funding plans in?the amendment simply don't make sense, particularly given the other critical priorities in this bill.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 167-257. Voting ?yea? were 107 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 60 Republicans. 178 Republicans and 79 Democrats voted ?nay? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Energy Department to set aside $10 million for the production of Plutonium 238.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Nuclear Energy Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Nuclear Industry
N Y Lost
Roll Call 550
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $60.5 million for the Buildings Technology Program, which funds the development of new technologies that reduce energy use in buildings

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David Wu (D-OR) that would have increased funding by $60.5 million for the Buildings Technology Program, which funds the development of new technologies that reduce energy use in buildings. At the same time, the amendment would have cut $60.5 million from the Energy Department?s administrative expenses account. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Wu urged support for his amendment: ?At a time of both record energy costs and record unemployment, we need to protect Americans from crushing energy costs by improving the efficiency of existing and new buildings and homes?.Even at this late hour, at 8:30 p.m., you can just about hear the air conditioning straining to keep it cool in this chamber. The cost for air conditioning the U.S. capitol is a fortune. It is also very costly at my 13-foot-wide townhouse near the capitol, and, of course, heating cost is a big issue in my home in Oregon. The Building Technologies Program reduces the cost of operating homes and buildings by fostering public-private partnerships and developing technologies, techniques, and tools for making homes and businesses more affordable, productive, and efficient. According to the Department of Energy, the Building Technologies Program has resulted in fully $14 billion of direct savings to the consumer, savings that have been reinvested in local economies. Additionally, since its founding 20 years ago, the Building Technologies Program has saved the equivalent of over 12 billion gallons of gasoline.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed Wu?s amendment, arguing it made an ?unrealistic cut to departmental administration.? He said: ?It's not responsible to cut administration and oversight, the very thing that both the ranking [member] and I would suggest the Department of Energy needs more than anything. They need people to review their programs, provide accountability, meet the benchmarks we've set and the timetables we've set and report back to our committee. So I oppose the amendment and urge others to do so as well.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 196-228. Voting ?yea? were 168 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 28 Republicans. 210 Republicans and 18 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding by $60.5 million for the Buildings Technology Program, and also would have cut $60.5 million from the Energy Department?s administrative expenses account.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 549
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have cut $500 million from renewable energy research and development programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) that would have cut $500 million from renewable energy research and development programs. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Garrett urged support for his amendment: ??Time and time again, federal energy programs have failed to live up to their potential. These federal programs have allowed the government to basically play venture capitalists, if you will, and they do so not with their own money. Not at all. They do it with taxpayer moneys. And despite the little return on their investment, they have little choice in making these investments?.For example?the American people are being asked by their government to invest literally millions to promote something called `advanced solid-state lighting.' What is that? It's a technology that even its supporters can see is far too expensive to compete in today's marketplace. So does this sound like something that an intelligent investor would do? I think not. But only members of Congress who are spending other people's money would do so?. So to conclude, considering the precarious state of our economy and the fiscal condition of this country, the government can no longer invest in some of these extremely risky and unproven projects without regard to loss and expense. Government can no longer play the role of that reckless investor. We must eliminate the waste where it exists and encourage the federal government to spend the American public's money in a wise and prudent manner.?

Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN) responded: ?The gentleman [Rep. Garrett] mentioned advanced solid-state lighting. It is my understanding that Philips has indicated that a small investment in manufacturing technology to improve the mechanisms as far as the construction and manufacturing of these light bulbs would allow them to bring back jobs that are currently outsourced overseas.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) also opposed Garrett?s amendment: ??We have cut Energy and Water [the Energy Department and Army Corps of Engineers funding bill] back to approximately the 2006 level [spending levels enacted in 2006]?.I believe we have made the tough choices. We've reviewed all accounts. We've put at the pinnacle, of course, our responsibility for national security, national defense, and the weapons program and the nuclear navy, the next class of Ohio ballistic submarines, and also made substantial investments in the Army Corps of Engineers. I am reluctant to oppose this amendment, but I think we've made the tough choices. I urge members to oppose the amendment.?

The House rejected Garrett?s amendment by a vote of 149-274. Voting ?yea? were 146 Republicans and 3 Democrats. 183 Democrats and 91 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $500 million from renewable energy research and development programs.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
N N Won
Roll Call 548
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $227 million for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, and would also have cut $227 million from nuclear weapons programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) that would have increased funding by $227 million for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, and would also have cut $227 million from nuclear weapons programs. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Specifically, the amendment would have increased funding for three separate programs. The first was the Weatherization Assistance Program, which provided rebates for home renovations that reduce energy use. The second was the State Energy Program, which provided federal funding to states for energy efficiency initiatives. The third was the Building Technologies program, which funds the development of new technologies that reduce energy use in buildings.

Tonko urged support for his amendment: ?First, this amendment will restore funding to the Weatherization Assistance Program, or WAP. WAP is the largest residential efficiency program in our nation. It reduces the energy burden on low-income families and the elderly and disabled, and creates jobs, invests in local businesses, and advances technology, state-of-the-art technology?.Second, the amendment restores funding to the State Energy Program or SEP. SEP is the only cost-shared program administered by the United States Department of Energy that provides resources directly to the States for allocation by the Governor for use in energy efficiency?Finally, the?amendment restores funding to the Building Technologies Programs. Buildings in the United States use about 40 percent of our total energy and two-thirds of our electricity. As such, this program seeks to promote American innovation and technologies to reduce operating costs to building owners, which is vital in today's market?.I wish to close by saying I do not believe we can afford to slip any further behind our global competitors in energy investments. A vote for this amendment is a vote in favor of decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, creating local, private sector contracting jobs, and providing State control on energy projects.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed Tonko?s amendment: ?In order to increase funding for this energy efficiency and renewable account, the gentleman's amendment?suggests we decrease funding for weapons activities?.the nuclear complex is a critical national security priority and must be refunded. Reductions of this magnitude would be unacceptable and impact our ability and our nuclear security strategy. These reductions in the nuclear account would be to increase funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs primarily in the area of weatherization in the State Energy Program. For your information, these two programs have $3.4 billion in unspent funds from the 2009 stimulus [funds leftover from an economic stimulus law enacted in 2009]?They don't need any more money.?

The House rejected Tonko?s amendment by a vote of 149-273. Voting ?yea? were 139 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 10 Republicans. 226 Republicans and 47 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding by $227 million for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, and would also have cut $227 million from nuclear weapons programs.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 547
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have cut $45.6 million from the Vehicle Technologies program, which funds the development of fuel efficient transportation technologies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) that would have cut $45.6 million from the Vehicle Technologies program, which funds the development of fuel efficient transportation technologies. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Pompeo urged support for his amendment: ? While I am certainly 100 percent behind innovation and the development of domestic sources of energy and new vehicle technologies, this program is simply not the way to do it. We shouldn't take money from one set of citizens to subsidize companies that, frankly, have had subsidies for too long in the development of new energy vehicle technologies. Look, it's a subsidy program, plain and simple. The program is part of this present administration's liberal agenda to replace the free market with government bureaucrats in determining which energy sources we ought to use to propel our vehicles and for transportation. You know, we are already seeing tremendous advances in hybrid technology and electric vehicle technology. In the State of Kansas, we have got folks coming up with wonderful, great, innovative ideas. They are seeking private capital markets to make that innovation happen. We have enormous venture capital firms that have made significant investment in these technologies. Why would the government use taxpayer money to compete with those ventures? They don't need the subsidies. They'll make these things work.?

Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN) opposed Pompeo?s amendment: ?You drive by a gas station today and gas is $4 a gallon. All of us repeatedly are asked what are we going to do about gas prices. If we are not going to act as far as price fixing, collusion, cartels, monopolies, speculation, and we can't do anything about the laws of supply and demand, I have indicated to my constituents the thing that Congress can do most effectively for the price of gasoline is help our constituents buy less of it.  If we can, through vehicle technology research, help everyone in this country get an extra mile per gallon, we have helped them with the price of gasoline. If we begin to cut back to prior year levels as far as the investment in making sure people can move in this country as efficiently as possible and reduce our dependency on imported oil, we are not going to make economic progress in this country and are going to continue to be held hostage to those overseas who send that oil to us for our dollars that they then use for other nefarious purposes.?

The House rejected Pompeo?s amendment by a vote of 127-296. Voting ?yea? were 125 Republicans and 2 Democrats. 184 Democrats and 112 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $45.6 million from the Vehicle Technologies program, which funds the development of fuel efficient transportation technologies.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
N N Won
Roll Call 546
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $491 million for renewable energy (such as wind and solar energy) research and development, and would also have cut $491 million from nuclear weapons programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) that would have increased funding by $491 million for renewable energy (such as wind and solar energy) research and development, and also would have cut $491 million from nuclear weapons programs. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Welch urged support for his amendment: ?In Burlington, Vermont, we had a program through this title that helped a community market install 136 solar panels on the roof of the city market that generated 31 kilowatts of power. I mean, that's not going to save the world, but it created jobs. It reduced their costs. And it was local, local people doing it?.So the real question that is before us is: Do we want to promote energy efficiency at the local level in all the various ways people can come up with to save money when we know that in your district or mine, Republican, Democrat, or independent, we've got out-of-work contractors, we've got homeowners who want to save money, and we've got manufacturers who want to sell their goods? So I urge the body to consider favorably the amendment that is before you.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed Welch?s amendment: ?I rise in opposition to the amendment because this amendment decreases funding for weapons activities by $491 million in order to increase, as we heard, the Energy Efficiency and Renewable account. Modernization of the nuclear complex is a critical national priority and must be funded, and that doesn't matter whether it's the Obama administration or the Bush administration. All of our administrations are working to make sure that we have a nuclear stockpile that is safe, reliable, and verifiable. With years of stagnant funding, we have put off long enough the investments that are needed to sustain our nuclear capabilities into the future. The funding in our bill for weapons activities is both now, as a result, timely and urgent.?

The House rejected Welch?s amendment by a vote of 123-300. Voting ?yea? were 120 Democrats?including a majority of progressives--and 3 Republicans. 234 Republicans and 66 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding by $491 million for renewable energy (such as wind and solar energy) research and development, but would have cut $491 million from nuclear weapons programs.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 545
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have cut $26.5 million from the Vehicle Technologies program, which funds the development of fuel efficient transportation technologies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) that would have cut $26.5 million from the Vehicle Technologies program, which funds the development of fuel efficient transportation technologies. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Broun urged support for his amendment: ?Beyond concerns with how this program is run and how the dollars are being spent, this program should not be funded or run by the federal government. This type of program is best served by the private sector or local and State governments. Despite the management concerns, the Department of Energy has recently announced its intention to broaden the scope of the Vehicle Technologies?[program] to also include the National Clean Fleets program. One mission of this program is to assist Fortune 100 companies to upgrade their commercial fleet. Is this really an appropriate use of federal dollars when we are facing a $1.6 trillion deficit? Is it really appropriate to be helping companies such as Enterprise, GE, and Ryder upgrade their fleets to electric or alternative fuel vehicles? The answer to these questions, in my opinion, is no. In fact, I think most of the American people believe the answer to those questions is no.?

Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN) opposed Broun?s amendment: ??Someone who I have a great deal of respect for, my senior Senator in the state of Indiana, Senator Lugar, has always characterized our energy problem as a national security problem. I think we all recognize it is an economic problem. We can debate the environmental aspects. I happen to think it is an environmental problem myself. But I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that it is a national security issue, relative to where we are buying so many of our petroleum products. And to gain energy independence, we are going to need a different and more diverse matrix of energy sources. Seventy percent of our energy today is created through coal and natural gas, and that cannot continue. That is not healthy for our nation. It is not healthy for our economy. It is not healthy for our national security. We need to diversify. In this instance, the committee has recognized our fiscal responsibility but continues to make an investment in our economic, our job, and our energy futures.?

The House rejected Broun?s amendment by a vote of 131-292. Voting ?yea? were 130 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 185 Democrats and 107 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $26.5 million from the Vehicle Technologies program, which funds the development of fuel efficient technologies.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
N N Won
Roll Call 544
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $24 million for renewable energy development programs, and also would have cut $50 million from fossil fuel-based energy (such as oil and gas) research and development

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) that would have increased funding by $24 million for renewable energy development programs, and also would have cut $50 million from fossil fuel-based energy (such as oil and gas) research and development. The amendment would have cut, however, $99 million from federal subsidies for oil and gas companies.

Miller urged support for his amendment: ?The top five oil and gas companies made $32 billion in profits in the first quarter--the first quarter, $32 billion, 3 months. To that industry Republicans say, belly on up to the public trough, boys; we'll make room for you. The energy research that we're talking about in the EER&E [Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account] is wind, solar, biomass, water--on and on. You know what they are. We need to make some of those technologies work, or we are not going to have enough energy in the future. And in the shorter term, they promised healthy competition for the fossil fuel industry to bring down the cost of energy for Americans. It's hard, in fact, to look at the hostility of Republicans to those industries, to those emerging energy technologies and think a big part of their hostility is not at the bidding of the fossil fuel industry to smother that competition in the crib.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed Miller?s amendment: ?The gentleman from North Carolina's amendment increases funding for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable account, a program that I said earlier has seen record increases since 2007 and still has $9 billion in unspent stimulus funds [funds leftover from an economic stimulus law enacted in 2009] in its account from 2009 to spend. On that alone, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well.?

The House rejected Miller?s amendment by a vote of 179-244. Voting ?yea? were 163 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 16 Republicans. 221 Republicans and 23 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding by $24 million for renewable energy development programs, and also would have cut $50 million from fossil fuel-based energy research and development.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 543
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $46 million for the Vehicle Technologies program, which funds the development of fuel efficient technologies. At the same time, the amendment would have cut$99 million from federal subsidies for oil and gas companies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) that would have increased funding by $46 million for the Vehicle Technologies program, which funds the development of fuel efficient technologies. At the same time, the amendment would have cut$99 million from federal subsidies for oil and gas companies. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Connolly urged support for his amendment: ?The Vehicle Technologies program is a critical part of our efforts to revive American manufacturing and the automobile industry. It is a job generator?.The Vehicle Technologies program is a success story in boosting domestic manufacturing of cleaner cars that save consumers money at the pump. It is reducing the cost of advanced lithium ion batteries, which are in all hybrid vehicles on the road in America. This program has helped deploy 48 battery manufacturing projects all across the United States with the goal of reducing hybrid vehicle engine costs by 35 percent. Hybrid vehicles are an important part of our domestic manufacturing base and provide direct quality of life benefits in suburban regions with high levels of smog pollution, such as here in the nation's capital. The Advanced Vehicle Technologies program also is helping to deploy electric vehicles, including the new Chevy Volt.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed Connolly?s amendment: ?Let's be frank. Fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, generate 70 percent of our Nation's electricity, and we will use these valuable energy sources for many generations. We must ensure that we use those resources, of course, as efficiently and cleanly as possible?.There is a proper role for the core Energy Efficiency and Renewable programs [which include the Vehicle Technologies program], and the bill preserves funding for those activities while cutting out activities that are redundant with the private sector or that intervene improperly in market innovation.?

The House rejected Connolly?s amendment by a vote of 173-249. Voting ?yea? were 163 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 10 Republicans. 226 Republicans and 23 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding by $46 million for the Vehicle Technologies program, and also would have cut $99 million from federal subsidies for oil and gas companies.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 542
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have eliminated federal funding for a home weatherization program that provides rebates for home renovations that save energy

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) that would have eliminated federal funding for a home weatherization program that provides rebates for home renovations that save energy. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Lamborn urged support for his amendment: ??My constituents in Colorado, like all Americans, are demanding that Congress cut spending. We must look for every opportunity, large and small, to cut wasteful government programs. This amendment does just that. The Weatherization Assistance Program, otherwise known as `Cash for Caulkers,'?has been plagued by bureaucratic mismanagement. This $5 billion program was supposed to create jobs, but we all know that didn't work out so well.?

Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN) opposed Lamborn?s amendment: ?These moneys have been obligated to the states, and these moneys can put people to work doing useful things such as helping those who need to weatherize their house and reduce their utility bills so they can have enough money to buy gasoline and put it in their cars, as well as to begin to reduce the use of energy in this country. These are very necessary moneys to create jobs, to help those in need, and to reduce our energy dependence. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.?

The House rejected Lamborn?s amendment by a vote of 164-259. Voting ?yea? were 162 Republicans and 2 Democrats. 183 Democrats and 76 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated federal funding for a home weatherization program that provides rebates for home renovations that save energy.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Won
Roll Call 541
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding for clean, alternative energy technology (such as wind and solar energy) by $100 million

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have increased funding for clean, alternative energy technology (such as wind and solar energy) by $100 million. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Markey urged support for his amendment: ?Where is America heading? Are we going to compete against the Saudi Arabians, the Venezuelans, and others in the generation of energy or are we going to capitulate? Are we going to just become a country where we're importing oil or are we going to move to a solar future, a wind future, an all-electric vehicle future over the next 20 and 30 and 40 years? You know, this budget that they have put together is really one that gets right to the heart of their argument that they say they care about all of the above. What this budget actually says is it is oil above all. It's still a fossil fuel agenda. It's not a technology-oriented agenda. It's not an agenda that can help us to turn the corner and to create new technologies that move us to a 21st century agenda.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed Markey?s amendment: ??The gentleman [Rep. Markey] asserted that fossil and nuclear energy are yesterday's sources of energy and that we're shortchanging tomorrow's energy sources. Well, in fact, nuclear energy produces 20 percent of our nation's electricity, and even the State of Massachusetts depends on nuclear energy for about 10 percent of its energy. Fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, generate 70 percent of our nation's electricity, and we will use these valuable energy sources for many generations. In fact, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts gets 80 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels. I understand his desire to move us forward, but realistically, we'll be using fossil fuels for decades and nuclear energy perhaps for centuries. And we must ensure that we use those resources as efficiently and clearly as possible.?

The House rejected Markey?s amendment by a vote of 154-266. Voting ?yea? were 148 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 6 Republicans. 230 Republicans and 36 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding for clean, alternative energy technology by $100 million.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 540
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 540) On an amendment that would have allowed the Army Corps of Engineers to implement new clean water regulations for streams and wetlands that were not protected by current law

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) that would have allowed the Army Corps of Engineers to implement new clean water regulations for streams and wetlands. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Specifically, the underlying energy and water development bill that Moran was trying to amend would prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from implementing new clean water regulations for streams and wetlands that are not connected to navigable waterways (such as isolated wetlands on private property). Moran?s amendment would have eliminated that prohibition.

Moran urged support for his amendment: ?The original idea was that you would define waters that are contiguous, that you can see on the surface, that you can navigate across from one state into another as falling under federal protection. The problem is that there are a lot of waters that part of the year may run under the ground but are still contiguous and supply water to navigable streams and to rivers that are absolutely important to our economy and to our environment. So which of those waters should EPA [the Environmental Protection Agency] and the Corps of Engineers regulate? During part of the year, the water flows under the surface, but it's still there; it's still important. If we don't enable our federal agencies to clarify which waters are to be protected, many wetlands will be filled in, many habitats will be destroyed, many streams that run alongside mines will be filled with toxic material that will then subsequently run into rivers and water supplies that people need for their drinking water.?

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) opposed Moran?s amendment, and argued that an ?element within American society that wants to regulate all water to the detriment of private property rights. They want to make a determination that if there is a stock water pond and a duck lands on it, we get control. If there's an independent stream, meaning it goes underground, and then occasionally when it rains too much and there is going to be moisture, we want control. This is what we're talking about in America today, overregulation. When we talk about jobs--where are the jobs--a lot of it is because of overregulation.?

The House rejected Moran?s amendment by a vote of 170-250. Voting ?yea? were 161 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 9 Republicans. 227 Republicans and 23 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Army Corps of Engineers to implement new clean water regulations for streams and wetlands that were not protected by current law.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 539
Jul 12, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would allow the Energy Department and the Army Corps of Engineers to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) that would allow the Energy Department and the Army Corps of Engineers to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Specifically, the underlying bill prohibited the Energy Department and Army Corps of Engineers from converting jobs held by federal government employees to private, contracted positions. Sessions? amendment would have eliminated this prohibition.

Sessions urged support for his amendment: ?My amendment would strike section 102 of this legislation, which, as drafted, prohibits the use of any funds in the underlying bill to convert any functions performed by federal government employees to private competition?Currently, some 850,000 of the 2 million executive branch, non-postal, full-time, and permanent positions are jobs that are commercial in nature. The Heritage Foundation has reported that subjecting Federal employee positions which are commercial in nature to a public-private cost comparison generate on average a 30 percent cost savings regardless of which sector wins the competition. According to Americans for Tax Reform, the average cost of each new federal employee for salary, benefits and pension totals $4.27 million. Without competition, government-run monopolies of commercial activities duplicate and price out the private sector, resulting in inefficient expenditures of taxpayer money.?
 
Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN) opposed Sessions? amendment: ?The importance of locks and dams to our nation's economy cannot be understated, and any failure to ensure that the nation's waterways remain safe and navigable would cripple the economy. These operators and mechanics make vital decisions affecting the lives, liberty and property of private persons, thus rendering the workload inappropriate for contractor performance. Further, no reasonable argument has been made that the locks and dams are overstaffed. Additionally, the Corps undertook a privatization study for their IT personnel in 2004. After an expensive 3-year study, the results came back as an in-house win?.We need to stop wasting millions of dollars on these expensive competitions that time and again show government employees are a less expensive alternative, and I would urge all of my colleagues to vote `no.'?

The House agreed to Sessions? amendment by a vote of 224-196. Voting ?yea? were 222 Republicans and 2 Democrats. 180 Democrats and 16 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would allow the Energy Department and the Army Corps of Engineers to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate and be signed into law by the president. At the time this vote occurred, the Senate had not acted on the amendment.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Lost
Roll Call 537
Jul 11, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would eliminate all federal funding ($4.9 million) for an Army Corps of Engineers program intended to prepare for the impact of global climate change

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) that would eliminate all federal funding ($4.9 million) for an Army Corps of Engineers program intended to prepare for the impact of global climate change. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Woodall urged support for his amendment: ?What I'm concerned about are those silos that are being created in government today?This body in the early 1970s would have been talking about the calamity we are faced with, global cooling, and here we today with a special budget line item for global warming for the Corps of Engineers. We have a great deal of global warming money going into our Department of the Interior, going into the Environmental Protection Agency. The Corps at its core is a construction agency, and certainly this account provides for operations and maintenance for anything that might come up along those lines. But rather than creating this silo to focus specifically on global warming issues, in these tough economic times when we have so many Corps projects that are so lacking in funding, my amendment would strike this account in its entirety??

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) opposed Woodall?s amendment: ?This attack on science, this attack on the need to learn more about the science of climate change, more about the impacts which this changing global environment is having upon our planet is just, once again, a direct attack upon the reality that the planet is warming, and in parts of the planet, the Arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, dangerously so. So the role that science plays is a little bit like the role that Paul Revere played. The scientists are saying climate change is coming. It's intensifying. It can do great harm to our planet and to the security interests of our planet. So this amendment basically strikes right at what it is that the rest of the world expects our country to be, which is the leader on science.?

The House agreed to Woodall?s amendment by a vote of 218-191. Voting ?yea? were 216 Republicans and 2 Democrats. 175 Democrats and 16 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would eliminate all federal funding ($4.9 million) for an Army Corps of Engineers program intended to prepare for the impact of global climate change. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate and be signed into law by the president. At the time this vote occurred, the Senate had not acted on the amendment.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Lost
Roll Call 536
Jul 11, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would increase funding by $6.36 million for dredging activities by the Army Corps of Engineers (in which sediment is removed from waterways in order keep them navigable)?and would simultaneously cut $6.36 million from the Corps? administrative expenses account.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) that would increase funding by $6.36 million for dredging activities by the Army Corps of Engineers (in which sediment is removed from waterways in order keep them navigable)?and  would simultaneously cut $6.36 million from the Corps? administrative expenses account. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Scalise urged support for his amendment: ?Why is this important? Number one, it's a critical jobs issue. Because as we just saw a few weeks ago, prior to some of the record levels of flooding?we saw they had to roll back, just in my region of the New Orleans area, they had to roll back some of the depth that they were allowed to transport on the Mississippi River. This cost about $1 million per vessel, added costs to move commerce throughout our country. Not only does that cost jobs, but it also increases the cost of goods for Americans who buy those products. But it also increases the costs of exporting. And it makes our American companies less competitive in the world. And of course right now this Congress, the President, we're working together to try to reach trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. And I support more trade, free trade, the ability for more American employers to be able to sell their goods throughout the world, to actually create more jobs in America. But if we're going to do that, we've got to have the proper dredging going on to allow for that commerce along our waterways.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed Scalise?s amendment: ?I share the gentleman's concern for sufficiently maintaining our waterways as necessary to realizing the national economic benefits of efficient cargo transportation. Representing, as I do, part of New Jersey, which is highly dependent on the Port of New York and New Jersey, I am well aware that navigation and money for navigation and dredging is absolutely essential, and I am highly sympathetic to the gentleman from Louisiana for all of the historical things that have impacted Louisiana's economy and so many people down there?.Navigation needs are not the only important issues addressed in our bill, however. Increased funding for this programmatic line even further would upset the careful balance of priorities that I have spoken of earlier, including national defense, which is a major component of why we even have a Department of Energy, and nuclear safety, energy innovation and, of course, the great work of the Army Corps, the water resources needs. So, therefore, reluctantly I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.?

The House agreed to Scalise?s amendment by a vote of 241-168. Voting ?yea? were 182 Republicans and 59 Democrats. 118 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 50 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would increase funding by $6.36 million for dredging activities by the Army Corps of Engineers--but would cut $6.36 million from the Corps? administrative expenses account. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 535
Jul 11, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would increase funding by $1.75 million for the maintenance of levees in areas at risk of flooding, but would cut $1 million from the Missouri River Recovery Program, which funds projects that restore the habitat of species that live within the river?s ecosystem

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) that would increase funding by $1.75 million for the maintenance of levees in areas at risk of flooding, but would cut $1 million from the Missouri River Recovery Program, which funds projects that restore the habitat of species that live within the river?s ecosystem. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Graves urged support for his amendment: ??Basically what I'm trying to do here is to point out the absurdity and misalignment of priorities which have become clear in this appropriations bill.  I live along the Missouri River in Missouri, and we've had families that have been inundated by the flooding that has taken place this year with no real end in sight, to be quite honest with you. This underlying bill provides $73 million for the Missouri River Recovery Program which is used to fund habitat creation projects. Unfortunately, the underlying bill only provides slightly more than $6 million for the maintenance of the levees all the way from Sioux City, Iowa, to the mouth of the Missouri, where it meets up with the Mississippi. So essentially we are spending nearly 12 times more to buy land for the betterment of fish and birds than we are to protect farmers, businesses, and homes that are being flooded right now?.While I believe conservation is important, we should not overlook what it is we sometimes sacrifice to achieve conservation. In this case, we are sacrificing the livelihoods of businesses and farmers and are destroying homes.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed Graves? amendment: ?I am very sympathetic to those that have been devastated by floods in Missouri and in other states across the nation. It's a very personal thing for many members of Congress who look to their congressional districts and see the loss of life, and livelihoods, and jobs, and devastation to family farms and to small towns. One of the things we did in our bill of course, and I am sure the gentleman would recognize this, we came up with a billion dollars of emergency aid, which hopefully will be of assistance. I know he doesn't speak of that in this amendment. But certainly all members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are committed to help those whose lives have been unalterably changed because of the devastation. My concern with his amendment is that the [Army] Corps [of Engineers] has said this construction funding is necessary to avoid jeopardy under the Endangered Species Act. If the river system jeopardizes species, it could have great effect on the operations of the river. So speaking to my earlier point, we want to be helpful, but we also look to the Corps for some direction on this point. As a consequence, I oppose his amendment.?

The House agreed to Graves? amendment by a vote of 216-190. Voting ?yea? were 204 Republicans and 12 Democrats. 164 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 26 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would increase funding by $1.75 million for the maintenance of levees in areas at risk of flooding, but would cut $1 million from the Missouri River Recovery Program. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate and be signed into law by the president. At the time this vote occurred, the Senate had not acted on the amendment.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Lost
Roll Call 534
Jul 11, 2011
(H.R. 2354) On an amendment that would have increased funding for the Army Corps of Engineers construction projects by $186 million

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) that would have increased funding for the Army Corps of Engineers construction projects by $186 million. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Energy Department programs and the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2012.

Tierney urged support for his amendment: ?The business community, from ports to barge operators to agricultural exporters, depends on a marine transportation system to move goods to domestic and international markets. They are also important parts of the nation's economic engine and are drivers for job creation in America. Maintaining our Federal channels to their authorized and required dimensions is a critical part of ensuring that this commerce can continue uninterrupted. Yet we continue to have a significant dredging backlog, and I am concerned that this bill's allocation for the Army Corps is insufficient to appropriately address that backlog. It doesn't just affect commerce; it impacts people's lives very intimately as well. I hear from constituents in my district, particularly those in Newburyport and the Plum Island part of Newbury, who tell me that their homes are quite literally about to fall into the ocean unless the Army Corps can rehabilitate a jetty that hasn't been repaired in 40 years. That's not an uncommon story on our waterways.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed Tierney?s amendment: ?I share in the gentleman's support for smart investments in our Nation's water resources infrastructure and in the good work of the Army Corps of Engineers. I well understand on the committee the economic benefits of spending money on these needs. At the same time, we cannot ignore the importance of addressing our nation's deficit problem and the other priorities of the bill, namely national defense and scientific innovation?.The underlying bill balances these important goals, in part, by reducing the construction account from the fiscal year 2011 enacted level?With this level of funding, we are working to reduce the deficit, funding our national defense needs, supporting scientific innovation, and at the same time allowing the Corps to continue progress on the most critical water resources investments.?

The House rejected Tierney?s amendment by a vote of 162-246. Voting ?yea? were 142 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 20 Republicans. 212 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding for the Army Corps of Engineers construction projects by $186 million.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 533
Jul 08, 2011
(H.R. 1309) Legislation that would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, which would allow the program to continue operating through fiscal year 2016?On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, which would allow the program to continue operating through fiscal year 2016. (The National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, allows property owners to purchase flood insurance from the federal government.)

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The legislation we are discussing today reauthorizes the NFIP for 5 years through September 30, 2016. The current program is scheduled to expire on September 30 of this year. The last time Congress passed a long-term flood insurance program was in 2004. Since its expiration in 2008, the NFIP has been extended 11 times and lapsed three times during that period. These short-term extensions and lapses create needless uncertainty in the marketplace in an already struggling residential and commercial real estate market all across the United States.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), who voted against the resolution but supported the underlying flood insurance bill, said: ??This is one of those rare occasions when the gentleman from Texas [Rep. Sessions] and I actually agree on something. I think the underlying bill is a good bill, and I look forward to supporting it. While this rule is not an open rule [a resolution which allows for unlimited amendments on an underlying bill], and I don't think that we have had an open rule on an authorizing bill since this Congress began, but the gentleman is such a good guy that I'm not going to make a big deal of that. Twenty-five of the 30 amendments that were offered were made in order, so I think we will have a good debate.?

The House agreed to this resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to flood insurance bill by a vote of 269-146. Voting ?yea? were 231 Republicans and 38 Democrats. 146 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation that would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, which would allow the program to continue operating through fiscal year 2016.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Natural Disasters
Absent N Lost
Roll Call 532
Jul 08, 2011
(H.R. 2219) Final passage of legislation that would provide annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Defense bill provided $530 billion for Defense Department programs in 2012. In addition, the measure provided $119 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) urged support for the Defense bill: ?The base budget of this bill is $530 billion, which is $9 billion below the President's budget request [the level of Defense Department funding requested by President Obama]. It was not easy to find the savings, but we were determined to find those savings without having any adverse effect on the warfighter or the readiness of our nation?.It's a good bill. I wish it had more money in it for certain areas. I would like to have seen a much larger pay raise [for soldiers]. We provided the necessary funding for the 1.6 percent pay raise for the military?but we just had to find that $9 billion. The staff had to work extremely hard to make sure that we did not have an adverse effect on any of our soldiers or our overall readiness.?

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) also supported the bill: ?I am happy to report that the bill provides the funds necessary to support our troops both at home and in the field. It also makes the investment in research and development and acquisition needed to fully equip our troops and maintain our Nation's technological edge. Within the funds provided, and after careful review, the committee exercised its constitutional responsibility to allocate resources to those programs that best support the requirements of our military forces. In writing this bill, the committee had to make hard choices. The allocation for this bill is $530 billion, $9 billion below the request. While this is $17 billion above the fiscal year 2011-enacted level, much of the increase is absorbed by the military pay, operation and maintenance, and the Defense Health Program accounts?.?

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) opposed the bill, arguing that Congress should no longer fund continuing combat operations in Afghanistan: ?As we spend over $2 billion a week on this decade-long war [in Afghanistan], critical programs--like programs for women and children, nutrition programs, food stamps and Medicare--are on the chopping block. So enough is enough.  There is no military solution in Afghanistan. And in a world where terrorism can emanate from the tribal regions of Yemen or a hotel room in Germany, we cannot adequately address these challenges through a military-first, boots-on-the-ground strategy. It is clear that occupying states and nation-building does not make for effective counterterrorism, and the financial and human costs of continuing this war are indefensible. With over 1,600 troops killed and tens of thousands more seriously wounded in Afghanistan, the human toll continues to mount each and every day. So we need to bring our troops home and use the savings for our economic challenges here at home, especially for job creation.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 336-87. Voting ?yea? were 224 Republicans and 112 Democrats. 75 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 12 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation that would provide annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012. In order for this bill to become law, however, it would need to pass the Senate. The Senate was expected to pass its own Defense Department funding bill. Following Senate passage, House and Senate leaders could begin negotiations to reconcile the differences between the two Defense bills.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Lost
Roll Call 531
Jul 08, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On a motion that would have increased funding by $200 million for a program that provided veterans of the National Guard with health care and education benefits, career counseling, and suicide prevention services

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have increased funding by $200 million for a program that provided veterans of the National Guard with health care and education benefits, career counseling, and suicide prevention services. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012.

Rep. John Barrow (D-GA) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?We Americans owe no greater debt than we owe the men and women of our armed services who risk their lives to protect our freedoms. We currently have around 350,000 troops deployed overseas. About a third of that number come from our National Guard and Reserve. While most Americans don't know it, many National Guard members don't get the same support we give career servicemembers?.To address this disparity, in 2008, Congress established the yellow ribbon reintegration program to provide a support program tailored to meet the needs of National Guard and Reserve combat veterans and their families. The yellow ribbon program helps servicemembers and their families throughout deployment, with programs such as career counseling, suicide prevention, access to health care, veterans benefits, and education benefits. This final amendment would increase funding for that program by $200 million.?

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) opposed the motion to recommit: ?The bill already contains $246.5 million for the yellow ribbon program, which we support. It's a good program, especially for reintegration for returning guardsmen and reservists and their families. In addition, we accepted an amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) to add $20 million for further suicide prevention for our returning combat veterans. This comes to a total of $266.5 million.?So I think we did pretty good, and I think that this motion to recommit is a strong indication that there's nothing really wrong with this bill, we just ought to go ahead and defeat the motion to recommit and pass the bill.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 188-234. Voting ?yea? were 185 Democrats and 3 Republicans. 233 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have increased funding by $200 million for a program that provided veterans of the National Guard with health care and education benefits, career counseling, and suicide prevention services.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 529
Jul 08, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have reduced the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have reduced the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2011. Specifically, Polis? amendment prohibited funds provided by the underlying Defense bill from being used to maintain more than 30,000 U.S. troops in Europe.

Polis urged support for his amendment: ??We need to explore all options for reducing wasteful spending, and I think we have an easy one in front of us in this amendment. Before we ask the American people to accept painful cuts or accept tax increases, we have an opportunity here to get defense spending under control in a way that does not jeopardize or harm our national security. If we're serious about deficit reduction, we need to do something about the defense budget, and we can do it in a responsible way that doesn't hurt our national security. My amendment would do that. By reducing some of the 80,000 troops in Europe where they're no longer needed, we can save hundreds of millions of dollars?.It will allow the DOD [Defense Department] to save money by closing those bases that are no longer needed. By pulling 50,000 troops out of Western Europe and closing bases, we can save money, reduce our redundant military force, and CBO [the Congressional Budget Office] has scored the savings of this amendment as over $800 million.?

Debate on Polis? amendment was very brief. Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) argued: ?The setting of our military end strengths is not something that should be done lightly. In fact, this is the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. They are responsible for setting military personnel end strengths, and the levels that would be set by this amendment are significantly below those in the House-passed 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. For that and many other reasons, I am opposed to this amendment.?

On a nearly identical amendment offered to a different bill, however, Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) had argued: ?The essential problem with this amendment is that it's arbitrary. Our troop strengths are based on extensive studies. There are whole books written about how you look to assessing threats, how you look to our overall assets, how you support the capabilities that we have in supporting our national defense. These are just arbitrary numbers that have been picked as to our withdrawal from Europe.?

The House rejected Polis? amendment by a vote of 113-307. Voting ?yea? were 88 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 25 Republicans. 210 Republicans and 97 Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have reduced the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000.


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 528
Jul 08, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department bill from being used for a training program for military chaplains on implementing a new law that allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department bill from being used for a training program for military chaplains on implementing a new law that allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. The training program in question also included guidelines for chaplains on performing same-sex marriages for servicemembers from states where same-sex marriage is legal. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Specifically, President Obama had signed into law legislation repealing Don?t Ask Don?t Tell, the military?s policy that banned gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces.  The military had drafted a training program for military chaplains on how to perform their duties under the new law--which allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly. Huelskamp?s amendment would prohibit funds provided by the underlying Defense bill from being used to carry out such a training program.

Huelskamp urged support for his amendment: ?I rise this evening to ensure that America's military bases are not used to advance a narrow social agenda. Earlier this year, the Navy chief of chaplains announced that military chaplains who desire to perform same-sex marriages would be allowed to do so following the repeal of the policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The directive said that chaplains could perform same-sex ceremonies in such States where such marriages and unions are legal. Apparently, the Navy has recently backed away from such instruction, but tepidly and weakly, and in a way that leaves the door open to the reinstatement of this policy. This amendment I offer will prohibit the enforcement of the directive of allowing chaplains to perform same-sex marriages on Navy bases regardless of whatever a State's law is on gay marriage. In thinking about what has made our military successful, two things come to my mind: conformity and uniformity. Men and women who join our military are to conform to the military's standards, not the other way around.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) opposed Huelskamp?s amendment: ??This amendment strikes a very dangerous precedent for Congress to somehow micromanage the training processes of military chaplains.  We have military chaplains from diverse faith backgrounds. We have many faiths--in fact, the majority of faiths that, for instance, don't sanctify gay marriage. We have other faiths. The one that I happen to belong to--I am a member of a reformed Jewish faith--and there are many other Christian faiths, including the Episcopalian faith, which do sanction same-sex unions. Likewise, it's an important part of chaplain training that they're allowed to counsel against, for instance, homosexual acts or extramarital heterosexual acts. That's a part of chaplaincy training as well. For Congress to interfere with the military processes of chaplaincy training is absurd and unprecedented.?

The House agreed to Huelskamp?s amendment by a vote of 236-184. Voting ?yea? were 227 Republicans and 9 Democrats. 175 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department bill from being used for a training program for military chaplains on implementing a new law that allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 526
Jul 08, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 62 to H R 2219
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 523
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have cut $8.5 billion from a Defense Department funding bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) that would have cut $8.5 billion from a Defense Department funding bill. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012.

Frank urged support for his amendment: ??This is a dangerous amendment. It's kind of a test of whether or not members of this body believe what they say?.We are at a time of austerity. We are at a time when the important programs, valid programs, are being cut back. And we were told by some, everything is on the table, there are no sacred cows, all those metaphors that are supposed to suggest that we will deal with everything?. At a time when we are cutting police officers on the streets of our cities, we are cutting back firefighters, we're cutting back maintenance of highways, of the construction of bridges to replace old bridges, when we are cutting in almost every capacity, the military budget gets a $17 billion increase for this fiscal year to the next. A $17 billion increase for the military budget simply does not fit with this argument that we are putting everything on the table?.We are being very moderate here. We are not saying don't give the Pentagon any more money. This amendment reduces by 50 percent the increase for the Pentagon. We are accepting $8.5 billion more.?

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) opposed Frank?s amendment: ?I think most Americans would be shocked to find out we are engaged in two or three wars, depending on how you want to count, with an Army that is almost 40 percent smaller than it was in 1982?.As a percentage of our national wealth, as a percentage of the federal budget, what we spend on defense has come down. And, frankly, we ought to remember that we are at war; we are in a dangerous situation. This is not the first place to cut, although cut we have. In my opinion, I think it is the last place that we ought to cut. And the consequences of what my friend proposes, I think, would be terrific. We would be reducing and canceling training for returning troops, canceling Navy training exercises, reducing Air Force flight training, delaying or canceling maintenance of aircraft, ships, and vehicles, and delaying important safety and quality-of-life repairs. This is not the time for us to embark on additional cuts on top of the restraints in spending that we have already done as a House. I would urge the rejection of my friend's amendment.?

The House rejected Frank?s amendment by a vote of 181-244. Voting ?yea? were 134 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 47 Republicans. 190 Republicans and 54 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $8.5 billion from a Defense Department funding bill.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 522
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to enforce any regulation relating to the disclosure of political contributions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to enforce any regulation relating to the disclosure of political contributions. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012.

President Obama had drafted but not yet issued an executive order that would require companies bidding for federal government contracts to disclose their political financial contributions. Cole stated that his amendment was intended to circumvent this possible executive order.

Cole urged support for his amendment: ??In April a draft executive order was circulated that would require all companies bidding on federal contracts to disclose all federal campaign contributions. If enacted, this executive order would effectively politicize the federal procurement process, in my opinion. Companies wouldn't merely be judged by the merits of their past performance, by the capability to do the job, but would also be obviously considered on the basis of who they gave money to or against. This would clearly chill the constitutionally protected right to donate to political parties, candidates and causes of one's choice; and, I think, frankly, that's exactly what the executive order, proposed executive order, is intended to do. My amendment would simply prohibit funds from this act being used to implement such an executive order.?
   
Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) opposed Cole?s amendment: ?Our system has been improved by having public disclosure of political contributions. The more the public knows about where the money is coming from, the better off the citizenry is. The amendment is a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft executive order, which would provide for increased disclosure of the political contributions of government contractors, especially contributions given to third-party entities?.Disclosure is good because disclosure of campaign contributions to candidates is good. Disclosure of companies making these disclosures is good. And I just worry that we have a situation here where companies or major entities could make enormous contributions secretly, and that's what we are trying to avoid. And the President's executive order is an attempt to do that. We already know that the Boeings, the Lockheeds, the General Dynamics and the Northrop Grummans all make campaign contributions, and they are all disclosed. What's wrong with disclosure??

The House agreed to Cole?s amendment by a vote of 256-170. Voting ?yea? were 236 Republicans and 20 Democrats. 168 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to enforce any regulation relating to the disclosure of political contributions. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
N N Lost
Roll Call 521
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have cut $200 million from U.S. funding for infrastructure projects (such the building of roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, etc.) in Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) that would have cut $200 million from the Commander?s Emergency Response program, which had funded infrastructure projects (such the building of roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, etc.) in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012.

Welch urged support for his amendment: ? One of the things that we have provided to our commanders in order for them to be able to do hearts-and-minds civic projects, roads, bridges, schools is a $400 million fund that they can use completely at their discretion. Now, this sounds like a good idea. If you're going to ask the military to win the hearts and minds, not just use military power to fight battles, then a discretionary fund can seemingly make some sense. The question, though, is, upon review, it turns out that these roads, these bridges, these canals, almost the moment they're turned over to the Afghan authorities, fall into disrepair, disuse and neglect. It's not surprising. Number one, there is very little local government infrastructure in Afghanistan, and the fact that we build a road or a school doesn't necessarily mean there's a government or an authority there to be able to maintain it. So we build something, and the moment we turn the keys over, it falls into disuse and disrepair.?

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) opposed Welch?s amendment: ?Now, what does the CERP money do, the Commander's Emergency Response Program money? Let's say an IED explodes, or maybe there is a bomb that blows up a storefront in the middle of the street. A commander can go in there and hire local labor to clear out the entrance to that small business or whatever it is and get it done quickly without having to put U.S. Army personnel in danger to do it and can do it quickly and effectively and therefore leave our soldiers in the field, leave our soldiers where they can be most effective with their time and their training, and it does promote some goodwill on the streets with the people.?

The House rejected Welch?s amendment by a vote of 169-257. Voting ?yea? were 146 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 23 Republicans. 215 Republicans and 42 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $200 million from U.S. funding for infrastructure projects in Afghanistan.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 520
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to support any military operations in Libya

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) that would have prohibited funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to support any military operations in Libya. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012.

Gohmert urged support for his amendment: ?We have here a case where people on both sides recognize that the President moved forward and put our military in harm's way to go after a man who until March 1 was recognized by the United Nations as being a leader in human rights. In fact, it had elected him in 2003 to be the chairman of the Human Rights Commission of the U.N. We also know from our office's inquiry of our own military that we comprise 65 percent of NATO's military. So it is not comforting to think that this president has already gone beyond seizing on loopholes and is just ignoring laws in order to do what he wants because the Arab League asked him--not Congress, not the population of the United States, but the Arab League and some in NATO.?

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) opposed Gohmert?s amendment: ?We're already there [in Libya]. We're already in the area. We're already flying missions. If this amendment should be agreed to, here is what we would not be able to do: We could not fly search and rescue missions for a downed pilot. We could not do ISR--Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance. We could not do aerial refueling for our coalition partners. We could not even be part of operational planning under this amendment.?

The House rejected Gohmert?s amendment by a vote of 162-265. Voting ?yea? were 129 Republicans and 33 Democrats. 156 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 109 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to support any military operations in Libya.


WAR & PEACE USA Intervention in Libya
N N Won
Roll Call 517
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have cut $17.2 billion from a Defense Department funding bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) that would have cut $17.2 billion from a Defense Department funding bill. This $17.2 billion cut would have frozen Defense Department spending at fiscal year 2011 levels. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in fiscal year 2012.

Mulvaney urged support for his amendment: ? This amendment will not in any way limit our national defense capabilities. It will not put a single soldier at more risk. It simply holds defense spending exactly where we were 3 months ago?Having been here [the House of Representatives] about 6 months, there is one thing that I have learned being a freshman. And for the folks who are here for the first time, the message is this: talk is cheap. Talk is especially cheap. It's very easy for us to go home and tell folks how important it is to cut spending, how serious we are about cutting spending. But nothing sends the message that we are really serious about it like cutting spending on something that is important to us. It's easy to cut things that we don't like. It is hard to cut things that are important to us. And defense spending is critically important to me and to the folks of this Nation and to the folks of South Carolina.  But if we're going to send a message that we are really serious about cutting spending, then everything needs to be on the table. And holding defense spending simply at 2011 levels and passing this amendment would help show everybody that we are really serious about fixing this difficulty.?

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) opposed Mulvaney?s amendment: ?I am one of the original budget cutters in this Congress. But I will not cut a defense budget to the point that it adversely affects our troops or adversely affects our country's readiness. And we could be getting close to that?. we don't want to see that we have to cancel training for returning troops. We don't want to have to cancel Navy training exercises. We don't want to have to slow down or reduce Air Force flight training. We don't want to delay or cancel maintenance of aircraft, ships, and vehicles. We don't want to delay important safety and quality-of-life repairs to facilities and to military barracks. If we do those things, we are affecting our readiness. Training relates to readiness?.This amendment could be getting us very close to a dangerous situation where troops and readiness are affected. And there is just no way that I can even appear to support this amendment.?

The House rejected Mulvaney?s amendment by a vote of 135-290. Voting ?yea? were 70 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 65 Republicans. 172 Republicans and 118 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $17.2 billion from a Defense Department funding bill and frozen Defense spending at fiscal year 2011 levels.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N Y Lost
Roll Call 516
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to violate the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that barred the federal government from requiring states to legally recognize same-sex marriages

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to violate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law that barred the federal government from requiring states to legally recognize same-sex marriages. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced in 2011 that the Obama administration would no longer defend DOMA against legal challenges. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, however, continued to defend the law in court.

Specifically, Foxx?s amendment prohibited the use of the underlying Defense bill?s funds from being used ?in contravention? of DOMA. She argued that legislation allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?a bill that was signed into law by President Obama in December 2010?could indirectly result in actions by the military in violation of DOMA. (Specifically, Obama had signed a bill repealing the military?s ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military?a policy known as ?Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell,? or DADT.)

Foxx argued: ??The Department of Defense maintains that the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell does not directly challenge the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects the right of individual States to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. In February, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in Federal court. However, the House of Representatives has expressed its intent to continue legal defense of the statute along with other laws of our country. My proposed amendment would reaffirm Congress' assertion that funds may not be used in contravention of?the Defense of Marriage Act. The Department of the Navy has already demonstrated how pressures to accommodate same-sex couples can quickly lead to policy changes that are ultimately contrary to previous assurances given with regard to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act.?

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) opposed Foxx?s amendment: ??Last year, Congress voted to repeal the counterproductive and unjust policy of `Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' But despite overwhelming evidence that repeal will strengthen our military, despite strong support for repeal among our troops and the American people, despite support for repeal from military leaders like the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and despite a Federal court order that the Government stop enforcing DADT immediately, Republicans are still pushing to keep this shameful policy in place?.DOMA is discriminatory and should be ruled unconstitutional--but as long as it is law, it clearly applies to all Federal agencies, including the Defense Department. That makes this amendment entirely unnecessary. Let's see it for what it is: Republicans' effort to change the subject from open service--an argument they've lost--to marriage equality--an argument they're still in the process of losing.  I urge my colleagues to oppose both amendments which put partisan belief in the exclusion of gays above the strength of our military.?

The House agreed Foxx?s amendment by a vote of 248-175. Voting ?yea? were 229 Republicans and 19 Democrats. 169 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 6 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to violate the Defense of Marriage Act. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate and be signed into law by the president. At the time this vote occurred, the Senate had not acted on the amendment.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 515
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used for U.S. military operations in Libya

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA) that would have prohibited funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used for U.S. military operations in Libya. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Rigell urged support for his amendment: ??An egregious ongoing breach of the separation of powers is taking place at this very hour; specifically, the usurpation of a power given only to Congress, that found in article I, section 8 of the Constitution: only Congress can declare war. Known initially as Operation Odyssey Dawn and now as Operation Unified Protector, military intervention easily rising to the definition of war is being carried out in Libya. It is being carried out with the bravery, exceptional professionalism and commitment to victory that define our fellow Americans who serve in our Armed Forces. And before I address the mission itself, I first applaud their willingness to sacrifice so much for their fellow Americans?.There has been no declaration of war. There has been no statutory authority issued. There has been no evidence that an attack on American forces was imminent or had occurred.?

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) opposed Rigell?s amendment: ??The NATO-led mission to defeat Qadhafi and to protect the people of Libya was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, including the Arab League, and it followed resolutions adopted in the United Nations Security Council, authorizing `all necessary measures.' This amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this could materially harm our relationship with NATO allies from whom we will undoubtedly require support in the future and who have been our partners since 1949. We should let the mission with our NATO allies continue so we can defeat Qadhafi and protect the Libyan people.?

[On March 19, 2011, the U.S. joined an international coalition (that included France, the United Kingdom, and Canada) to intervene in Libya?s civil war. This coalition aided rebels who had staged an uprising against the country?s dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, who had ruled Libya since 1969 and whose regime was notorious for human rights violations. On April 4, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO?an international coalition of 28 member countries) assumed operational control of the military mission in Libya.] 

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 176-249. Voting ?yea? were 130 Republicans and 46 Democrats. 141 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 108 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the net effect of this vote was to allow funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill to continue to be used for U.S. military operations in Libya.


WAR & PEACE USA Intervention in Libya
Y N Won
Roll Call 512
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R 2219) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used for a U.S. taskforce intended to spur new business opportunities in Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) that would have prohibited funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used for a U.S. taskforce intended to spur new business opportunities in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

McCollum urged support for her amendment: ?Our brave military men and women have been in Afghanistan for 10 long years confronting the Taliban, killing terrorists, and helping secure a better future for the Afghan people. When in the course of this long war did it become the Department of Defense's role to facilitate business opportunities for Afghan and foreign companies?...The Pentagon's focus should not be on starting up businesses or facilitating business development tours for corporate CEOs. Economic development is an important part of America's overall strategy in Afghanistan, but that is the role of civilian agencies like USAID, the Department of State, or the Department of Commerce.?

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) opposed McCollum?s amendment: ?Now this Task Force for Business and Stability is part of that operation to try to maintain stability once we clear out and neutralize the Taliban once again. The mission of the task force is to assist the commander of U.S. Central Command in developing a link between U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and economic elements of U.S. national power in order to reduce violence, enhance stability, and to restore economic normalcy in Afghanistan through business and economic opportunities such as agricultural diversification and energy development.?

The House rejected McCollum?s amendment by a vote of 167-260. Voting ?yea? were 134 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 33 Republicans. 204 Republicans and 56 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the net effect of this vote was to allow Defense Department funds to be used for a U.S. taskforce intended to spur new business opportunities in Afghanistan.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 511
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would cut $125 million from military bands and musicians

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) that would have cut $125 million from military bands and musicians. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. (Since the underlying Defense bill initially provided $325 million for military bands, this amendment would have left $200 million remaining for such purposes.)

McCollum urged support for her amendment: ?This amendment would reduce the total funding for military bands to $200 million. ?This amendment gives all of my colleagues the opportunity to reduce the cost to government by cutting $124 million from this bill, while allowing the Pentagon to continue to spend $200 million for choirs, jazz bands, ensembles, and other musical missions. There is no doubt that bands are important. We all enjoy listening to military bands and cherish the traditions of military music. But at a time of fiscal crisis, $200 million must be enough for ceremonial music, concerts, choir performance, and country music jam sessions. Maybe you believe that spending $325 million [on military bands] in 2012 is in our national security interests, a national priority that cannot even be cut or reduced. Well, I couldn't disagree more. There are really members in this House who in good conscience vote to cut nutrition for programs for poor, hungry women and infants, but vote to protect a military bands budgets? Is this House really capable of gutting investments on women's health care, but allow $5 million increases in funding for military bands??

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed McCollum?s amendment: ?The band's main mission is music, with a secondary wartime mission for security. Band members train for security, and given the shortage of guards, security is often the band members' go-to-war mission. Every soldier is taught their basic combat skills and can secure the perimeter. The Department of Defense strongly believes that military bands are vital to recruiting, retaining, and community relations, and that they provide patriotic, inspirational music to instill in soldiers, sailors, and airmen the will to fight and win, and foster the support of our citizens and promote national interests.?

The House agreed to McCollum?s amendment by a vote of 226-201. Voting ?yea? were 136 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 90 Republicans. 148 Republicans and 53 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would cut $125 million from military bands and musicians. In order for this reduced funding level for military bands to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate and be signed into law by the president. At the time this vote occurred, the Senate had not acted on this amendment.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Absent Y Won
Roll Call 509
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have cut $4 billion from U.S. funds for Afghan security forces

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) that would have cut $4 billion from U.S. funds for Afghan security forces. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Cohen urged support for his amendment: ?This would reduce the funds we are giving to the Afghanistan security forces by $4 billion. It wouldn't take all of it. It would keep two-thirds--they would still have two-thirds.?The $12.8 billion that is currently allocated to this fund is nearly equivalent to the entire GDP of Afghanistan. Their GDP is $14 billion to $16 billion. Let's understand this, Mr. Chairman: We are giving the Afghanistan people their entire GDP, and we're borrowing it from China and other places. This makes no sense. We need to go after the big whale. Six times the total annual revenue of the Afghan Government--which is approximately $1.5 billion--is what we're giving them. I understand these funds are to be used to provide assistance to the security forces of Afghanistan, including training and providing equipment, supplies, and services. Well, I have seen soldiers killed over there, my constituents that were killed by Afghanistan soldiers that we trained. We don't know which ones are Taliban and which ones are going to turn on us, and we're training them and giving them weapons.?

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) opposed Cohen?s amendment: ??As we speak, our marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen are fighting for freedom in some of the toughest places imaginable. A vote for this resolution is a vote to pull the support out from under our troops and to leave a legacy of failure in Afghanistan. I urge against supporting this amendment?.What this amendment, in fact, does, though, is cuts off funding for the development of Afghan security forces. Our entire exit strategy is based on developing Afghan security forces so that they are strong enough to allow us to pull our forces out to complete a transition whereby they assume operational control by 2014.?

The House rejected Cohen?s amendment by a vote of 119-306. Voting ?yea? were 90 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 29 Republicans. 207 Republicans and 99 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $4 billion from U.S. funds for Afghan security forces.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 508
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have eliminated a program that funds infrastructure projects (such the building of roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, etc.) in Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) that would have eliminated a program that funds infrastructure projects (such as the building of roads, schools, bridges, electrical grids, etc.) in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs. Specifically, Cicilline?s amendment would have cut the entire $475 million allocation for the Afghanistan infrastructure program provided by the underlying Defense bill.

Cicilline urged support for his amendment: ?Budgets are a reflection of our priorities. Are we going to pay down our Nation's debt? Are we going to make the much needed investments in our own roads and bridges and ports? Are we going to protect our seniors? Are we going to ensure that access to college remains affordable? If we continue to spend billions and billions of dollars in Afghanistan, then we cannot have a balanced discussion of these priorities and these choices. As we debate the merits of raising the debt ceiling and as we consider our domestic priorities, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which strikes $475 million from nation-building in Afghanistan in order to keep those dollars right here at home--to invest in our future and to reduce our debt.?

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) opposed Cicilline?s amendment: ?Whatever it costs to fight in Afghanistan, whatever it has cost to fight in Iraq over the past 8 years or whatever, I understand those are big numbers; but we are looking forward as to how we push the Afghan security system to a point where they can take care of themselves and, in fact, begin to run their country as they should.?

The House rejected Cicilline?s amendment by a vote of 145-283. Voting ?yea? were 101 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 44 Republicans. 194 Republicans and 89 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House voted to maintain a program that funds infrastructure projects in Afghanistan.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
N Y Lost
Roll Call 507
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have cut $200 million from a program that funds infrastructure projects (such the building of roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, etc.) in Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) that would have cut $200 million from a program that funds infrastructure projects (such as the building of roads, schools, bridges, electrical grids, etc.) in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Cohen urged support for his amendment: ?According to the World Bank, 97 percent of Afghanistan's gross domestic product is derived from military funding and foreign assistance--97 percent. If we build a vast infrastructure in Afghanistan, they will not be able to sustain it after we leave. The American people should not have to fund that infrastructure while sitting in traffic in our own nation, in gridlock, seeing schools in disrepair, hospitals that can't provide services, and watching our own infrastructure crumble--infrastructure that can create and does create jobs carrying goods to market and providing jobs in America.?

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) opposed Cohen?s amendment: ? Visible development projects increases the Afghan Government's legitimacy in relation to the Taliban, especially since these projects are conducted in areas vulnerable to Taliban influence. Furthermore, economic development increases security in Afghanistan by providing jobs for former insurgents and building markets for alternative crops to opium, thus reducing corruption.?

The House rejected Cohen?s amendment by a vote of 210-217. Voting ?yea? were 149 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 61 Republicans. 176 Republicans and 41 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $200 million from a program that funds infrastructure projects in Afghanistan.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 506
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have eliminated a ?$5 billion transfer fund? that allowed the Defense Department to transfer up to $5 billion into its war funding account

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) that would have eliminated a ?$5 billion transfer fund? that allowed the Defense Department to transfer up to $5 billion into its war funding account. (Those funds would not constitute new spending, but rather would have been taken from another Defense Department account.) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Lee urged support for her amendment: ?This amendment does nothing to undermine the efforts that our servicemen and -women have performed with incredible courage and with extreme commitment in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world. They have done everything asked of them. And as the daughter of a military veteran, I take any matters that affect our troops very, very seriously. But supporting our troops does not mean giving a blank check to the Pentagon. I have consistently said that we cannot afford to give any more blank checks to the Defense Department. This amendment is about eliminating a giant $5 billion check with a blank memo to fight the global war on terror anywhere, at any time, without any accountability. The Department of Defense just has to notify Congress that these funds are being transferred. This $5 billion giveaway, which is what it is, it's like a slush fund, it's like a war slush fund, another giveaway to the Pentagon. It's a $5 billion check to use as it pleases with little or no congressional oversight. There's no accountability in how these funds are spent.?

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) opposed Lee?s amendment: ?This [$5 billion transfer fund] was done to try to make sure that?the Defense Department had what they needed for the overseas contingency operations [war funding], but that they had to justify exactly how they were going to use the money. And to the contrary, rather than being the potential slush fund, this is definitely not a slush fund, and so I oppose the amendment.?

The House rejected Lee?s amendment by a vote of 114-314. Voting ?yea? were 105 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 9 Republicans. 229 Republicans and 85 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House voted to maintain a ?$5 billion transfer fund? that allowed the Defense Department to transfer up to $5 billion into its war funding account.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 505
Jul 07, 2011

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2219
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 504
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have provided $15 million for insulating facilities at military bases in Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) that would have provided $15 million for insulating facilities at military bases in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Nadler urged support for his amendment: ??I offer an amendment tonight that will save both blood and an immense amount of money. The amendment I am introducing along with Congressman Blumenauer designates already authorized funds in the amount of $15 million to be used to insulate the shelters at forward operating bases in Afghanistan. Properly insulating military shelters can significantly reduce energy consumption, which in turn can decrease the number of vulnerable fuel convoys needed to support our troops. These fuel convoys cost us dearly. They are an absolutely vital supply link to our troops in the field, but they are exposed to constant and devastating attack. Despite the Pentagon spending $24 billion a year to protect fuel convoys in Afghanistan, more than 3,000 troops and civilian contractors have been killed or wounded while riding on convoy. What's more, fully two-thirds of the fuel used in Afghanistan goes to provide electricity for air-conditioning and heat at military installations. If we can reduce the energy required to heat and cool shelters in the field, then we can reduce the number of vulnerable fuel trucks needed to support the operations. Simply put, insulating the structures in the field will save lives of people who will not be on convoys to be attacked.?

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) opposed Nadler?s amendment. He argued that the shelter insulation program had not been ?authorized? by Congress. (Before passing legislation that actually spends money on a government program, it must first pass a bill to ?authorize? such funding to be spent on that program.) Young also argued that such an insulation program could be funded through the underlying Defense bill?s war funding ?operations and maintenance account,? which totaled more than $39 billion. Young said: ?The project that would be funded by this amendment, by the shifting of this money, is not an authorized program to begin with. But even if it were, the Army's O&M [operation and maintenance] account in the OCO portion [war funding portion, or ?overseas contingency operations? portion] of the bill is funded at over $39.1 billion. And? [if] the [Defense] Department concurs that it is a high enough priority, then there simply are ample funds to cover it with the $39.1 billion. So I see no reason for this amendment, and I oppose the amendment.?

The House rejected Nadler?s amendment by a vote of 174-251. Voting ?yea? were 162 Democrats?including a majority of progressives--and 12 Republicans. 223 Republicans and 28 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have provided $15 million for insulating facilities at military bases in Afghanistan.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 503
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have required the president to withdraw all but 25,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2012

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) that would have required the president to withdraw all but 25,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by December 31, 2012. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Garamendi urged support for his amendment: ?The Afghan Study Group, Richard Haas and many others who are very familiar with the Afghanistan war and the way in which it is being conducted have suggested that by the end of 2012, America should have no more than 25,000 troops in Afghanistan and then further, wind down the war in 2013 to 10,000 troops focused on terrorists, focused on al Qaeda?.this amendment is to accomplish that goal, to wind down the war in a responsible way over the next 18 months so that at the end of the 18 months--that would be December 31, 2012--that there'd be no more than 25,000 troops in Afghanistan?. We're losing a lot of Americans, and even more Afghans are dying. We're not going to be able to solve this with troops on the ground.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)?the only Republican to address this amendment?spoke only briefly. He said: ?We oppose this amendment?It would be highly disruptive to our troops and, I think, put them at great risk for their personal safety. So we oppose the amendment.?

The House rejected Garamendi?s amendment by a vote of 133-295. Voting ?yea? were 120 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 13 Republicans. 225 Republicans and 70 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the president to withdraw all but 25,000 troops from Afghanistan by December 31, 2012.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 502
Jul 07, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have cut off funding for U.S. military combat operations in Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) that would have cut off funding for U.S. military combat operations in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Specifically, Lee?s amendment cut $33 billion from the underlying Defense bill?s allocation for overseas military operations. Lee stated that the intent of the amendment was to facilitate a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

Lee urged support for her amendment: ?We need to bring our troops home safely and swiftly, and that is why I am offering this amendment. This war is costing us too much. With over 1,600 troops killed and tens of thousands more seriously wounded in Afghanistan, the human toll continues to mount every day. And we have already spent over $400 billion fighting in Afghanistan. It is past time to admit that we can no longer afford to send more blank checks for a war without end?.With no military solution, we need to redirect these funds to job creation and supporting those efforts for the most vulnerable, including those who have been unemployed for over 2 years and have no more unemployment benefits?. The American people are sick and tired of this war and the massive unending spending that it requires.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed Lee?s amendment: ??The gentlewoman [Rep. Lee] has an amendment to reduce the overseas contingency operation--aka the war on terror--by $33 billion. She intends for this amendment to support, as she says, an orderly withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. However, such a reduction would, in fact, severely disrupt and suspend a redeployment from Afghanistan. The magnitude of her funding reduction would also threaten the ability to support troop pay and safety?.If the redeployment from Afghanistan were to be accelerated, there would be significant increases in personnel, equipment, and transportation costs in fiscal year 2012.?

The House rejected Lee?s amendment by a vote of 97-322. Voting ?yea? were 87 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 10 Republicans. 227 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut off funding for U.S. military combat operations in Afghanistan.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 501
Jul 06, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would allow funding provided by a Defense Department spending bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions without first providing Congress with an inventory of existing contracts

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) that would allow funding provided by a Defense Department spending bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions without first providing Congress with an inventory of existing contracts. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Specifically, the underlying Defense bill prohibited the Defense Department from converting jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions without first providing Congress with an inventory of existing contracts. Sessions? amendment would remove that prohibition.

Sessions urged support for his amendment: ? My amendment would strike section 8101 of this legislation, which as drafted prohibits the use of funds in the underlying bill to convert any functions performed by federal employees to private competition? Lifting the current moratorium will reform the way the Department of Defense does business, allowing the flexibility to manage the most effective and efficient cost ways in supporting the mission of the Department of Defense. The role of government should be to govern, not to operate business inside the government?.Our nation's unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent. We must allow the private sector the ability to create jobs without an unfair disadvantage?.If competition is deemed fair, it doesn't matter who wins. As long as both sides are allowed equal opportunity for the job, the taxpayer ultimately wins.?

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) opposed Session?s amendment: ??Certainly no one will deny that some, perhaps many, of the private contracts that the Pentagon lets have been wasteful. Many have not been, but certainly an inventory so that Congress can keep a closer eye on it is calculated to reduce the waste, to reduce the wasteful expenditures, to enable us to have better oversight.  So why you would want to change that? And I am given to understand that this provision originated with the Republican Congresses during the Bush administration, and, frankly, it was a good innovation. Congress ought to be able to watch more closely what any government agency that is spending the kind of money the Pentagon is spending, hundreds of billions of dollars, much of it to private contractors--we ought to be able to watch what they're doing, watch what they're doing more closely, keep an eye on it, and be able to rein it in and say, hey, wait a minute, that contract is being well administered but that one isn't; that contract we have a lot of questions about. So why would we want to eliminate that provision that has worked well??

The House passed this amendment by a vote of 217-204. Voting ?yea? were 215 Republicans and 2 Democrats. 185 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would allow funding provided by a Defense Department spending bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions without first providing Congress with an inventory of existing contracts. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Lost
Roll Call 500
Jul 06, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would allow funding provided by a Defense Department spending bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) that would allow funding provided by Defense Department spending bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding Defense Department programs.

Specifically, the underlying Defense bill prohibited the Defense Department from converting jobs held by federal government employees to private, contracted positions unless a report (known as a ?A-76 review?) determined that such a conversion would save the federal government at least $10 million. Amash?s amendment would have eliminated this prohibition.
 
Amash urged support for his amendment: ?Independent studies have found that public-private competitions lower costs by between 10 and 40 percent regardless of whether the competition is won by a private contractor or the government. Rather than stand in the way of public-private competitions, Congress should cut the red tape and make the use of this cost-saving process easier, not harder?.Instead of complicating the use of competitions that improve service and lower costs, we should be encouraging agencies to find the most efficient way to deliver services. This amendment will send that message by reducing restrictions on the Department of Defense and by making it easier to achieve reforms that will increase the availability of cost-saving competitions throughout the department.?

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) opposed Amash?s amendment: ?Requiring the DOD [Department of Defense] to actually conduct this analysis under the A-76 review is reasonable and should be included in this bill, so I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I must say we have done these A-76 reviews across the country, and many times we find that the government entity reorganizes itself and can actually do the work at a lesser cost than the private sector. And the other problem with this whole thing is, once the private sector gets it, the costs go right through the roof. So you need to have an analysis done after contracting out is done to make sure that you're not getting ripped off. So I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.?

The House agreed to Amash?s amendment by a vote of 212-208. Voting ?yea? were 212 Republicans. All 186 Democrats present and 22 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would allow funding provided by a Defense Department spending bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions regardless of whether such a conversion would save the federal government at least $10 million. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate and be signed into law by the president. At the time this vote occurred, the Senate had not yet acted on the amendment.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Lost
Roll Call 499
Jul 06, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have cut $297 million from research and development on a new military bomber plane

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) that would have cut $297 million from research and development on a new military bomber plane. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Welch urged support for his amendment: ?Now, the question is, it [the new bomber plane] may be desirable but is it affordable when we have this horrendous budget squeeze that we know is dividing this Congress because we have to make some very tough choices in the future. The second question that comes up is whether something that may be desirable comes at a cost that is unacceptable. Now, the Defense budget is large, unnecessarily so; but it is the one item of spending that has been exempt from cuts?. The third question is if it's necessary, is there some burden on those who have the responsibility of overseeing taxpayer dollars in the Defense budget to poke around and find that $300 million somewhere else in a nearly $700 billion budget? So those are the questions. It's not a direct assertion that we must suspend forever research on the next generation of bombers, but it is asking those questions in this time: Just because something is desirable, does that make it affordable??

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) opposed Welch?s amendment: ?I have suggested so many times that I would not do anything, produce any bill or support any bill, that negatively affects our soldiers or that negatively our affects readiness.
Well, this bomber is a long time from production because it takes time to develop a new bomber due to the nature of that vehicle. But by the time it gets online, we are going to need the new bomber because the old bombers are going to be old.?

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) also opposed this amendment: ?This is a very high priority of the Air Force. I mean, next to tankers, the replacement of the bomber and along with the Joint Strike Fighter, are going to be the top priorities for the Air Force. So this would be a catastrophic blow to terminate this program.?

The House rejected Welch?s amendment by a vote of 98-322. Voting ?yea? were 81 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 17 Republicans. 217 Republicans and 105 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $297 million from research and development on a new military bomber plane.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 498
Jul 06, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would increase funding by $3.6 million for a research program on illnesses affecting soldiers who served in the first Gulf War in 1991

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) that would increase funding by $3.6 million for a research program (known as the Gulf War Illness Research program) on illnesses affecting soldiers who served in the first Gulf War in 1991. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Kucinich urged support for his amendment: ?Too many veterans of the first gulf war suffer from persistent symptoms, such as chronic headache, widespread pain, cognitive difficulties, unexplained fatigue, gastrointestinal problems, respiratory symptoms, and other abnormalities that are not explained by traditional medical or psychiatric diagnoses. Research shows that, as these brave soldiers age, they are at double the risk for ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, as are their non-deployed peers. There may also be connections to multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease. Sadly, there are no known treatments for the lifelong pain these veterans endure.?

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) opposed Kucinich?s amendment: ?I believe that the Gulf War Illness Program is an important medical research area, the program to which Mr. Kucinich speaks; but this bill already contains $6.4 million for the program. In addition, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations [spending] bill has already included an additional $15 million for the program?.in the days of having to reduce our budget by $9 billion, we believe that we have already adequately funded this program at $6.4 million?Therefore, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 253-167. Voting ?yea? were 182 Democrats and 71 Republicans. 163 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would increase funding by $3.6 million for a research program on illnesses affecting soldiers who served in the first Gulf War in 1991. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Won
Roll Call 497
Jul 06, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $15 million for a Defense Department program intended to reduce energy use at the department?s facilities

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) that would have increased funding by $15 million for a Defense Department program intended to reduce energy use at the department?s facilities. (This program was known as the Environmental Security Technology Certification program, or ESTCP.) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Connolly urged support for his amendment: ?According to the [Defense] Department, facilities energy represented at least $4 billion in direct costs to the taxpayer in fiscal year 2010. The Department is paying to heat, cool, light, and operate 539,000 buildings and structures that hold 2.2 billion square feet. The Environmental Security Technology Certification program is focused on finding ways to decrease energy demand, develop smart distribution systems, and increase the use of alternative and renewable energy at U.S. military installations?.ESTCP funds projects in five program areas: energy and water; environmental restoration; munitions response; resource conservation and climate change; and weapons systems and platforms?. These projects include energy-efficient lighting, heating, and air conditioning such as daylight harvesting, personalized dimming, combustion control systems, and high-performance cooling technology.?

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) opposed Connolly?s amendment. He first argued that the ESTCP had not been ?authorized? by Congress for fiscal year 2012. (Before passing legislation that actually spends money on a government program, it must first pass a bill to ?authorize? such funding to be spent on that program. While the House had passed a bill (the Defense Authorization bill) that authorized the ESTCP, that legislation had not yet become law. Thus, Young argued, the ESTCP was not an authorized program. He also argued that there was sufficient overall funding in the Army Operation and Maintenance Account?the account under which the ESTCP had previously been funded?for the Defense Department to carry out the program without a specific allocation from Congress. Young said: ?The program is not authorized?.the defense authorization bill is not law?.Further, the Army operation and maintenance account is funded at over $34.5 billion. Should this project remain in the final authorization bill and the Department concurs that it is a high enough priority, then there are more than enough funds for the Department to execute the program. Unfortunately, however, I don't have the ability to make that determination for the Department on the floor. And because of these and other objections, I must oppose the amendment.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 152-226. Voting ?yea? were 145 Democrats and 7 Republicans. 226 Republicans and 40 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding by $15 million for a Defense Department program intended to reduce energy use at the department?s facilities.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 495
Jul 06, 2011
(H.R. 2219) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $10 million for a Defense Department environmental technology program

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) that would have increased funding by $10 million for a Defense Department environmental technology program (known as the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, or SERDP) By increasing funding for this program by $10 million, Connolly?s amendment would have provided SERDP with the level of funding requested by President Obama. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Connolly urged support for his amendment: ?According to the Department of Defense, operational energy represented 74 percent of the military's energy costs in 2010; and despite a 9 percent reduction in energy use, costs increased by 19.7 percent. Air conditioning alone for American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $20 million each year. Last year's bill to heat, cool, and light 539,000 DOD buildings represented at least $4 billion in direct costs to taxpayers. More than 3,000 American warfighters and contractors have been killed in the line of duty while moving or defending fuel convoys. We cannot continue sacrificing American lives as a result of failing to improve energy use by our military.?

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) opposed Connolly?s amendment: ??This amendment would offer $10 million to restore a cut [to the SERDP]?the Defense Department offered this up when we were looking to achieve $9 billion in savings to reach our allocation. This is one of the areas where the Defense Department indicated that there was no problem with taking a cut. You will hear me discussing this throughout the day and evening as long as we're dealing with this bill. We had to come up with $9 billion in reductions from the president's request. This is a part of where we found the $9 billion. And since the [Defense] Department did not have any objection to this, in fact, offered this up as a possible way of helping with the savings, I must oppose this amendment and ask that the members do so.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 175-241. Voting ?yea? were 171 Democrats and 4 Republicans. 228 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding by $10 million for a Defense Department environmental technology program.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 494
Jun 24, 2011
(H.R. 2278) Final passage of legislation that would have allowed federal funds to be used only for limited purposes in Libya, including search and rescue missions, surveillance and intelligence gathering, and aerial refueling (in-flight refueling for military aircraft)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation that would have allowed federal funds to be used only for limited purposes in Libya, including search and rescue missions, surveillance and intelligence gathering, and aerial refueling (in-flight refueling for military aircraft).

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL), the sponsor of this bill, urged House members to support it: ??Today we have the opportunity to send a message to the executive branch, and this transcends party but it exerts our power under the separation of powers, to say we, the House of Representatives, are relevant; we, the House of Representatives, are exercising our ability that the Founding Fathers gave us in the ability to declare war because they wanted us to have this deliberation, this debate that we're having here today, arguments that have been made on both sides that have been very good, because the last thing that we want as Americans is for some president, whether it's this president or some future president, to be able to pick fights around the world without any debate from another branch of government.?

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) also supported the bill: ?Why are we there [in Libya]? Are we there to kill Qadhafi or to provide humanitarian aid?...And who are these rebels that we are supporting? The administration has failed to provide Congress with a clear answer to this question, but we do know that some of them are tied to terrorist organizations. The bill introduced by my good friend from Florida (Mr. Rooney) reasserts Congress' role as a coequal branch of government, and it sends a clear message to the president that he must get congressional approval before he commits this nation to war??

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) opposed the bill: ??What this resolution [bill] would do?would be to end our mission in Libya. So all of the debates and arguments that you heard from the previous discussion apply to this just as well. It has some limited options in terms of what the president could continue to do in support of NATO, but it very specifically disallows any effort at air support, any effort at suppressing opposition fire. It does allow for aerial refueling. It allows for rescue missions, but what the military has made clear is they will not do that without all of the other assets that are necessary to suppress enemy fire. We are not going to send up our aerial refueling apparatus or aerial refueling planes if we know we can't protect them from being shot down.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) also opposed the bill: ??If this resolution [bill] passes, and we weaken NATO's mission, Qadhafi may very well prevail. His forces will then kill, rape, and torture all those Libyans who opposed him, as he has already tried to do. Qadhafi has reportedly kidnapped thousands of people, including young students to serve as human shields and march at the vanguard of his forces. If any of his own soldiers refuse to gun down unarmed innocent civilians, they're shot immediately. Once he's done with his own people, he'll turn his attention to those NATO and Middle Eastern nations that attacked him and seek revenge?.Let's face it. This is not about whether the Obama administration has been thorough enough in explaining the Libya rationale to Congress?.The real question is, will we politicize this effort in the same way that the Republican Congress politicized President Clinton's successful intervention in a NATO-led mission in Bosnia 15 years ago??

The House rejected this bill by a vote of 180-238. Voting ?yea? were 144 Republicans and 36 Democrats. 149 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 89 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation that would have allowed federal funds to be used only for limited purposes in Libya, including search and rescue missions, surveillance and intelligence gathering, and aerial refueling.


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
WAR & PEACE USA Intervention in Libya
N N Won
Roll Call 492
Jun 24, 2011
(H. J. Res. 68, H.R. 2278) Legislation that would authorize continued U.S. military operations in Libya, as well as a separate bill that would allow federal funds to be used only for limited purposes in Libya, including search and rescue missions, surveillance and intelligence gathering, and aerial refueling (in-flight refueling for military aircraft) ? On the resolution providing a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to both bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to two separate bills relating to U.S. military operations in Libya.

The first Libya measure would authorize the president to continue U.S. military operations in Libya for one year. Specifically, this measure authorized the president ?to continue the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya, in support of United States national security policy interests?? The measure did not, however, define ?limited use.? The second bill relating to Libya would allow federal funds to be used only for limited purposes in Libya, including search and rescue missions, surveillance and intelligence gathering, and aerial refueling (in-flight refueling for military aircraft).

Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) urged support for the resolution allowing the House to debate and vote on both Libya measures: ?On June 3 of this year by a vote of 268-145 the House of Representatives passed a resolution asking the President to make clear what his intentions are in Libya, asking the President to come and consult with Congress, to get Congress' permission, to seek our authority to prosecute those hostilities in Libya.  We have received some information from the White House since then. We have gotten a letter from the White House since then. We even have classified documents since then. But what we have not had since then, Mr. Speaker, is an opportunity for the American people to make their voice heard on this important issue, because, after all, this isn't an issue for Congress, because as a Congressman, it is not about my voice. It is about the voice of the 911,000 people back home that I represent that I bring here to Congress, and those people's voices have yet to be heard on this Libya issue.?

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) opposed this resolution (also known as a ?rule?), arguing that it provided for inadequate debate and deliberation on a matter of war and peace: ?We now stand on the House floor being asked to vote for a closed rule [a resolution that prohibits amendments from being offered to bills]. We will then be asked to consider two resolutions of historic proportions with no ability to shape and adjust the measures to reflect the true will of the House?.I regret the shameful way this important debate has been rushed through Congress, and I apologize to future generations who will look back on the work that we're doing today. Quite simply, the legislative process matters. Historians, scholars, and yes, future members of Congress will look back on our actions today to see how their forebearers shaped the fate of this country.?

[On March 19, 2011, the U.S. joined an international coalition (that included France, the United Kingdom, and Spain) to intervene in Libya?s civil war. This coalition aided rebels who had staged an uprising against the country?s dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, who had ruled Libya since 1969 and whose regime was notorious for human rights violations. On April 4, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO?an international coalition of 28 member countries) assumed operational control of the military mission in Libya.]

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 240-167. All 226 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?yea.? 167 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation that would authorize continued U.S. military operations in Libya, as well as a separate bill that would allow federal funds to be used only for limited purposes in Libya, including search and rescue missions, surveillance and intelligence gathering, and aerial refueling.


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
WAR & PEACE USA Intervention in Libya
N N Lost
Roll Call 490
Jun 23, 2011
(H.R. 1249) On a motion that would have required the Patent and Trademark Office to ?prioritize? applications for patents by inventors who ?pledge to develop or manufacture their products, processes, and technologies in the United States?

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required the Patent and Trademark Office to ?prioritize? applications for patents by inventors who ?pledge to develop or manufacture their products, processes, and technologies in the United States?? A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to patent law reform bill.

Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) urged support for this motion to recommit: ??Our future prosperity does depend upon our being the most innovative country in the world, the most innovative economy in the world. American scientists and American engineers are doing great work. We are doing some of the most advanced, sophisticated research in the world. For instance, we lead the world in solar cell research. We are making some of the greatest breakthroughs in that technology. Much of it is funded by the Department of Energy or by other Federal research programs. But 80 percent of the manufacturing of solar cells is being done in Asia, mostly in China?.the benefit of innovation should not just be higher profits for American corporations. The benefit should be good jobs for American workers. Under this motion to recommit, those companies will still get their patents, but they don't go to the front of the line. The people who go to the front of the line are those who will pledge that they will do their manufacturing here in the United States, creating good jobs for American workers?.Help American workers share in the prosperity that comes from American innovation from our research, from our innovation. Support this motion to recommit.?

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) opposed this motion to recommit: ?The [underlying patent] bill helps businesses from a broad range of industries, independent inventors, and universities. But the biggest winners are the American people. They will get more job opportunities and greater consumer choices. This amendment would mean that U.S. companies and inventors would be discriminated against all over the world when they file. It would be open season on American innovators and businesses. We would no longer be able to sell products abroad, and IP theft of U.S. goods would become rampant.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 172-251. Voting ?yea? were 171 Democrats and 1 Republican. 234 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have required the Patent and Trademark Office to ?prioritize? applications for patents by inventors who ?pledge to develop or manufacture their products, processes, and technologies in the United States??


LABOR RIGHTS Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Helping Small Business
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 489
Jun 23, 2011
(H.R. 1249) On an amendment that would have eliminated a provision in a patent reform bill that would have made it easier for financial institutions to challenge patents relating to business methods

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) that would have eliminated a provision in a patent reform bill that would have made it easier for financial institutions to challenge patents relating to business methods. Supporters of this provision argued that it would help to vacate ?low-quality? patents. They often cite Amazon?s patent on ?one-click? ordering for online shopping as an example of such frivolous patents. Opponents of the business methods patents provision argued that it amounted to a special privilege for one industry?the financial industry.

Schock urged support for his amendment: ?Section 18 [of the underlying patent bill] carves out a niche of business method patents covering technology used specifically in the financial industry and would create a special class of patents in the financial services field subject to their own distinctive post-grant administrative review. This new process allows for retroactive reviews of already-proven patents that have undergone initial scrutiny, review, and have even been upheld in court. Now these patents will be subjected to an unprecedented new level of interrogation?.At a time when these small entrepreneurs and innovators need to be dedicating their resources and new advancements to innovation, they will instead, because of section 18, be required to divert research funds to lawyers to fight the deep pockets of Wall Street, who will now attempt to attack their right to hold these financially related patents.?

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) also supported this amendment: ?Elected members of Congress should not allow the banks to use us to steal legally issued and valid patents. Financial services-related business method patents have saved financial services companies billions of dollars. But that's not enough for the banks. Because the banks have failed at every attempt to void these patents, they're attempting to use their power to write into law what they could not achieve at PTO [Patent and Trademark Office] or in the courts.?

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) opposed Schock?s amendment: ?This amendment would strike one of the legislation's most important reforms, a crackdown on low-quality business method patents, which have weakened the patent system and cost companies and their customers millions of dollars. Infamous patent trolls--people who aggressively try to enforce patents through courts in friendly venues--have made business method patents their specialty in recent years. These same patent trolls have funded an elaborate propaganda campaign targeting the reforms in section 18?.Opponents have asserted that the measure would help only the banks. This isn't true. The National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have endorsed this provision. Companies impacted include McDonald's, Walmart, Costco, Home Depot, Best Buy, and Lowes. These don't sound like banks to me.?

Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) also opposed Schock?s amendment: ?What are these business methods I'm talking about? In one case, a business method patent was issued for interactive fund-raising across a data packet transferring computer network. Once obtained, the patent holder sued the Red Cross for soliciting charitable contributions on the Internet, claiming that his patent covers this entire field. In another example, a patent was granted covering the printing of marketing materials on billing statements. These patents, and many others in this space, are not legitimate patents that help advance America. They are nuisance patents used to sue legitimate businesses and nonprofit business organizations like the Red Cross or any other merchants who engage in normal activity that should never be patented. In fact, this language will not go after any legitimate patent, but only allow a review of illegitimate patents, like those looking to patent the `office water cooler discussion.'?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 158-262. Voting ?yea? were 93 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 65 Republicans. 170 Republicans and 92 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House voted to maintain a provision in a patent reform bill that would have made it easier for financial institutions to challenge patents relating to business methods. The Senate later passed the underlying patent bill with this ?business methods? provision intact. In addition, President Obama had vowed to sign the bill into law.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 485
Jun 23, 2011
(H.R. 1249) On an amendment that would clarify that the 60-day period in which companies can apply to extend the term of their patents would begin on the next business day following the federal government?s decision allowing the patented product to go on the market

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) that would clarify that the 60-day period for patent term extensions would begin on the next business day following the federal government?s decision allowing the patented product to go on the market.

This 60-day extension period became the subject of a major legal dispute in which MedCo, a biotechnology company that had patented Angiomax (a blood-thinning drug), was denied a patent extension after submitting an application 61 days after Angiomax was allowed to go on the market. Since MedCo?s application for an extension was one day late, generic versions of Angiomax went on the market in 2010 instead of 2014, costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.

Conyers urged support for his amendment: ?It addresses the confusion regarding the calculation of the filing period for patent term extension applications?By eliminating confusion regarding the deadline for patent term extension applications, this amendment provides the certainty necessary to encourage costly investments in life-saving medical research.?

Conyers? amendment was supported by some Republicans, including Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), who argued: ?So our amendment? will clarify that when the FDA provides the final approval after normal business hours, the 60-day clock begins on the next business day. So by doing this, by ensuring that patent holders will not lose their rights prematurely, what this amendment does is it will not only resolve a longstanding problem but will encourage the development of innovative new drugs as well.?

Opponents of Conyers? amendment argued that it was essentially a bailout for one pharmaceutical company. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) argued: ??In 2001, a biotech entity called the Medicines Company, or MedCo, submitted an application for a patent extension that the PTO [the Patent and Trademark Office] ruled was 1 day late. This application would have extended patent protection for a drug the company developed called Angiomax. In August 2010, a U.S. district court ordered the PTO to use a more consistent way of determining whether the patent holder submitted a timely patent extension application?.The Conyers amendment essentially codifies the district court's decision, but it ignores the fact that this case is on appeal. We need to let the courts resolve the pending litigation. It is standard practice for Congress not to interfere when there is ongoing litigation. If the federal circuit rules against MedCo, generic manufacturers of the drug could enter the marketplace immediately rather than waiting another 5 years. This has the potential to save billions of dollars in health care expenses. While the amendment is drafted so as to apply to other companies similarly situated, as a practical matter, this is a special fix for one company.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 223-198. Voting ?yea? were 155 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 68 Republicans. 167 Republicans and 31 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would clarify that the 60-day period in which companies can apply to extend the term of their patents would begin on the next business day following the federal government?s decision allowing the patented product to go on the market. In order for Conyers? amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Helping Small Business
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 482
Jun 23, 2011
(H.R. 1249) On an amendment that would have prohibited the U.S. from adopting a ?first-to-file? patent system (which grants patent protection to the first person to file an application for a patent for an invention?regardless of whether that person is the actual inventor) until other nations agree to adopt a one-year patent ?grace period? (which would give inventors one year to file an application for a patent after publishing an invention, and effectively prevent that inventor?s idea from being stolen).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) that would have prohibited the U.S. from adopting a ?first-to-file? patent system (which grants patent protection to the first person to file an application for a patent for an invention?regardless of whether that person is the actual inventor) until other nations agree to adopt a one-year patent ?grace period? (which would give inventors one year to file an application for a patent after publishing an invention, and effectively prevent that inventor?s idea from being stolen).

Specifically, the underlying patent bill would require the U.S. to move from a ?first to invent? patent system?in which the inventor always receives patent protection regardless of who files the first application for patent protection?to a ?first to file? patent system. The underlying bill also imposed a one-year grace period in between the publication of an invention and the application for patent protection. Conyers? amendment would have prevented the U.S. from a adopting a first-to-file patent system until other nations agree to abide by a one-year grace period intended to prevent an invention from being stolen before its inventor files an application for a patent.

Conyers urged support for his amendment: ?Ladies and gentlemen, this bipartisan amendment adds an important provision to H.R. 1249 [the underlying patent bill]. It would permit the conversion of the United States to a first-to-file system only upon a Presidential finding that other nations have adopted a similar one-year grace period. This one-year grace period protects the ability of an inventor to discuss or write about his or her ideas for a patent up to a year before he or she actually files for patent protection. And without this grace period, an inventor could lose his or her own patent. This grace period provision within H.R. 1249 would grant an inventor a one-year period between the time he first publishes his invention to the time when he's required to file a patent. During this time, this would prohibit anyone else from seeing this publication, stealing the idea, and quickly filing a patent behind the inventor's back. Yet the only way for American inventors to benefit from the grace period provision contained in 1249 is to ensure that the foreign countries adopt a similar grace period as well.?If the first-to-file provision in the bill is implemented, we must ensure that American inventors are not disadvantaged. Small American inventors and universities are disadvantaged abroad in those nations where there is no grace period.?

Rep. Lamar Smith opposed Conyers? amendment: ??The Conyers amendment to tie the changes proposed in the America Invents Act [the underlying patent bill] to future changes that would be made in foreign law is unworkable. I oppose providing a trigger in U.S. law that leaves our patent system at the mercy of actions to be taken at a future date by the Chinese, Russians, French, or any other country. It is our constitutional duty to write the laws for this great land. We cannot delegate that responsibility to the whims of foreign powers?.The move to a first-inventor-to-file system creates a more efficient and reliable patent system that benefits all inventors, including independent inventors. The bill provides a more transparent and certain grace period, a key feature of U.S. law, and a more definite filing date that enables inventors to promote, fund, and market their technology, while making them less vulnerable to costly patent challenges that disadvantage independent inventors.?

The House rejected Conyers? amendment by a vote of 105-316. Voting ?yea? were 68 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 37 Republicans. 198 Republicans and 118 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have effectively required the U.S to maintain its first-to-invent patent system (rather than adopting a first-to file system as required by the underlying bill) until other countries adopt a one-year grace period for patent protection.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Helping Small Business
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 481
Jun 23, 2011
(H.R. 1249) On an amendment that would have allowed fees collected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to be transferred to other government agencies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) that would have allowed fees collected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to be transferred to other government agencies. While this amendment (known as a ?manager?s amendment?) made mostly technical changes, its language relating to PTO fees was opposed by many Democrats--who argued that it did not guarantee that PTO funds would be used exclusively for reviewing patent applications, rather than being transferred to other government agencies.

Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC) argued that allowing fees collected by PTO to be transferred to other agencies would starve an already underfunded patent office: ?This whole reform process was conceived to address poor-quality patents and to reduce the backlog of patent applications, which now exceeds a 700,000 backlog of patent applications. And the reason it exceeds 700,000 is because the Patent and Trademark Office has not had the money because their fees that they have been charging have been diverted to the general fund. Without a clear path to access its own collection of fees, the PTO cannot properly plan or implement the other changes in the bill and fulfill its primary function of reducing the backlog and examining patent applications.?

Smith responded that members who served on the Appropriations Committee (which is responsible for allocating funds for government agencies and programs) had objected to the requirement that PTO fees be used exclusively for patent office activities because they viewed such a restriction as an encroachment on their authority as appropriators: ?Some colleagues have complained during this debate about the treatment of PTO funding in the manager's amendment. The bill that the House Judiciary Committee reported [passed] would allow the PTO to keep all the revenue it raises without having to request funding through the normal appropriations process?.Because of concerns raised by the Appropriations Committee members, we worked with them to develop a compromise that eliminates fee diversion while permitting the appropriators to retain oversight through the traditional appropriations process.?

The House agreed to Smith?s amendment by a vote of 283-140. Voting ?yea? were 202 Republicans and 81 Democrats. 107 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 33 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would have allowed fees collected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to be transferred to other government agencies.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 480
Jun 23, 2011
(H.R. 2219) Legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in 2012?On bringing to final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the Defense bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

(H.R. 2219) Legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in 2012?On passage of the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the Defense bill

Description:These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in 2012. The first of these votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The second vote was on passage of the resolution itself. 

The underlying Defense bill provided $530 billion for Defense Department programs in 2012. In addition, the measure provided $119 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rep. Richard Nugent (R-FL) urged support for the resolution and the underlying Defense bill: ?Now, as a father of three sons all currently serving in the United States Army, this bill is of special importance to me. It's important to the Blue Star moms and dads whose kids have answered the call of duty and are serving their country in uniform. But this legislation isn't just important to the moms and dads and husbands and wives of the loved ones serving overseas. This legislation is important to all Americans. This appropriations bill ensures that the men and women in our armed forces are equipped with the tools and the resources they need to get the job done. It's a bill that ensures we can continue to go to bed at night and be safe and sound in our homes, knowing our troops are protecting our nation and our way of life.?
 
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) opposed the resolution and criticized the underlying bill: ??I'm deeply concerned by really the staggering amounts of money this country continues to devote to the military. At a time of fiscal austerity when the majority is slashing tens of billions of dollars from essential social programs, it's, in my view, absurd that we continue to exempt the Department of Defense from the same scrutiny that we apply to our domestic programs?.The United States accounts for 43 percent of all military spending on Earth. We already outspend Russia and China, the next biggest spenders, by a factor of six. We tell teachers they can't get classroom supplies, but we don't tell admirals that they can't have more submarines. We tell mayors that they can't have more cops, but we don't tell generals that they can't have more ballistic missiles. And we tell Americans that they can't get their roads fixed or their levies strengthened, but here we are funding a next generation of nuclear weapons, not to mention that we already have enough nuclear weapons to kill everybody on Earth 25 times over.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 247-168. All 236 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?yea.? 168 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the Defense bill. The House then passed that resolution by a vote of 251-173. Voting ?yea? were 235 Republicans and 16 Democrats. 172 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in 2012.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 479
Jun 23, 2011
(H.R. 2219) Legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in 2012?On bringing to final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the Defense bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

(H.R. 2219) Legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in 2012?On passage of the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the Defense bill

Description:These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in 2012. The first of these votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The second vote was on passage of the resolution itself. 

The underlying Defense bill provided $530 billion for Defense Department programs in 2012. In addition, the measure provided $119 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rep. Richard Nugent (R-FL) urged support for the resolution and the underlying Defense bill: ?Now, as a father of three sons all currently serving in the United States Army, this bill is of special importance to me. It's important to the Blue Star moms and dads whose kids have answered the call of duty and are serving their country in uniform. But this legislation isn't just important to the moms and dads and husbands and wives of the loved ones serving overseas. This legislation is important to all Americans. This appropriations bill ensures that the men and women in our armed forces are equipped with the tools and the resources they need to get the job done. It's a bill that ensures we can continue to go to bed at night and be safe and sound in our homes, knowing our troops are protecting our nation and our way of life.?
 
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) opposed the resolution and criticized the underlying bill: ??I'm deeply concerned by really the staggering amounts of money this country continues to devote to the military. At a time of fiscal austerity when the majority is slashing tens of billions of dollars from essential social programs, it's, in my view, absurd that we continue to exempt the Department of Defense from the same scrutiny that we apply to our domestic programs?.The United States accounts for 43 percent of all military spending on Earth. We already outspend Russia and China, the next biggest spenders, by a factor of six. We tell teachers they can't get classroom supplies, but we don't tell admirals that they can't have more submarines. We tell mayors that they can't have more cops, but we don't tell generals that they can't have more ballistic missiles. And we tell Americans that they can't get their roads fixed or their levies strengthened, but here we are funding a next generation of nuclear weapons, not to mention that we already have enough nuclear weapons to kill everybody on Earth 25 times over.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 247-168. All 236 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?yea.? 168 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the Defense bill. The House then passed that resolution by a vote of 251-173. Voting ?yea? were 235 Republicans and 16 Democrats. 172 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs in 2012.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 478
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021) Final passage of legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling, and eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling, and eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. Specifically, the bill would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from measuring air pollution caused by oil drilling on water. Rather, the EPA would be limited to measuring such pollution emitted on land. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. Under the bill, the authority to review challenges to oil drilling permitting decisions would instead be vested in the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) urged support for the bill: ??The purpose of this bill is real simple. It is to streamline the permit process to allow us more domestic production of oil and gas. In this country, we consume about 19 million barrels a day of oil and we produce about 7 million, and the exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf has been delayed for years because of a broken bureaucracy?.It has been a never-ending circuit of approvals, appeals and re-applications, and it has stalled exploration for nearly 5 years. So what does that mean? It means that these resources, which perhaps contain as much as 28 billion--yes, that's billion--barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, have been stalled.?

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) also spoke in favor of the bill: ?This is an important bill for our country and a step in the right direction when it comes to weaning ourselves off of foreign, Middle Eastern oil. It allows us to utilize the resources that we have in our own backyard--American energy for American jobs--responsibly and environmentally friendly. Gas prices are fluctuating near historic levels that can send our economy into yet another recession. Millions of Americans are out of work. The unemployment rate has ticked back above 9 percent. Unrest in the Middle East has highlighted our vulnerabilities that stem from dependence on oil half a world away and from many countries that seek to do us harm. In the face of seemingly intractable problems, it is our duty as elected representatives of the people of this country to pursue solutions that benefit our neighbors and our nation as a whole. One such solution is unlocking America's vast energy potential. The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is a bipartisan approach--a bipartisan bill--to bring a massive domestic resource online and create tens of thousands of jobs.?

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) opposed the bill: ?The legislation is not about creating jobs. It is not about lowering gasoline prices. It is a giveaway to the oil industry that will increase pollution along our coasts?.There are many flaws in the legislation. It allows huge increases in air pollution from oil and gas drilling activities by moving the point of measurement from the drill ship to the shore?.The legislation eliminates the Environmental Appeals Board from the permitting process, even though it is a cheaper, faster, and more expert substitute for judicial review. And it requires all challenges to air permits to be raised before the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., thousands of miles away from the affected communities. Claims that this legislation will reduce gas prices or the budget deficit are nonsense. They have no substantiation. There are sensible improvements we could make, but we aren't making them. Instead, this bill waives environmental requirements and short-circuits permitting reviews at the expense of public health.?

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) also opposed the bill: ?The premise of this bill is that pollution generated offshore doesn't matter because it will not affect any humans onshore or humans working offshore. And I know that those of us who represent littoral states [states situated near the sea] are most reassured by our colleagues from Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska in reassuring us that we won't negatively be affected by this legislation. Based on the content of this bill, apparently the majority believes that individuals employed on offshore oil rigs and ship servicing rigs do not breathe while they're working offshore?.We keep hearing from across the aisle that this legislation will create 50,000 jobs. My friends, don't be misinformed. The study they referred to is a Shell Oil-funded study that simply estimates how many jobs could be created, all things being equal, like no pollution regulation, by offshore oil drilling in Alaska. Today's debate is not about whether to drill; it's about whether we will allow a massive increase in pollution when we do it. It is a false choice, and I urge my colleagues in the House to reject it.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 253-166. Voting ?yea? were 230 Republicans and 23 Democrats. 164 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling, and eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. In order for this legislation to become law, however, it would need to pass the Senate and be signed into law by the president. The Senate was not expected to bring up this bill, and the Obama administration released a statement expressing its opposition to the measure. (That statement stopped short, however, of a threat to veto the bill.)


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 477
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021) On a motion that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to submit a report to Congress determining whether a bill loosening regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling would lower gas prices for consumers

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to submit a report to Congress determining whether an oil drilling bill would lower gas prices for consumers. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. Republicans had contended that the underlying oil drilling bill would lower the price of gasoline. This motion was nearly identical to an amendment offered by Rep. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) during debate on the underlying oil drilling bill (see House roll call vote #475.)

Keating urged support for this motion to recommit: ?Simply put, the underlying legislation is about risk versus reward. We know what the reward is: trillions of dollars of profit over the last decade for oil companies and preferred stock buybacks and bonuses for executives. We know what the proponents of this bill say the reward will be: lower gas prices at the pump. Now, what is the risk that we're looking at? The risk is existing jobs: existing jobs in the marine industry, the fishing industry, the tourism industry--industries that are among the most job-producing in my state and in the states of so many other people in this chamber. My amendment [motion to recommit] requires the administrator to determine whether or not this will lower gas prices for American citizens?.This final amendment is a commonsense compromise, and regardless of how the members feel about the underlying legislation, this is something that we should all be able to support.?

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) opposed this motion to recommit: ?Colleagues, I don't think our constituents will appreciate it if we put a big sign on the pump at the gas station that reads ``you're going to pay $3.50 a gallon for gas; you're going to pay $4 a gallon for gas'' while we study it, while a blue ribbon commission proceeds?.Americans are tired of job-killing regulations. Americans are tired of the pain at the pump that they face each and every day?This amendment [motion to recommit] is one more stall, one more study, one more way to tell the American people that we're not interested in helping relieve the pain at the pump. We're going to study it. We're going to commission it. Then we're not going to do anything. This is 54,000 jobs and 1 million barrels of oil a day brought online from Alaska, creating jobs not just there but throughout the 48 States. The other day, I heard people talking about making it in America. `Make It in America.' Do you know what we need to make it in America? We need an energy policy that allows an abundant, affordable energy resource. To make it in America, we need opportunities to secure policies that don't overregulate and kill jobs. If you want to make it in America, reject this motion to recommit; develop American resources; put America back to work; and vote `yes' on the underlying bill.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 177-245. Voting ?yea? were 177 Democrats. 233 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to submit a report to Congress determining whether an oil drilling bill would lower gas prices for consumers.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 476
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have prohibited oil and gas drilling off the coast of Oregon

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) that would have prohibited oil and gas drilling off the coast of Oregon. This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases.

Schrader urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment is very simple; it protects 63 miles of fragile Oregon coastline and many of the communities that depend on its health?.It respects Oregon State's right to decide what is best for its coast without federal interference. Our Oregon coastal communities depend on the health and natural vitality of the Pacific Ocean. They already face tremendous pressure both in the fishing arena and in our tourism economy?. We respect other States' rights to do what they need to do and suggest what they want.?

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) opposed Schrader?s amendment: ?This is once again an attempt to shut off exploration activity in the Pacific. The matter is not to be decided through air permits. It is to be decided when and if lease sales are proposed for those waters. If lease sales are proposed in the future, Oregon's interests and concerns will no doubt be represented by our colleagues who are proposing this amendment, by the opportunities that remain to debate and provide comment?through the leasing process?.We have got to get this country into a position where we recognize that it is a good thing for American-produced energy to have opportunities to be developed?.The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, H.R. 2021 [the underlying bill], gives this body the chance to say we are going to utilize our resources in a responsible manner.?

The House rejected Schrader?s amendment by a vote of 160-262. Voting ?yea? were 156 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 4 Republicans. 230 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited oil and gas drilling off the coast of Oregon. Without a prohibition on such drilling, oil and gas companies were free to apply for permits to drill off Oregon?s coast.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 475
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to submit a report to Congress determining the extent to which an oil drilling bill would lower gas prices for consumers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was an amendment by Rep. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to submit a report to Congress determining the extent to which an oil drilling bill would lower gas prices for consumers. This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. (The Republicans had contended that the underlying oil drilling bill would lower the price of gasoline.)

Hochul urged support for her amendment: ?I stand here today to ask one simple question: How will the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 reduce the cost of gasoline for consumers? I think this is a fair question, one that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle should want the answer to. The price of gasoline is soaring in our country, and across the nation Americans are paying too much at the pump. The average gasoline right now is $3.63, up over a dollar from a year ago. Diesel, which our struggling farmers have to pay, has gone up a dollar per gallon in the same timeframe. However, as I've stated on this floor before, the people in my district are paying much more than that. In the past, western New Yorkers have paid some of the highest gas prices in this nation. Rising fuel prices have hurt our small businesses. They hurt our farms, and they hurt our families at a time when money is far too scarce?.Under this bill, American people are supposed to put their trust in the same oil companies that have consistently betrayed that trust. They tell us we need to drill more, and they tell us they need to get more permits on an expedited basis in order to do so.?

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) opposed Hochul?s amendment: ?Now, in America we're using around 20 million barrels of oil a day, and the vast majority of that is being imported into the U.S. from other sources?.we want any company to have the ability to go out and drill and to get an expedited answer from EPA. We're not even directing EPA to approve the permit. We're simply saying make a decision. And then if the other side does not like the decision, they have an opportunity to go to court. Under the way it's operating today, we can't get a final decision to even go to court. So here we are in limbo. I might also say that on the gentlelady's amendment, she does not give any time for this report to be issued. And knowing EPA's track record, we could be here 10 years waiting for a report. But more important than that, EPA really does not perform economic analyses of energy markets. The Energy Information Administration does that. They have the modeling to do it, they have the technicians to do it, they have the information to do it. EPA really does not even do a very good job on their regulations of thinking about the impact on jobs in America.?

The House rejected Hochul?s amendment by a vote of 186-238. Voting ?yea? were 178 Democrats and 8 Republicans. 226 Republicans and 12 Democrats. As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to submit a report to Congress determining the extent to which a bill loosening regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling would lower gas prices for consumers.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 474
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have allowed states to impose air pollution regulations on oil and gas drilling that were stricter than the regulations imposed by the federal government

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) that would have allowed states to impose air pollution regulations on oil and gas drilling that were stricter than the regulations imposed by the federal government. This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases.

Capps urged support for her amendment: ??This is about giving flexibility to our local air quality districts so that they can apply the technologies that work best for them--they've been doing so for 20 years--so they can continue their work protecting our air quality and the health of our communities. This amendment says that a one-size-fits-all approach that comes from Washington politicians and giant multinational oil companies is the wrong approach.  I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment. It's common sense. It will allow state and local air districts to continue to do their job to protect the air quality of coastal communities like the central coast of California--nothing more, and nothing less.?

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) opposed Capps? amendment: ?One of the concerns I have with this amendment is the practical impact it would have in what could best be described as a balkanization in the regulation of federal waters, creating a patchwork quilt, so to speak, of regulations?This will result in chaotic regulation of federal waters, many of which may conflict with interstate commerce?.So state regulations?will be used, I believe, unfortunately, by those who would try to obstruct and stop domestic energy production. The policy of this bill, of the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, is to provide a clear process so that resources can be explored, and I am afraid this amendment would cause the opposite.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 180-242. Voting ?yea? were 170 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 10 Republicans. 224 Republicans and 18 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed states to impose air pollution regulations on oil and gas drilling that were stricter than the regulations imposed by the federal government.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 473
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have allowed states to appeal decisions approving or denying oil drilling permits in the nearest court of appeals, rather than the D.C. Circuit Court

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) that would have allowed states to appeal decisions approving or denying oil drilling permits in the nearest court of appeals. This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases.

Specifically, the underlying bill required appeals of oil drilling permit decisions to be decided by the D.C. Circuit Court. Eshoo?s amendment would have allowed states to appeal decisions approving or denying oil drilling permits in the nearest court of appeals.

Eshoo urged support for her amendment: ?Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to criticize centralized government; bash Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C. lawyers. They extol the virtues of local control. They cite the 10th Amendment. But this legislation centralizes control in Washington, D.C. In fact, it's a boon for Washington, D.C. lawyers. This provision makes it far more difficult for regular folks to appeal a decision that can directly affect them. It took one of our Energy and Commerce Committee witnesses from the North Slope of Alaska 16 hours to travel to Washington, D.C., at a cost of at least $1,000 for that ticket. This provision forces state and local authorities to fly to Washington, D.C. to defend a challenged permit decision. That's a huge burden in terms of money, and particularly so in these tough economic times. The premise of this bill is that the oil industry needs faster permit decisions. Moving review from one Federal circuit court to another does not expedite permit decisions, and the committee that I'm a part of received no testimony identifying any actual problems with review in the relevant circuit courts. I encourage members to support this amendment, which would preserve local control, which would preserve community participation and really speaks to some fiscal common sense.?

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) opposed Eshoo?s amendment: ?First of all, under her [Eshoo?s] proposal, you would appeal the decision of the EPA at the local district court, wherever the project might be, let's say California. So you go through that appeals process through the U.S. District Court, and then if you don't like that decision, then you have to go to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Well, today, if our [underlying oil drilling] bill did not pass, anyone could appeal a decision of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Environmental Appeals Board, which is located in Washington, D.C. So, today, any appeals to that board have to come to Washington, D.C., and it really is a judicial hearing. There are lawyers. There are judges. There is evidence. And so, today, that's the case?.We're simply saying?once the decision is made by the EPA, any party can go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. They don't even have to go through that extra layer at the federal court but go right to the district court of appeals here in Washington, D.C. So this legislation does not in any way change the venue. As I said, if we did nothing, as it is today, if they appeal to the Environmental Appeals Board, they come to Washington, D.C., to have the hearing. So I have been sympathetic to her desire to save people money, not require them to come all the way to Washington, but that's the way the law is today.?

[While the EAB had always been located in Washington, D.C., the underlying bill would have required all court cases relating to efforts to appeal EAB decisions to take place in Washington D.C.]

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 183-240. Voting ?yea? were 177 Democrats and 6 Republicans. 229 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed states to appeal decisions approving or denying oil drilling permits in the nearest court of appeals, rather than the D.C. Circuit Court.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 472
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have maintained the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review?and approve or deny?applications for oil drilling permits

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) that would have maintained the Environmental Review Board?s authority to review?and approve or deny?applications for oil drilling permits. This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases. Quigley?s amendment would have allowed the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) to maintain this authority.

Quigley urged support for his amendment: ?My amendment strikes the text which strips the ability of the Environmental Appeals Board to remand or deny the issuance of clean air permits for offshore energy exploration and extraction. Quite simply, this amendment allows the EAB to operate as it does today, saving taxpayer dollars and keeping unnecessary litigation out of the courts and in a place where unbiased and apolitical judges can make sound decisions with input from local constituencies who are most affected?.The board takes approximately 5 months on the average from the time a petition is filed to receive and review briefs, hold oral arguments, and render a comprehensive written decision in a prevention of significant deterioration air permit case. Federal court review would likely take at least three or four times as long. Only four of the board's 100-plus air permit decisions have ever been appealed to a federal court, and none of the board's air permit decisions have ever been overturned. The EAB is cost-effective and efficient and has proven to be the fastest, cheapest way to achieve a final permit.?

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) opposed Quigley?s amendment: ?This [underlying bill] simply addresses the issue at hand of whether or not the Environmental Appeals Board can be used as a stalling period for exploratory permits?.They will not be a part or allowed to delay exploratory permits. Why? Because we believe exploration of our resources is important, that it should not be delayed for 5 years?.This bill presents a solution, an up-or-down, yes-or-no answer to a permit within 6 months, without going to the EAB for a ping-pong delay back and forth, EPA, EAB, delay after delay, and says we are going to focus on an issue of national importance, developing our resources, getting exploration performed, so that we can indeed make sure that we are heading down the path toward energy security.?

The House rejected Quigley?s amendment by a vote of 173-251. Voting ?yea? were 169 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 4 Republicans. 230 Republicans and 21 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have maintained the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review and approve or deny applications for oil drilling permits.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 471
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency administrator to extend the ?public comment? period for oil drilling permits by 30 days (The public comment period refers to the period during which the public can voice support for or opposition to an oil drilling permit prior to that permit being approved.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator to extend the ?public comment? period for oil drilling permits by 30 days. (The public comment period refers to the period during which the public can voice support for or opposition to an oil drilling permit prior to that permit being approved.) This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases.

Specifically, current law allowed for a 6-month public comment period on oil drilling permits. Rush?s amendment would have authorized the EPA administrator to grant 30-day extensions for the public comment period.

Rush urged support for his amendment: ?My amendment would simply allow the EPA administrator to provide additional 30-day extensions if the administrator determines that such time is necessary to provide adequate time for public participation and sufficient involvement by affected states?.input by those most affected by drilling is a vital and necessary part of the permitting process. There was a time not too long ago when my Republican colleagues valued local participation and states' rights; and now that they are in the majority, they are attempting to strip away the power of states and the power of local communities to even participate in the decisions that will affect them the most.?

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) opposed Rush?s amendment: ??This legislation does not in any way curtail, stop, impose the opportunity for anyone to express opposition or comment about a permit. We do not in any way change the comment period that EPA has to determine if they're going to issue, in this case, an exploratory permit?.Today, individuals and entities can file a lawsuit against the EPA and their actions. After this bill is passed, they can still file a lawsuit. This amendment basically gives the EPA Administrator the opportunity to grant 30-day extensions on final agency action as the Administrator deems it necessary; but it's not limited to one 30-day period, two 30-day periods or three 30-day periods. In fact, it could go on ad infinitum??

The House rejected Rush?s amendment by a vote of 172-253. Voting ?yea? were 171 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 1 Republican. 234 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency administrator to extend the public comment period for oil drilling permits by 30 days.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 470
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have required companies applying for oil drilling permits to disclose bonuses received by their executives

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA) that would have required companies applying for oil drilling permits to disclose bonuses received by their executives. This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Review Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases.

Keating urged support for his amendment: ?As constituents see soaring gas prices, soaring oil prices, oil companies have revealed record profits. The top five multinational oil companies earned over a trillion dollars in the past decade. In my district, where jobs and commerce depends on a coastal marine and tourism economy, I have constituents that are paying up to $4.50 a gallon. These oil firms, these conglomerates, are eating up more and more of our constituents' paychecks. And where is it going? Only a small portion--some estimate as little as 7 percent--are reinvested back into the economy to pay for efficiencies and research into alternatives to oil. Rather, oil companies are providing bumps for stockholders and high bonuses to their company executives--a pat on the back for high prices at the pump. Remember that up to 90 percent of the tax subsidy money given to executives and companies by the taxpayers went to buybacks for preferred stock purchases. My amendment would provide transparency to the U.S. taxpayer.?

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) opposed Keating?s amendment: ?This amendment presents?one more distraction from the very purpose of this bill. It is a distraction for our colleagues. I understand that they want to oppose this bill, but I believe they ought to oppose the bill on its merits. If they want to oppose the bill, vote `no' on the bill. If they want to offer constructive amendments, then introduce amendments to try to improve the bill, but presenting red herring amendments in amendment after amendment ought to be defeated. Aside from the distraction that this amendment creates, there is no real need for this amendment from a practical perspective. If an interested person wants to know the amounts of bonuses paid to an oil company executive, the information is available. As it is a publicly owned company, it's already available. I don't believe we require bonus disclosure when environmental groups apply for grants. When a staffer helps out on a particular piece of legislation when we introduce the bill, I don't believe that we have disclosure on a bonus to a staffer.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 167-258. Voting ?yea? were 161 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 6 Republicans. 229 Republicans and 29 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required companies applying for oil drilling permits to disclose bonuses received by their executives.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 469
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have required oil and gas companies to disclose all federal subsidies they receive on applications for oil drilling permits

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) that would have required oil and gas companies to disclose all federal subsidies they receive on applications for oil drilling permits. This amendment was offered to legislation that would loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling. In addition, the underlying oil drilling bill would eliminate the Environmental Review Board?s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases.

Welch urged support for his amendment: ?We have many in this body [the House of Representatives], myself among them, who believe that these subsidies are too rich and they're unnecessary. When oil company profits are a trillion dollars in the past year, when the price of oil has been hovering between $95 and $113 a barrel, when the companies have enjoyed record profits this year, the question arises by me and by many as to whether or not it makes sense to ask the taxpayers to reach into their pockets and to provide subsidies to a mature industry--an important industry, but a mature industry and a very profitable industry with a very high-priced product where they can generate and are succeeding in generating significant profits for that industry. This is not about whether they're doing good or they're doing bad--we have oil companies that are doing their job--but it is about whether taxpayers should be, at the very minimum, made explicitly aware as to how much it is they're being asked to subsidize oil companies when they seek these leases.?

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) opposed Welch?s amendment: ?The Welch amendment requires a company applying for a permit to provide data on `oil subsidies provided by the federal government.??this is an absolute red herring. There's no definition of `oil subsidy.' That's intentional. The gentleman who proffered this amendment [Rep. Welch] is an attorney. He ought to know better. I don't know what oil subsidies to which he's referring?.What Mr. Welch is really interested in? what this amendment really does is it attempts to punish oil companies for producing American energy and American jobs. This [underlying] piece of legislation, H.R. 2021, will do just that, and this amendment attempts to stop it.?

The House rejected Welch?s amendment by a vote of 183-238. Voting ?yea? were 173 Democrats and 10 Republicans. 222 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required oil and gas companies to disclose all federal subsidies they receive on applications for oil drilling permits.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 468
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have subjected Shell Oil?s ?icebreaker? ships (ships that are literally designed to break through ice) to federal air pollution regulations

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) that would have subjected Shell Oil?s ?icebreaker? ships (ships that are literally designed to break through ice) to federal air pollution regulations. While Shell?s icebreakers are not used for oil drilling, they service ships engaged in drilling operations.

Specifically, the underlying oil-drilling bill would exempt Shell?s icebreakers from air pollution regulations. Hastings? amendment would have eliminated this exemption.

Hastings urged support for his amendment: ??It would seem to me there is ever-mounting evidence that Republicans are willing to expand offshore drilling regardless of cost to the environment. This particular iteration of what I describe as a near-criminal energy policy takes the form of a sellout of hard-working Americans' right to breathe clean air. In particular, this bill excludes Shell Oil's icebreaker ships in the Arctic from regulation under the Clean Air Act?.Shell is asking Congress, and Republicans are obliging, to create a legal loophole so that Shell, their company, can pollute with impunity and not be bothered by complying with environmental regulations designed to minimize our desecration of the earth. This loophole would create a dream scenario for Shell and the rest of the oil industry, currently taking in record profits as gas prices soar for the average American family. For its 2010 drilling operations, it was not the amount of emissions from the drill ship itself that triggered the application of the Clean Air Act regulations to Shell's operations, but the emissions from Shell's icebreakers.?

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) opposed Hastings? amendment: ?What we are talking about here is something akin to requiring the employee of a factory to overhaul his engine simply because he parks next to the factory. It is requiring a re-engining of service vessels simply because they happen to be in the area of a stationary source. So basically what we are talking about in the bill is saying that once a drilling ship starts to drill, that is when it becomes stationary. To require the vessels that service that drill ship, to require them to be stationary would be like requiring the UPS truck to fall under the same regulations as the factory that it is delivering to, or treating an emissions testing facility like it has wheels and ought to be moving around to everybody else because it is testing the emissions of a stationary source. So I rise to oppose this amendment, again, because of issues it is trying to deal with, mixing stationary and mobile sources.?

The House rejected Hastings? amendment by a vote of 167-254. Voting ?yea? were 166 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 1 Republican. 230 Republicans and 24 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have subjected Shell Oil?s ?icebreaker? ships to federal air pollution regulations.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 467
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021) On an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to measure air pollution from oil drilling on both onshore and offshore locations?meaning on water as well as on land.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to measure air pollution from oil drilling on both onshore and offshore locations?meaning on water as well as on land.

Specifically, the underlying oil drilling pollution bill would prohibit the EPA from measuring air pollution caused by oil drilling on water. Rather, the EPA would be limited to measuring such pollution emitted on land. Speier?s amendment would have eliminated this prohibition, and allowed the EPA to continue to measure air pollution caused by oil drilling both on land and water.

Speier urged support for her amendment: ?Section 2 of this bill would?force emissions from any offshore source to be measured only at the corresponding onshore location. Yes, you heard me correctly, the bill demonstrates willful ignorance of the fact that pollution is also harmful over water, not just on land?.I know our philosophies differ here, but the fact is that even if we produced every drop of recoverable oil offshore today, it would only last us for 3 years at our current consumption rate. Then we would be right back where we started from without having reduced our demand on oil, except we would be about billions of dollars poorer after subsidizing the oil companies to turn the rest of offshore USA into the Gulf of Mexico. That does not sound like a deficit-cutting, jobs-creating proposal to me. H.R. 2021 [the underlying bill] purports to simply reduce the amount of time it takes to get a permit to drill, but it also gives Big Oil a free pass on having to properly account for the toxic pollution it releases on the Outer Continental Shelf. It moves the geographic point where emissions are measured from offshore, near the drilling location, to an onshore point many miles away. This change would clearly weaken public health protection for oil workers--are we interested in them?--fishermen--are we interested in them?--recreational boaters, not to mention all those who do business or make a living in our coastal communities.?

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) opposed the amendment: ?Now, if you look at the legislative history of the Clean Air Act, it is very clear in that legislative history that, as it pertains to Outer Continental Shelf sources, they were concerned about the impact onshore and the ability of onshore to attain and maintain their Clean Air National Ambient Air Quality standard requirements. And so all this legislation does is to clarify that point. We're not changing the ambient air quality standards. We're not changing the way they monitor stationary sources. We're not changing the way they monitor mobile sources. We're simply clarifying that that was the legislative history, that was the intent, and the full range of environmental protections are still in place. So I believe that this amendment is not necessary. We already have adequate monitoring in place.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 176-248. Voting ?yea? were 174 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 2 Republicans. 231 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to measure air pollution from oil drilling on both onshore and offshore locations. The EPA was not immediately prohibited, however, from measuring offshore oil pollution caused by oil drilling. In order for such a prohibition to take effect, the underlying oil drilling bill would need to pass both the House and Senate. At the time the time this vote occurred, the Senate had not yet taken up legislation relating to oil drilling.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 466
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 672) Final passage of legislation that would have eliminated the Election Assistance Commission, which provides federal funding and guidance to states to administer elections

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have eliminated the Election Assistance Commission, which provides federal funding and guidance to states to administer elections.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS) urged support for the bill: ?As we move forward on the difficult job of securing our nation's financial future, the Congress will face many difficult decisions. Programs will have to be cut, and some even eliminated. All of those programs are there because someone wants them. We have to look carefully at each one and decide whether the benefit it creates is worth the cost of maintaining it. After more than 2 years of hearings, investigations and oversight, the Committee on House Administration has identified not just a program but a federal agency that we cannot justify to the taxpayers. That agency, the Election Assistance Commission [EAC], should be eliminated?.One of the primary reasons the EAC was created was to distribute money to States to update voting equipment and voter registration systems. The EAC has accomplished that, paying out over $3 billion to States for those purposes. With our deep debt and deficit, there almost certainly will be no more money for the EAC to distribute, meaning that that function is complete.?

Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX) opposed the bill: ?The EAC doesn't run elections. That's not its job. It assists the state and local election officials so that they can run elections better and for less. And local election officials have written in from across the country in praise of the EAC and opposition to this bill. H.R. 672 would eliminate the one federal agency that's focused on finding best practices for elections. That will make it that much harder for the supervisor of elections in Palm Beach County, Florida, to learn that the registrar of voters in Fresno County, California, figured out a way to process paper ballots so they would run more smoothly, representing a 25 percent savings in election costs. In my home, Bexar County, the elections administrator, Jacqui Callanen, learned from an EAC instructional video a new technique that will save our county $100,000 per year. That's $100,000 in savings for one county, from one EAC instructional video, and we have more than 8,000 election jurisdictions in the United States.?

The vote on this bill was 235-187. All 235 Republicans voted ?yea.? All 187 Democrats present voted ?nay.? While a majority of members voted in favor of this bill, a two-thirds majority vote in required for passage under suspension of the rules. As a result, the House rejected legislation that would have eliminated the Election Assistance Commission, which provides federal funding and guidance to states to administer elections. Republican leaders, however, remained free to bring the bill up again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Fair Elections
N N Won
Roll Call 465
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021, H.R. 1249) Legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling, as well as a separate, unrelated patent reform bill ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling. The resolution also set a time limit for debate and determined which amendments could be offered to a separate, unrelated, patent reform bill. The first of these three votes was on whether to bring up the resolution (known as a ?question of consideration? ? literally whether to ?consider? or bring up the resolution). The second of these three votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The third vote was on passage of the resolution itself.

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bills: ?Everybody in this Chamber ought to vote for this rule [resolution] if they care about our gas prices, about our national security, about our energy security, and about job creation. This bill has the potential to create tens of thousands of jobs annually, over $100 billion in payroll over the next 50 years, and 1 million barrels of oil a day. That's nearly enough oil to replace our imports from Saudi Arabia. This bill would reduce our dependence on Middle East oil significantly, and that ought to be our goal. Foreign nations--some of which have serious animosity towards the United States--are in control of the vast majority of oil that we use day in and day out. Is dependency on these foreign countries not one of the biggest threats that our country faces today? It's a scary reality that this bill directly addresses.?

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) criticized the oil drilling pollution bill: ?This bill gives offshore oil companies a pass to pollute by exempting the offshore drilling companies from applying the pollution controls to vessels, which account for up to 98 percent of the air pollution from offshore drilling. I suppose, if you're in the Gulf of Mexico and the wind is blowing towards the shore, you would care about this; but in California, the wind almost always blows onto the shore, and the offshore drilling and the additional pollution that would be allowed because of this is a serious problem for California.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) criticized the patent bill: ??Patents are one of the most critical components that drive American innovation, drive our economy, drive invention and innovation. Regrettably?the bill that this rule makes in order fails to ensure that the Patent Office has the resources it needs to process patent applications in a timely manner?.Inventors, innovators, and job creation should not be on hold due to delays in patent approval. I'm an inventor of several patents, and I can tell you that the quickest one that I received took over 5 years until it was granted. By the time it was granted, I had actually sold the company and was no longer involved in the sector?.while there are very legitimate and important policy discussions on the aspect of patent reform, an equally, if not more important issue is adequate funding for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to ensure the speedy approval of applications so that they're relevant and reviewed and granted in a timeframe consistent with the needs of the private sector.?

The House agreed to the question of consideration by a vote of 215-189. Voting ?yea? were 211 Republicans and 4 Democrats. 182 Democrats and 7 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House brought up and debated a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to an oil drilling pollution bill and a patent bill. The House then passed the previous question motion by a vote of 230-184. All 228 Republicans present and 2 Democrats voted ?yea.? 184 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on the resolution. The House then passed the resolution by a vote of 239-186. Voting ?yea? were 226 Republicans and 13 Democrats. 178 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling. As an additional result, the House also proceeded to formal floor debate on a separate, unrelated patent reform bill.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 464
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021, H.R. 1249) Legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling, as well as a separate, unrelated patent reform bill?On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling. The resolution also set a time limit for debate and determined which amendments could be offered to a separate, unrelated, patent reform bill. The first of these three votes was on whether to bring up the resolution (known as a ?question of consideration? ? literally whether to ?consider? or bring up the resolution). The second of these three votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The third vote was on passage of the resolution itself.

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bills: ?Everybody in this Chamber ought to vote for this rule [resolution] if they care about our gas prices, about our national security, about our energy security, and about job creation. This bill has the potential to create tens of thousands of jobs annually, over $100 billion in payroll over the next 50 years, and 1 million barrels of oil a day. That's nearly enough oil to replace our imports from Saudi Arabia. This bill would reduce our dependence on Middle East oil significantly, and that ought to be our goal. Foreign nations--some of which have serious animosity towards the United States--are in control of the vast majority of oil that we use day in and day out. Is dependency on these foreign countries not one of the biggest threats that our country faces today? It's a scary reality that this bill directly addresses.?

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) criticized the oil drilling pollution bill: ?This bill gives offshore oil companies a pass to pollute by exempting the offshore drilling companies from applying the pollution controls to vessels, which account for up to 98 percent of the air pollution from offshore drilling. I suppose, if you're in the Gulf of Mexico and the wind is blowing towards the shore, you would care about this; but in California, the wind almost always blows onto the shore, and the offshore drilling and the additional pollution that would be allowed because of this is a serious problem for California.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) criticized the patent bill: ??Patents are one of the most critical components that drive American innovation, drive our economy, drive invention and innovation. Regrettably?the bill that this rule makes in order fails to ensure that the Patent Office has the resources it needs to process patent applications in a timely manner?.Inventors, innovators, and job creation should not be on hold due to delays in patent approval. I'm an inventor of several patents, and I can tell you that the quickest one that I received took over 5 years until it was granted. By the time it was granted, I had actually sold the company and was no longer involved in the sector?.while there are very legitimate and important policy discussions on the aspect of patent reform, an equally, if not more important issue is adequate funding for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to ensure the speedy approval of applications so that they're relevant and reviewed and granted in a timeframe consistent with the needs of the private sector.?

The House agreed to the question of consideration by a vote of 215-189. Voting ?yea? were 211 Republicans and 4 Democrats. 182 Democrats and 7 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House brought up and debated a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to an oil drilling pollution bill and a patent bill. The House then passed the previous question motion by a vote of 230-184. All 228 Republicans present and 2 Democrats voted ?yea.? 184 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on the resolution. The House then passed the resolution by a vote of 239-186. Voting ?yea? were 226 Republicans and 13 Democrats. 178 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling. As an additional result, the House also proceeded to formal floor debate on a separate, unrelated patent reform bill.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 463
Jun 22, 2011
(H.R. 2021, H.R. 1249) Legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling, as well as a separate, unrelated patent reform bill?On whether to bring up the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling. The resolution also set a time limit for debate and determined which amendments could be offered to a separate, unrelated, patent reform bill. The first of these three votes was on whether to bring up the resolution (known as a ?question of consideration? ? literally whether to ?consider? or bring up the resolution). The second of these three votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The third vote was on passage of the resolution itself.

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bills: ?Everybody in this Chamber ought to vote for this rule [resolution] if they care about our gas prices, about our national security, about our energy security, and about job creation. This bill has the potential to create tens of thousands of jobs annually, over $100 billion in payroll over the next 50 years, and 1 million barrels of oil a day. That's nearly enough oil to replace our imports from Saudi Arabia. This bill would reduce our dependence on Middle East oil significantly, and that ought to be our goal. Foreign nations--some of which have serious animosity towards the United States--are in control of the vast majority of oil that we use day in and day out. Is dependency on these foreign countries not one of the biggest threats that our country faces today? It's a scary reality that this bill directly addresses.?

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) criticized the oil drilling pollution bill: ?This bill gives offshore oil companies a pass to pollute by exempting the offshore drilling companies from applying the pollution controls to vessels, which account for up to 98 percent of the air pollution from offshore drilling. I suppose, if you're in the Gulf of Mexico and the wind is blowing towards the shore, you would care about this; but in California, the wind almost always blows onto the shore, and the offshore drilling and the additional pollution that would be allowed because of this is a serious problem for California.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) criticized the patent bill: ??Patents are one of the most critical components that drive American innovation, drive our economy, drive invention and innovation. Regrettably?the bill that this rule makes in order fails to ensure that the Patent Office has the resources it needs to process patent applications in a timely manner?.Inventors, innovators, and job creation should not be on hold due to delays in patent approval. I'm an inventor of several patents, and I can tell you that the quickest one that I received took over 5 years until it was granted. By the time it was granted, I had actually sold the company and was no longer involved in the sector?.while there are very legitimate and important policy discussions on the aspect of patent reform, an equally, if not more important issue is adequate funding for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to ensure the speedy approval of applications so that they're relevant and reviewed and granted in a timeframe consistent with the needs of the private sector.?

The House agreed to the question of consideration by a vote of 215-189. Voting ?yea? were 211 Republicans and 4 Democrats. 182 Democrats and 7 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House brought up and debated a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to an oil drilling pollution bill and a patent bill. The House then passed the previous question motion by a vote of 230-184. All 228 Republicans present and 2 Democrats voted ?yea.? 184 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on the resolution. The House then passed the resolution by a vote of 239-186. Voting ?yea? were 226 Republicans and 13 Democrats. 178 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation that would ease air pollution regulations for oil and gas drilling. As an additional result, the House also proceeded to formal floor debate on a separate, unrelated patent reform bill.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 459
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) Final passage of legislation that would provide annual funding for Agriculture Department programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation that would provide annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

In total, the agriculture bill provided $125.5 billion for agriculture programs in fiscal year 2012. It cut federal funding a number of nutritional assistance and food aid programs. For example, the bill cut $685 million from the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), which provides food aid to low income women and young children (up to age 5) who at risk for malnutrition.

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) urged support for the bill: ?The bill answers the call from Americans to reduce government spending while still providing for critical programs that keep American agriculture competitive in a global economy. The $125.5 billion in both discretionary and mandatory funding in this bill will help our rural communities to thrive, provide daily nutrition to children and families, and keep our food and drug supply safe. However, we can't spend at the rate we used to. We've hit the debt ceiling. We're borrowing more than 42 cents on every dollar we spend. We're mortgaging our children's futures. We have to rein in spending, even if it may not be the most popular thing to do.?

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) also supported the bill: ?There are a lot of things in WIC we can do to improve to make sure that children don't fall through the cracks. Right now, for example, 49 percent of the kids in America participate in WIC. Do we really believe 49 percent are impoverished? Perhaps it's oversubscribed. Maybe we can work with the WIC folks on that?. Today, in America, a child under 5 years old is eligible for 12 federal programs. After that age, he or she is eligible for 9 Federal feeding programs. At 65, you're eligible for 5 different federal feeding programs. We want to make sure no one falls through the cracks and no one goes hungry, yet at the same time, is it possible that some folks are eligible for not just three meals a day but maybe four and five??

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) opposed the bill, and criticized the Republican majority for cutting WIC funding: ?This is a sacred portion of the budget to people on my side of the aisle, and it should be sacred to all people in America--newborn mothers, babies, and children under 5 who are identified as nutritionally at risk, and yet we are cutting that budget 13 percent?.Economists estimate that for every $1 invested in WIC, there are savings between $1.50 and $3 in health care costs just in the first 60 days after an infant's birth. Talk about a return on investment?.It's equivalent to kicking 475,000 eligible mothers, infants, and children off one of the most cost-effective programs in our country. It will cost Tennessee over $1 million. If we get rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for 1 week, we could pay for the entire WIC program for a year. I cannot see this. It seems to me it's distorted values, and I would ask that they reconsider and put the WIC program back to its basic level.?

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) also opposed the agriculture bill: ?What does this bill say of our values? It says that those children are of little value. Is that what this is about? Is it about those people around the world that are starving that will not have the Food for Peace program? Is that the value of this Congress, that we cannot find the money, in this wealthiest of all nations, to provide the health care for our young children and the food for those around the world??

The House passed this agriculture bill by a vote of 217-203. Voting ?yea? were 217 Republicans. All 184 Democrats present and 19 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs, and cutting funding for nutritional assistance and food-aid programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Famine Relief
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
N N Lost
Roll Call 458
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On a motion that would have increased funding by $11.8 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have increased funding by $11.8 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which is the federal agency that regulates futures markets. (Futures markets are markets based on speculation on the future prices of goods.) A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.  This motion to recommit was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Rep. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?The CFTC is like the sheriffs in town who protect us from the Wild West of oil speculators. Now if Republicans had their way, they would send these sheriffs packing, let the speculators drive up our gas prices and run wild, just shooting around town. But those who support my final amendment to the bill see it differently. We like law and order. We like it when people play by the rules. And we like having sheriffs around to make sure someone is keeping an eye on these speculators on behalf of our consumers?.Today oil is trading at about $100 a barrel. In my district, my constituents are paying over $4 a gallon just to fill up, and that's for regular. The price of diesel is really, really hurting my farmers, who pay a quarter more for every gallon. You know, the worst part is that none of this is new for western New York. A few years ago, my region had the highest gas prices in America--not high prices, the highest. Even today, the village of Arcade, a tiny village in a farming community in Wyoming County, is listed as having among the highest gas prices in the nation.?

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) opposed the motion to recommit: ?To date, the CFTC staff has been unable to find any reliable economic analysis to support the contention that excessive speculation is affecting the markets we regulate, or that position limits will prevent excessive speculation. The price volatility exists in our markets because of global supply and demand for physical commodities. Now, why are the Democrats trying to get us bogged down in that the price of oil is going up because of speculation? Well, I can tell you. Go back to January 2009, and ask your constituents if they remember paying a 1.83 per gallon. And in that same month, who became president of the United States but President Obama, the Democrat. The change you were asking for, the change we were promised was that gas went from $1.83 per gallon to now $3.80, a 90 percent increase. And the Democrats want us to believe it's because of speculators. You know why it's gone up? Because of more regulation, less permitting, more delays and more lawsuits.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 185-233. Voting ?yea? were 184 Democrats and 1 Republican. 233 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have increased funding by $11.8 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 456
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have prohibited the Agriculture Department from storing data in facilities in foreign countries

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) that would have prohibited the Agriculture Department from storing data at facilities in foreign countries. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Lipinski urged support for his amendment: ?There is no reason for essential government data to be stored in offshore facilities, and the USDA has recognized that fact. In cloud computing contracts signed by the USDA, Secretary Vilsack and CIO Chris Smith have insisted that all data must be stored in the United States. This amendment seeks to reinforce and codify USDA contracts' terms specifically regarding where the data is stored. That is all that this speaks to. It says that this contract, in regards to where the data is stored, will be codified with this amendment. Now, why is this important? It's critical for security reasons. We shouldn't have to worry about another nation seizing the infrastructure where our data is stored. It's critical for reliability reasons. We don't want another country, either intentionally or accidentally, disconnecting us from the servers we need to run our government.?

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) opposed the amendment: ??I am very reluctant to tie the hands of the USDA [the Agriculture Department] in seeking the best contract. I want them to do what a business would do and be free from micromanagement by the U.S. Congress. If the location is outside of the United States or the location is in Illinois or in Georgia or in California, I want them to do what is best for the USDA and the best for the taxpayers. As I understand this amendment, it would limit that sort of flexibility. So I oppose the amendment; but I want to say to the gentleman from Illinois, I certainly will continue a dialogue with you on this, because I do realize I need to learn more about it. But on that basis, I do not want to tie their hands based on location.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 162-254. Voting ?yea? were 94 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 68 Republicans. 167 Republicans and 87 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited the Agriculture Department from storing data in facilities in foreign countries.  


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Cyber Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 455
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have eliminated federal subsidies for farmers earning more than $250,000 per year

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated federal subsidies for farmers earning more than $250,000 per year. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Flake urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment would lower that income limit to be eligible to receive farm payments from $1.25 million to $250,000 in adjusted gross income. I think a farmer has done well if they clear $250,000. I think it's wonderful if they do that. They should try to take a day off from their hard work if they do. But don't come back to the federal government and say, we need more farm subsidy payments. Let's have some sanity in this program here.?

Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) opposed Flake?s amendment: ?I couldn't agree more with the gentleman from Arizona when he says that we've got to put everything on the table in order to eliminate this deficit and to put us on a path toward balancing our budget. We've got a fiscal crisis. But at the same time, we need to make smart choices. We need to establish priorities. We don't need to cut off our feet or cut off our hands. We need to empower ourselves and have the tools that we need. And I think that if we're going to have a strong agricultural community, if we're going to have American farmers be able to produce high quality, safe, economical food for the people of this country and for export, and to be able to compete in the global marketplace, we are going to have to have reasonable and smart farm support.?

The House rejected Flake?s amendment by a vote of 186-228. Voting ?yea? were 102 Democrats?including a majority of progressives--and 84 Republicans. 152 Republicans and 76 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated federal subsidies for farmers earning more than $250,000 per year.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 452
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have cut $11 million from a program that kills predators of livestock

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.



Description:This was a vote on an amendment Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) that would have cut $11 million from a program that kills predators of  livestock. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Campbell urged support for his amendment: ??This amendment really ought to be a no-brainer. It cuts $11 million from the USDA Wildlife Services' livestock protection program. Let me give you four reasons why this should be a no-brainer. First of all, it saves $11 million. Not the end of the world, but it's a start. We all know we have to save a lot of money. We all know we have to spend less money, and this is a start for doing it. Now why does it do that? Why do we cut $11 million from this? This program is taxpayer money used to kill potential predators that supposedly are threatening livestock. But this killing of predators is very indiscriminate. We're killing all kinds of wildlife out there, both predators and nonpredators, both threatening and nonthreatening. Third, less than 1 percent of livestock in America is killed by predators every year. So we're spending this money for a tiny, tiny portion of the livestock that is out there. And fourth--and this is almost the biggest reason--why are taxpayers paying this? Why is this a taxpayer responsibility? If ranchers want to protect their livestock, why don't they do it? Why don't they pay for it??

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) also supported Campbell?s amendment: ?It's been about $1 billion that's been spent on this program during its duration by the federal Government, $1 billion. And during that time--because they're not following biology or any sensibility--the coyote population has tripled despite the $1 billion. In Colorado, they fly around in planes and shoot coyotes; it costs about 100 bucks a coyote. There are more coyotes now than there were when Animal Damage Control started these programs. They don't understand pack behavior and what causes dispersion. They've got coyotes now in parts of the country where they haven't seen them for 100 years. It's a really effective program; it's working really well. It has nothing to do with geese or any of that. That's another part of Wildlife Services. That is not the subsidy to private ranching interests to conduct lethal predator control. And then they do some other great things. They have these nifty little devices, they're called M-44s. It's basically a baited cyanide shot shell. Now, it has sickened some humans--hasn't killed any yet. Has killed quite a number of domestic animals. Sooner or later it's going to kill a kid. Some kid is going to be pulling on that little string saying, gee, I wonder what this does--BAM, cyanide shot shell. Now, that's really discriminate. That's really effective. That's the same program that has helped triple the population of coyotes out there over the last 80 years since these programs have existed.

Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) opposed the amendment: ? The federal government doesn't allow people to kill predators that are attacking their livestock. So consequently, here's another situation just like we discussed yesterday, where the government puts restrictions on ranchers and farmers so they cannot protect their own livestock. So the taxpayers--because of their demands that ranchers and farmers not protect their own livestock, the federal government steps in?.   Furthermore, there's been an $18 million loss of sheep and lands to predators, or $111 million when you add cattle and calf losses. Absent predator management, losses would explode, and that would drive family farms and ranchers out of business.?

The House rejected Campbell?s amendment by a vote of 132-287.  Voting ?yea? were 103 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 29 Republicans. 207 Republicans and 80 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $11 million from a program intended to protect livestock from predators.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 450
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would increase funding by $3 million for a program designed to prevent flooding and soil erosion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) that would increase funding by $3 million for a program designed to prevent flooding and soil erosion. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

The underlying agriculture bill eliminated all federal funding for this program, which had previously been funded jointly by the federal government and state governments. Hirono?s amendment would have provided $3 million for the program.

Hirono urged support for her amendment: ?The Watershed and Flood Control Program provides for cooperation between the federal government, states, and localities to prevent erosion, flood water, and sediment damage. This is also a vital program to further the development, utilization, and disposal of water. It also helps to further the conservation and utilization of land and authorized watersheds. Watershed improvements under this program are cost-shared between the federal government and local governments. I think that's a good thing?.I don't think it is fair to leave these local governments holding the bag while the federal government just walks away from these commitments. Even shutting down projects of course costs money, and we can't leave them just halfway done on these projects. How can we just walk away from these projects before realizing the economic and environmental benefits they were designed to deliver??

No Republicans spoke in opposition to Hirono?s amendment, but a majority of Republicans voted against it.

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 288-132. Voting ?yea? were 181 Democrats and 107 Republicans. 129 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would provide by $3 million for a program designed to prevent flooding and soil erosion. In order for federal funding for this flood prevention program to continue, however, the Senate would have to vote to maintain funding for it. At the time the House passed this amendment, it was unclear whether the Senate would vote to continue the program.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Natural Disasters
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 449
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have required the Agriculture Department to set aside funding for cooperatives that support farmers who are members of minority groups.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have required the Agriculture Department to set aside funding for cooperatives that support farmers who are members of minority groups. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Jackson Lee urged support for her amendment: ?However, in this significant group of American farmers, it is important that we not overlook the too often marginalized population of minority farmers. As many of you may know, the history of minority farmers and government programs is a long and tumultuous one. Minority farmers have faced years of institutionalized discrimination when applying for federal government funding. This is a fact that is discouraging for many minority farmers, and quite frankly embarrassing for many government institutions?.The time has come for the United States to take a proactive role in upholding the standards of equality and fairness in
the agricultural sector. I believe it is of the utmost importance that we make use of every available opportunity to acknowledge the work of all Americans whose labor contributes to the health and welfare of society. All agricultural workers, minority farmers in particular, should be provided the necessary assistance to ensure that the fruits of their labor can continue to fuel our daily work.?

No Republicans spoke on Jackson Lee?s amendment. Most Republicans, however, voted against it.

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 182-235. Voting ?yea? were 174 Democrats and 8 Republicans. 226 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Agriculture Department to set aside funding for cooperatives that support farmers who are members of minority groups.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 448
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used to implement Agriculture Department regulations relating to climate change

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) that would prohibit funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used to implement Agriculture Department regulations relating to climate change. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Specifically, the Agriculture Department had issued regulations requiring federal agencies to determine how climate change will impact their ability to carry out their responsibilities?and devise plans to adapt to changes brought on by climate change. This amendment would prohibit funding provided by the underlying agriculture bill from being used to implement such regulations relating to climate change adaptation.

Scalise urged support for his amendment: ? Look, our local weatherman can't tell us what the weather's going to be this Saturday, within a 50 percent margin of error. And yet the Department's spending millions of dollars to tell us what the climate's going to be in 39 years to determine how our farmers should be growing crops. This is ludicrous. We rejected it here in Congress. We shouldn't be allowing these kinds of regulations to be implemented. And hopefully this amendment will get adopted.?

No Democrats spoke in opposition to Scalise?s amendment, although most voted against it. Jamie Rappaport Clark, the executive vice president for Defenders of Wildlife, criticized Scalise?s amendment: ?Rep. Scalise and the 237 other members of the House are inhibiting the USDA?s [the Agriculture Department?s] ability to help farmers and forest owners and managers prepare for a future that includes more of the extreme weather events we have just experienced this spring. The future is not going to be the same as the past. This commonsense USDA policy says let?s plan for that future in a way that will prevent food disruptions, massive forest fires and economic hardships.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 238-179. Voting ?yea? were 228 Republicans and 10 Democrats. 174 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used to implement Agriculture Department regulations relating to climate change. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate. At the time the House passed the amendment, the Senate had not yet taken it up.  Thus, the Agriculture Department?s regulations on climate change adaptation continued to be implemented.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Lost
Roll Call 447
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have required the Agriculture Department to provide funding for urban gardening programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have required the Agriculture Department to provide funding for urban gardening programs. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Specifically, urban gardening programs were funded through existing federal grants under the Food and Nutrition Act. Jackson Lee?s amendment prohibited the underlying agriculture bill?s funds from being ?used in contravention of the Food and Nutrition Act.? Thus, the amendment would have effectively prohibited the Agriculture Department from redirecting funding for urban gardening programs to other programs.

Jackson Lee urged support for her amendment: ?I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the value of emphasizing the importance of urban gardening. My amendment would prohibit any of the funds made available by the appropriations from being used in contravention of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. Forty-seven million American families live in poverty that restricts their access to healthy food. The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 supports numerous programs aimed at reducing hunger throughout the country. Seventeen million children struggle with hunger every day, affecting their ability to learn and develop in a country so full of resources. It is unconscionable that millions of children do not have enough to eat. We cannot consider proposals that would contradict existing legislation aimed at improving food security, such as the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.?

No Republicans spoke in opposition to Jackson Lee?s amendment. Most Republicans, however, voted against it.

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 181-237. Voting ?yea? were 176 Democrats and 5 Republicans. 230 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Agriculture Department to provide funding for urban gardening programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 446
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to finalize data swap reporting rules (disclosure rules governing the trading of financial information between companies) one year prior to issuing final regulations on block trading (in which one business can privately trade shares of a company with another business)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) that would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to finalize data swap reporting rules (disclosure rules governing the trading of financial information between companies) one year prior to issuing final regulations on block trading (in which one business can privately trade shares of a company with another business). This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Garrett urged support for his amendment: ??My amendment would simply require the CFTC to finalize important data-reporting rules before they implement new rules for certain swap transactions. See, with this change, it would be able to collect the transaction data that it needs to determine the reasonable standards for block trade levels and real-time reporting requirements without first disrupting the marketplace. You see, finalizing any numerical determination of block trade sizes or setting real-time reporting requirement timeframes prior to having necessary data, really, if you think about it, would be arbitrary, would encourage litigation, and will likely have the unintended consequences on those very same pension funds I talked about--their ability to protect their investors, as well as on the economic growth of our country and job creation. So, what this amendment would do is require swap data-reporting rules to be finalized and be in place before promulgating the final block trade rules or those real-time reporting criteria rules.?

Rep. Colin Peterson (D-MN) opposed the amendment: ?If the market participants know more, like what we do in the exchange trading and so forth, the margins are going to come down and the profits of these big banks are going to shrink. In fact, some people have said that they think that once this is implemented that it's probably going to reduce the profits of the Wall Street banks 40 percent. And they don't like it, and they want to delay it. So some would argue that we need more data collection, and I guess that's what you are arguing before this public reporting. I think for some swaps, that is the case, and I will agree with that. But on other swaps, the institutions are already collecting this data. They can go forward with this public reporting. We have the information. There's no reason to delay it. In other cases where we don't have the information, it probably isn't appropriate to delay it.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 231-189. Voting ?yea? were 229 Republicans and 2 Democrats. 182 Democrats and 7 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to finalize data swap reporting rules one year prior to issuing final regulations on block trading. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Lost
Roll Call 445
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used for mifepristone, or ?RU-486,? a pill that can terminate a pregnancy during the first two months following conception

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that would prohibit funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used for mifepristone, or ?RU-486,? a pill that can terminate a pregnancy during the two months following conception. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

King urged support for his amendment: ?This is an amendment that comes and there's an Iowa focus on this that affects the whole country. We have had a practice that began experimentally in Iowa by Planned Parenthood of issuing telemed abortions by distributing RU-486, the abortion pill, what is also known as mifepristone, distributing it through a means of setting up a television monitor and it circumventing the requirement in Iowa that they be seen by a doctor. A doctor sits remotely on the other side of the Skype screen, so to speak, and interviews the potential mother, who if once she answers the questions that the doctor asks and they record it under film that they've protected themselves perhaps from liability, he clicks the mouse on the one end and it opens a drawer underneath the screen on the other end and out rolls the abortion pill, RU-486?.This is a dangerous drug, and to distribute it through robo-Skype abortions--I'm opposed to it philosophically for a lot of reasons, but practical minds who might disagree on the abortion issue should understand that this government should not be paying for it.?

Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) opposed King?s amendment: ?It's [RU-486] been a legitimate drug in the United States after it met all of the rigorous FDA [Food and Drug Administration] process in 1996 and has been available since 2000 in this country?.It is legal and available in all 50 States in the United States, in Washington, DC, in Guam, and in Puerto Rico. It's a prescription drug which is not available to the public through pharmacies. Instead, its distribution is restricted to specifically qualified licensed physicians. To use it, a woman must go to a doctor's office. Whatever controversy surrounded the introduction of RU-486 in the United States was settled years ago, and there's no reason for this amendment other than to stir up the controversy over the reproductive rights of women. I think by the gentleman's comments, you can see that that's what he's trying to do. I would urge us all to oppose this amendment. And frankly it doesn't have anything to do with USDA [Agriculture Department] funds, because we don't do telemedicine abortions.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 240-176. Voting ?yea? were 226 Republicans and 14 Democrats. 167 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used for mifepristone, or ?RU-486.? In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate and be signed into law by the president.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
FAMILY PLANNING Availability of Contraceptives
N N Lost
Roll Call 444
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used to pay settlements in discrimination lawsuits filed by black farmers

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that would have prohibited funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used to pay settlements in discrimination lawsuits filed by black farmers. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

King urged support for his amendment: ??This amendment emanates from claims that were filed subsequent to a press conference held by then-Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman in 1995, who said that the USDA [the Agriculture Department] was discriminating against black farmers. I believe that happened. Their estimate at the USDA at that time was that there were approximately 3,000 black farmers who would file claims under what resulted in a consent decree in the late nineties. The 3,000 estimate became 22,551 claims of discrimination. But according to the census, there are 18,000 black farmers?.Now we have not 3,000 claims. We still have 18,000 black farmers. Now we have 94,000 claims and report after report of fraudulent claims and marketing this as perpetuation of a fraud across this country. And my amendment shuts off the funding that would be used to administer or to fund the balance of these?claims, which this Congress must investigate the fraud that's here.?

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) opposed the amendment: ?The opportunities for members to have amendments is a privilege that should not be denied. And I respect my colleague from Iowa for his right to offer an amendment. But it is tragic and disappointing that my friend from Iowa?would take this time to demean the tragic lives that black farmers, Native Americans farmers, and others impacted have experienced over several decades?I join the gentleman [Rep. King] in wanting to ensure the adequacy of the implementation of this settlement. I want to stand alongside a transparent system?.But it would be absurd for any member to join and to vote to interfere with the legitimate settlement of legitimate claims that have evidenced the pain and devastation and disregard and disparate treatment and discrimination and unconstitutional treatment of farmers who we claim on this floor today to love. Farming is part of the American fabric. And if there's any body of people who understands farms, it is the ex-slaves who worked for 400 years without payment in the cotton fields of the South.?

The House rejected King?s amendment by a vote of 155-262. Voting ?yea? were 155 Republicans. All 184 Democrats present and 78 Republicans voted ?nay. As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by an agriculture bill from being used to pay settlements in discrimination lawsuits filed by black farmers.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 443
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have limited federal subsidies provided to farms to $125,000

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) that would have limited federal subsidies provided to farms to $125,000. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Blumenauer urged support for his amendment, arguing that federal subsidies helped large agribusinesses rather than family farms: ?These aren't the small family farmers that I think all of us would like to support. In this day and age, it's embarrassing to be giving away $4 million of taxpayer money in 1 year to a private, for-profit company when I think what we should be doing is concentrating on the support for America's farmers and ranchers. We have the opportunity, with this amendment, to take a step in this direction. I would strongly urge that my colleagues join with me in adopting this amendment establishing a $125,000 overall limit, and be able to start saving two-thirds of $1 billion and send a signal that we're serious about reforming spending.?

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) opposed Blumenauer?s amendment: ?The $125,000 limit is picked out of whole cloth. It is made up. It is arbitrary. It is capricious. It has no clue what it might have as an impact on the farmers and ranchers in the district and parts that I represent. It is a drive-by shooting of farm policy that, frankly, makes no sense whatsoever if you are really going to seriously protect the production of agriculture in this country.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 154-192. Voting ?yea? were 114 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 40 Republicans. 192 Republicans and 70 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have limited federal subsidies provided to farms to $125,000.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 442
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would increase funding by $6 million for a high-speed broadband internet loan program

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) that would increase funding by $6 million for a high-speed broadband internet loan program. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Specifically, the underlying agriculture bill eliminated a program that provided loans for high-speed broadband internet to those living in areas where such internet access was scarce. Gibson?s amendment would provide $6 million for this program.

Gibson urged support for his amendment: ??Over 50 congressional districts across our country have at least 10 percent of their population without access to high-speed broadband. My district is one of these over-50 districts. Now, this is a significant impediment to job creation. We have farmers without access to the high-speed broadband. We have many small businesses in our districts, including bed and breakfasts which impact our tourism without that access. This amendment helps address this situation. Now, the underlying bill zeroes out the loan program for rural broadband. This is down from $22.3 million that we just closed out a few months ago for FY 11 [fiscal year 2011]?I think this is a mistake.?

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) opposed this amendment, arguing the broadband loan program was unpopular and unnecessary: ? This program is not necessary. And in a time when we're talking about saving money, we do not need to increase this account. The process is burdensome. We get lots of complaints from people who have had applications pending for a long time and they can't get their questions answered, or they get approved but they can't get their money. Their eligibility is too broad. And in many areas, it competes with private sector broadband service.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 221-198. Voting ?yea? were 131 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 90 Republicans. 146 Republicans and 52 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would increase funding by $6 million for a high-speed broadband internet loan program. At the time the House passed this amendment, it was unclear whether the Senate would vote to maintain this program. In the meantime, the program continued to operate.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Equal Access to the Internet for Everyone
Y Y Won
Roll Call 441
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have provided $5 million for the development of grocery stores in areas where such stores and fresh food are scarce

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have provided $5 million for the development of grocery stores in areas where such stores and fresh food are scarce. (Such areas are known as ?food deserts.) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Jackson Lee urged support for her amendment: ?This is a simple amendment about food and about helping more Americans get healthy food. There is not one of us that does not understand how dry and difficult a desert is. This amendment is simply about food deserts in rural and urban areas?.Fast-food restaurants and convenience stores line the blocks of low-income neighborhoods, offering few if any healthy options. In rural areas, there may be no access at all. This particularly impacts African American and Hispanic communities and, as I indicated, rural communities.  This climate in the difficult times that we have requires us to be able to allow families to have access to good food. We also have the issues of obesity and as well nutrition. Food deserts impact many districts, and I will say to you that Texas in particular has fewer grocery stores per capita than any other State.?

There was very little debate on this amendment, but Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) argued that the Government Accountability Office (GAO?which conducts studies and investigations on behalf of Congress) had called into question the effectiveness of opening grocery stores in ?food deserts? as a means of improving nutrition. He said: ?GAO reported that a variety of approaches, including improving access to targeted foods, have the potential to increase the consumption of targeted food that could contribute to a healthy diet, but little is known about the effectiveness of these approaches.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 167-252. Voting ?yea?
were 162 Democrats and 5 Republicans. 230 Republicans and 22 Democrats
voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would
have provided $5 million for the development of grocery stores in areas where such stores and fresh food are scarce.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 440
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have increased funding provided by an agriculture bill for the Food and Drug Administration by $49 million.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Thus was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) that would have increased funding provided by an agriculture bill for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by $49 million. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Dingell argued that the FDA needed additional funding to guard against outbreaks of food-borne illness: ?The amendment sees to it that Food and Drug has the resources it needs to do the job to protect the American people from bad food being imported into the United States. We are able to inspect less than 1 percent of the food coming into the United States. This is a positive risk to the American consuming public?.We are here, by this amendment, giving Food and Drug the resources that it needs, some $49 million, to see to it that these imported foods and other foods are safe. This is extremely important. And while you might say, well, I don't know whether it is going to affect me, somebody in this country is going to get sick because bad food came in and because it kills people when that happens.?

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) opposed the amendment: ?You have 311 million Americans eating three meals a day. That's 933 million meals eaten each day. That's nearly 1 billion food consumption events in our country, which is over 360 billion meals consumed. If you do the math in going back to the 48 million food-borne illnesses, according to the USDA [United States Department of Agriculture], our food safety rate is 99.99 percent. I want to address the 48 million, but what I also suggest to you is that we can spend $45 million more for FDA funding; we can spend $100 million more or we can spend $1 billion more, but I don't think you can increase this number of a 99.99 percent food safety rate?So, in these times of very tight budgets, it is very important to keep these facts in mind.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 178-241. Voting ?yea? were 171 Democrats and 7 Republicans. 229 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding provided by an agriculture bill for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by $49 million.


HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 439
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would prohibit funding provided by an agriculture bill from being used to support Brazil?s cotton industry.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) that would prohibit funding provided by an agriculture bill from being used to support Brazil?s cotton industry. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

[The Obama administration agreed to provide Brazil $147 million annually for cotton production after the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that the U.S. was illegally subsidizing American cotton production. In order to avoid $829 million in sanctions that could have resulted from the WTO ruling, the Obama administration reached an agreement with Brazil to pay $147 million annually to Brazilian cotton farmers.]

Kind urged support for his amendment: ?Just to show you how perverted these farm programs have gotten, recently Brazil challenged our own domestic cotton subsidy program and prevailed in the WTO court. Now you would expect our rational response would be to reform our cotton subsidy program, to come into compliance with that WTO decision, to end these subsidies that you really can't justify here to our cotton producers, and we would solve this problem?.But that's not the approach that was taken. In fact, the administration recently set up a new subsidy program that is now going to subsidize Brazil cotton producers?.Let me repeat that. We are spending $147 million a year in order to bribe the Brazilian government so that they don't enforce the sanctions that they're entitled to now because of our unwillingness to reform our own cotton subsidy program. That is wrong, and that is what my amendment would address. It would prohibit the use of funds through this Agriculture appropriation bill going to this new subsidy program to subsidize the Brazil cotton industry.?

Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) opposed Kind?s amendment: ?If this amendment passes, it will--it could incite a trade war. Brazil could immediately impose $800 million in retaliatory tariffs on a variety of U.S. goods.?

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) argued: ?We lost this case in the WTO. So the question today isn't about cotton subsidies or even saving money; it's about the smart way to address this issue that protects American jobs. Now I am very sympathetic to this amendment. Paying Brazil nearly $12 million a month is not the right way to resolve this issue, and I agree with that. In fact, America should simply live up to its WTO obligation and insist that others do the same as well. The settlement that's in place today is necessary to prevent Brazil from imposing almost $1 billion of new tariffs, new taxes on American products when we try to sell them into Brazil. And it's not just agriculture products. As you heard Chairman Frank Lucas talk, he made the point that not only can Brazil penalize our ag products, they can tax and tariff a broad range of products.?

The House agreed to Kind?s amendment by a vote of 223-197. Voting ?yea? were 128 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 95 Republicans. 141 Republicans and 56 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would prohibit funding provided by an agriculture bill from being used to support Brazil?s cotton industry. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate. When the House passed this amendment, the Senate had not yet taken it up. Thus,  Brazil?s agreement with the U.S. on cotton production remained intact, and the U.S. continued to provide funding for the Brazilian cotton industry.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Won
Roll Call 438
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by an agricultural bill from being used for the ?Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food? initiative, which supports small-scale farms that provide food to their local communities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) that would prohibit funds provided by an agricultural bill from being used for the ?Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food? initiative, which supports small-scale farms that provide food to their local communities. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Foxx urged support for her amendment: ?I am very concerned about this program because it is not an authorized program by the Congress. I am very concerned that we have our executive branch off doing all kinds of things that it has no business doing, from fighting wars to running programs that they weren't authorized to run?. So I think that this is a program that we do not need, and I believe that it should be abolished, because when the USDA wants a program, it should be coming to the Congress to get authorization for that program.?

Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) opposed Foxx?s amendment: ?I think this is a direct attack on the White House initiative, which is about nutrition?you have places in this country that are food deserts. You have places where there are no grocery stores. There are 7-Elevens. They don't have fresh fruits and vegetables. People can't go down to a local store and find fresh fruits and vegetables?.What is this? Is this some kind of conspiracy that you are afraid of? People might learn a little bit about where food comes from in America, and there is organic food and that you have choices and you just don't have to eat everything that is packaged and processed and full of salts and sugars and additives and preservatives??

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 212-201. Voting ?yea? were 210 Republicans and 2 Democrats. 180 Democrats and 21 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by an agricultural bill from being used for the ?Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food? initiative, which supports small, local farms that provide food to their local communities. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate. When the House passed this amendment, the Senate had not yet taken it up. Thus, the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative continued to operate.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
N N Lost
Roll Call 437
Jun 16, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have effectively eliminated a requirement that the Agriculture Secretary submit a report to Congress on all travel expenses relating to the ?Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food? initiative, which supports small-scale farms that provide food to their local communities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) that would have effectively eliminated a requirement that the Agriculture Secretary submit to Congress report on all travel expenses relating to the ?Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food? initiative, which supports small-scale farms that provide food to their local communities. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Specifically, the underlying agriculture bill imposed a new requirement on the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative. It required the Agriculture Secretary to submit a report to Congress accounting for all trips taken in connection with the program, and the cost of those trips. In addition, a report released by the House Agriculture Committee  (such reports are known as ?committee reports?) expressed skepticism of the value of Agriculture Department research on local food programs. In response, Rep. Pingree offered this amendment that would have prohibited funding provided by the agriculture bill from being used to enforce new requirements imposed on the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Initiative.
 
Pingree urged support for this amendment: ?`Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food' is not a standalone program and does not have its own budget. Creating additional burdensome reporting requirements would delay program implementation and distract the USDA from addressing the economic challenges of rural communities. Second, the [committee] report language expresses concern with USDA research, education, and extension activities associated with local and regional food systems?By singling out a small piece of the agricultural research agenda and by substituting the committee's judgment for that of researchers and educators, the Agriculture appropriations bill report sets up a roadblock to innovation and diversity in American agriculture and growth in the rural economy. In response to this misguided report language, this amendment will prohibit the USDA from using funds to fulfill the additional and burdensome reporting requirements proposed for Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food?.I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting farmers, in supporting local food production, and consumers who want to know where their food comes from. It's good for our local communities, our local economies, and it's good for our country.?

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) opposed the amendment: ?Here's what it does: the report language, which this amendment tries to strike, it simply tells the Secretary of USDA [the Agriculture Department] to notify the committee of any trips related to the Know Your Farmer initiative and include the agenda and the cost to the American taxpayers. It doesn't prevent them from doing this. It simply says let us know. It also says put this information on the Web page. So if Know Your Farmer is that important, why would USDA have any opposition to this at all??

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 170-238. Voting ?yea? were 165 Democrats and 5 Republicans. 224 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House voted to maintain requirements that the Agriculture Secretary report all travel expenses relating to the ?Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food? initiative, which supports small-scale farms that provide food to their local communities.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 436
Jun 15, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have cut $392 million from the Center for Tobacco Products, which regulates tobacco sales and advertising.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) that would have cut $392 million from the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). The CTP, which is part of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), regulates tobacco sales and advertising. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Stearns urged support for his amendment: ?We are rolling back funding for many other programs, and it's proper to ensure that FDA also bears some of the burden during some of these most austere budgetary times. Now, all of us know that smoking is bad. And the question is, what is the FDA doing through this Center for Tobacco Products?...I simply want to ensure that the FDA does not overreach with their authority, and ensure that it is using the best approach to ensure that tobacco harm is reduced.? I think this [amendment] is a modest attempt to try and save money. It's quite a substantial amount of money for a good cause, which is reducing our deficit, our debt.?

Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) opposed Stearns? amendment: ?California has, time after time, put taxes on the ballot to increase tobacco taxes, and they've passed overwhelmingly. And we use those fees that would come from the industry from the sale of--not even the industry, they come from the user to run very effective anti-tobacco campaigns. We reduced smoking in California almost to zero?.to ambush the anti-tobacco campaign with this amendment is just--it's a giveaway to the tobacco companies and reduces the fees they have to pay and hurts the ability to eliminate the illness caused by tobacco; and anybody who's had cancer in their family, as I've had, is very, very aware of the illnesses caused by tobacco users. I think this is a very dangerous amendment and, hopefully, the gentleman will withdraw it. If not, we ought to oppose it.?

The House rejected Stearns? amendment by a vote of 164-257. Voting ?yea? were 161 Republicans and 3 Democrats. 184 Democrats and 73 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $392 million from the Center for Tobacco Products.

 


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Tobacco Industry
N N Won
Roll Call 435
Jun 15, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have eliminated all federal funding ($180 million) for a program that provides school lunches to poor children in foreign countries

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) that would have eliminated all federal funding ($180 million) for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition program, which provides school lunches to poor children in foreign countries. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

Broun urged support for his amendment: ?I rise to offer my amendment which would zero out the McGovern-Dole program and save taxpayers $180 million in the coming fiscal year. We simply cannot continue to dole out money that we simply don't have, particularly when we're experiencing such a huge economic crisis and economic emergency here at home. It's important to make serious cuts wherever and whenever we can, and this funding is not tied to a specific national security interest. So we can afford to do without it. I think we should do without it, but I'm offering my amendment, and I hope it passes.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) opposed Broun?s amendment: ?McGovern-Dole has one basic goal: provide at least one nutritious meal to some of the world's most vulnerable children in a school setting. It has reduced the incidence of hunger among school-age children. It has increased school enrollment and attendance. It has increased the support of families and communities for education, especially for girls. McGovern-Dole is a proven success. Instead of cutting its funding, let alone eliminating it, we should be scaling it up. The cuts to McGovern-Dole already in the bill would end school meals for more than 400,000 children. Eliminating the funding would literally take the food out of the mouths of over 5 million of the world's most vulnerable children?.it's bad enough to ignore hungry children. It's even worse to give a hungry child a meal, to give their parents hope for a better future, and then take it away. These are not just numbers in a bill. These are real living, breathing human beings, real children who are in school, many for the very first time because the U.S. is working with local communities to advance education and nutrition.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 120-303. Voting ?yea? were 120 Republicans. All 187 Democrats present and 116 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have would have eliminated all federal funding ($180 million) for a program that provides school lunches to poor children in foreign countries.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Famine Relief
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
N N Won
Roll Call 433
Jun 15, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have cut $100 million from the Food for Peace program, which provides food aid to the poor in developing countries. The amendment would have increased funding, however, for a loan program intended to spur economic development in rural areas in the United States by $100 million.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) that would have cut $100 million from the Food for Peace program, which provides food aid to the poor in developing countries. The amendment would have increased funding, however, for a loan program (known as the ?Rural Development Loan Program?) intended to spur economic development in rural areas in the United States by $100 million. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

This vote was on the second of two amendments offered by Gosar that would have cut funding from the Food for Peace program. The first amendment that would have cut $200 million from the program. When that amendment failed by a vote of 139-285, Gosar offered this amendment, which would have cut $100 million from the program.

Gosar urged support for his amendment: ?I rise in support of my amendment that would cut $100 million from the billion-dollar Food for Peace program and redirect it to the rural American communities?This $100 million will provide resources to rural business development loan programs. Small rural businesses and Indian tribes and community organizations can use these loans to jump-start businesses in our devastated rural comments?.We need to address the high unemployment by empowering our rural communities.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) opposed Gosar?s amendment: ?Mr. Gosar's amendment would tell farmers that we will take away from them $1 billion in U.S. purchases of their crops so that we can borrow money in the form of loans for other purposes. That's essentially what he is proposing. Does that make sense to anyone? So we tell U.S. farmers who have been selling wheat, rice, soybeans, vegetable oil, beans, peas, lentils, and other commodities to the U.S. Government that this market is closed to them. So long. Goodbye. Go borrow money. Go into debt. Take out a loan to develop the rural economy?.It [the Food for Peace program] supports U.S. farmers, millers, freight rail, truck, and shipping. Food aid provided by USAID is a lifesaving measure for 11 million to 16 million vulnerable people overseas. Our largest emergency food aid programs include Darfur and southern Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, and Ethiopia. U.S. food aid not only helps people survive; it supports U.S. national security interests. It promotes stability and goodwill, especially in Libya, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Our emergency and humanitarian food aid sends the clear message to desperate people in need that the American people care. The Gosar amendment sends the opposite message--that the American people don't care at all; go ahead and starve.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 124-300. Voting ?yea? were 124 Republicans. All 188 Democrats present and 112 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $100 million from the Food for Peace program?but would have increased funding for a loan program intended to spur economic development in rural areas within the United States by $100 million.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Famine Relief
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
N N Won
Roll Call 431
Jun 15, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have cut $82.5 million from the Breastfeeding Peer Counseling Program, which provides information and guidance to new mothers about breastfeeding and child nutrition.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) that would have cut $82.5 million from the Breastfeeding Peer Counseling Program, which provides information and guidance to new mothers about breastfeeding and child nutrition.

Foxx urged support for her amendment: ?I want to say that I very much believe in breast-feeding. We wouldn't have a human race here today if it weren't for the fact that breast-feeding has been in existence since the beginning of time; however, I am opposed to the federal government funding breast-feeding programs?.We are facing a national debt of over $14 trillion. Spending taxpayer money to promote breast-feeding is simply not the proper role of the federal government and serves to illustrate just one reason--government mission creep--that we are so deeply in debt?.If we want to promote the health and well-being of women, infants and children, then let's get serious about it by creating a job-friendly environment that puts people back to work and allows American families to keep more of what they earn. Let's stop spending money on every well-intentioned program and return the federal government to its constitutionally mandated purposes.?

Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) opposed Foxx?s amendment: ?America has long decided that we ought to be taking care of the most vulnerable people in America. There are women who are pregnant, low-income, and what we've found is if you don't invest in teaching them how to have proper nutrition during their pregnancy, you have a risk of having a low-weight baby. A low-weight baby?can cost up to a quarter of a million dollars in incubation and hospital costs, and this is preventable with good nutrition. We go on to teach women, once that baby is born, how to breast-feed that child. We know that is good health practices?.There is a lot of value in keeping women well-nourished during pregnancy and certainly keeping that newborn child well fed and nourished. To strike money from this program is ill founded, and I strongly oppose the amendment.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 119-306. Voting ?yea? were 119 Republicans. All 188 Democrats present and 118 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $82.5 million from the Breastfeeding Peer Counseling Program, which provides information and guidance to new mothers about breastfeeding and child nutrition.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
N N Won
Roll Call 429
Jun 15, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have cut $200 million from the Food for Peace program, which provides food aid to the poor in developing countries. The amendment would have increased funding, however, for a loan program intended to spur economic development in rural areas within the United States by $100 million.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) that would have cut $200 million from the Food for Peace program, which provides food aid to the poor in developing countries. The amendment would have increased funding, however, for a loan program intended to spur economic development in rural areas within the United States by $100 million.

Gosar urged support for his amendment: ?Parts of rural America rival parts of some Third World countries where we send tens of millions of dollars. We need to focus on our own people and our own communities before we spend taxpayer money in foreign lands. One example here in the United States is the area known as the former Bennett Freeze area, an area consisting of 1.5 million acres of Navajo Nation reservation land, where the housing units have been described as `little more than hovels' and `80 percent of the homes have no electricity' and there are few paved road or communication structures. How do we justify spending $1 billion in foreign countries when we have so many unmet needs in the United States?...It is easy to understand the emotional appeal programs like Food for Peace may have, a program that would be reduced by this amendment. But ultimately, we are using taxpayer money for charity. Improving literacy, reducing hunger, and educating girls in foreign countries are issues that are, in fact, charitable and emotionally appealing, but we have our own literacy, hunger, and gender issues in our country. But at a time when we have a $14.3 trillion public debt, massive unemployment, and rural rates of poverty, illiteracy, and school underperformance, we should focus our money here at home.?

Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) opposed Gosar?s amendment: ?I think the amendment is well intended. I think the author is well intended. Rural America is hurting. Rural America is really under a depression. We have not done a very good job of having a rural strategy for America?.And I think this amendment addresses some of those issues? But unfortunately, that good intent is offset by the evil done in taking it out of the foreign ag account [Food for Peace program]. And I can't support the amendment for that.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 139-285. Voting ?yea? were 126 Republicans and 13 Democrats. 175 Democrats and 110 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $200 million from the Food for Peace program?but would have increased funding for a loan program intended to spur economic development in rural areas within the United States by $100 million.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Famine Relief
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
N N Won
Roll Call 428
Jun 15, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $10 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which provides food to low-income children, pregnant mothers, and seniors.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA) that would have increased funding by $10 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which provides food to low-income children, pregnant mothers, and seniors. The amendment would have cut, however, $10 million from an account used to pay the salaries of employees who work for the Farm Service Agency. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding Agriculture Department programs.

Richardson urged support for her amendment: ??Ninety-seven percent of all Commodities Supplemental Food Program recipients are seniors who often receive these as the only fresh food packages that might come to their homes. Many of these seniors have no means of transportation to obtain these products. These seniors also have very limited resources with which to purchase the food that they need?.I don't understand why those in the majority would believe that our seniors have caused our budget problems or, worse yet, are able to fix our budget problems?.Our seniors deserve our support. They've earned it. Many of our seniors have served our country overseas during World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Their bravery and their sacrifices have made America the great country that it is. Our seniors have worked hard all of their lives to provide for their families. It is now our responsibility to help assist them.?

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) opposed Richardson?s amendment: ?I want to point out that [funding for the] FSA, the Farm Service Agency, is already $181 million below the President's request and $32 million below [the amount allocated in] 2011. It has been trimmed a great deal?.I want to point out, and I am sure the gentlewoman knows this, but a senior who is 65 years or older is actually eligible for six different federal food programs, and it would certainly not be our intention to have anybody fall through the cracks. I think there is a lot to be said and some savings in combining the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the SNAP program [more commonly known as ?food stamps?], and maybe cut out some of the administrative costs in order to increase the amount available.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 200-224. Voting ?yea? were 169 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 31 Republicans. 205 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding by $10 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program?but would have cut $10 million from an account used to pay the salaries of employees who work for the Farm Service Agency.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 426
Jun 15, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have increased funding by $1 million for the Microbiological Data Program, which tests fruits and vegetables for bacteria that can cause food-borne illnesses

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-MI) that would have increased funding by $1 million for the Microbiological Data Program, which tests fruits and vegetables for bacteria that can cause food-borne illnesses. The amendment would have cut, however, $1 million from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service?s ?buildings and facilities? account. (The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is responsible for protecting U.S. agriculture from pests and diseases.) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding Agriculture Department programs.

Clarke urged support for his amendment: ?Now, this [the Microbiological Data Program] is a USDA program that collects and tests fruits and vegetables, domestic and imported fruits and vegetables for bacteria that could cause illness and even death. Recent tests have discovered salmonella and strains of E. coli similar to that found in the German food supply that resulted in the deaths of 24 people and which infected over 2,400. So this amendment is important in order to protect the public from food-borne pathogens that could make the public sick or that could put innocent lives at risk.?

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) opposed the amendment because the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service?s buildings and facilities account only had $3 million to begin with: ??The concern that I have?[is] we're taking $1 million out of a $3 million account and putting it into a $77 million account [the Microbiological Data Program], and it just seems disproportional??

Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) echoed Kingston?s concerns, saying: ?I rise to oppose the amendment not because it is unworthy, but because I believe that there are funds elsewhere in the bill that could be used to cover the services and research that the gentleman requests.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 142-282. Voting ?yea? were 122 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 20 Republicans. 216 Republicans and 66 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding by $1 million for the Microbiological Data Program, which tests fruits and vegetables for bacteria that can cause food-borne illnesses?but would have cut $1 million from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service?s ?buildings and facilities? account.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 421
Jun 15, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would allow funding provided by an agriculture bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions without first submitting a report to Congress justifying such a change.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) that would allow funding provided by an agriculture bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions without first submitting a report to Congress justifying such a change. Such conversion of government jobs to private, federally contracted positions is often referred to as ?insourcing.? This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding Agriculture Department programs.

Specifically, the underlying agriculture bill prohibited the Agriculture Department from converting jobs held by federal government employees to private, contracted positions without first providing a report (such reports are known as ?A-76 reviews?) to Congress justifying such a conversion. Sessions? amendment would have eliminated this prohibition.

Sessions urged support for his amendment: ?Without the ability to add competitive insourcing, ballooning deficits and out-of-control spending will continue in our government. It is time that Congress explores and gives all solutions to save taxpayers and the managers of the business in the government their hard-earned money. The Heritage Foundation has reported that subjecting federal employee positions which are commercial in nature to a public-private cost comparison will generate on average a 30 percent cost savings regardless of who wins that competition. Rather than preventing market competition that would improve service and lower costs, we should be encouraging agencies to find the best way to deliver services to citizens of this great nation. The role of government should be to govern, not to operate businesses inside the government. Our nation's unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent. We must allow the private sector the ability to create jobs without an unfair disadvantage. We must get more results for our money.

Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) opposed Sessions?s amendment: ? I rise in opposition to this?[amendment] primarily because if it ain't broken, don't fix it. This [A-76 review process] has been a law for a long time?.The [A-76] report is on the Department's contracting-out policies and its budget for contracting out, that information, which Congress has been getting year after year without any problems. The language has been in the bill for many years, and we have always received the report allowing the contracting-out activities to proceed. It hasn't stopped anything?.We have a military base in my community, the Defense Language Institute, and the city of Monterey surrounds it. We ended up with an A-76 review, ended up where the city could provide the base operation services much cheaper than the federal employees on the base, saving the Army about $4 million a year and having much better services delivered. So, again, delivering this report to Congress seems to me hasn't been a problem for anyone. And it ain't broke, so I don't think we ought to support fixing it with Mr. Sessions' amendment.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 226-199. Voting ?yea? were 225 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 187 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would allow funding provided by an agriculture bill to be used to convert jobs held by federal government employees to private, federally contracted positions without first submitting a report to Congress justifying such a change. In order for this amendment to become law however, it would have to pass the U.S. Senate. Thus, the Agriculture Department was still required to provide Congress with a report justifying a decision to convert federal government jobs into private, contracted positions unless and until this amendment passed the Senate.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Lost
Roll Call 420
Jun 15, 2011
(H.R. 2112) On an amendment that would have provided $1 million to the Food and Drug Administration to combat outbreaks of food-borne illness linked to E. coli.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) that would have provided $1 million to the Food and Drug Administration to combat outbreaks of food-borne illness linked to E. coli. (E. coli is a bacterium found in the fecal matter of farm animals. Certain strains of E. coli have been linked to serious and even deadly cases of food poisoning.) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.

DeLauro urged support for her amendment: ?We know that food-borne illnesses are always a major public health threat. They account for roughly 48 million illnesses, 100,000 hospitalizations, and over 3,000 deaths in our country each year. Put another way, one in every six Americans becomes sick from the very foods they eat each year.  Specific to E. coli, well over 200,000 sicknesses every year are because of this one type of food-borne bacterial sickness, and the threat of a more serious outbreak is also very real. Right now in Europe we are witnessing just such a lethal outbreak. In Germany, thousands have been affected, hundreds have become sick, and 37 have died from an E. coli outbreak. Just this morning, a 2-year-old German boy perished from kidney failure as a result of E. coli poisoning, which authorities think began with raw bean sprouts in northern Germany. This sort of fatal outbreak could all too easily happen here. In many ways, we have been extraordinarily lucky that it has not happened more often. In recent years, all types of food have become contaminated and forced into recall from Froot Loops to SpaghettiOs and salami to eggs. We have to be continually vigilant on the food safety front to keep families safe.?

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) opposed DeLauro?s amendment: ?We hear quite often that 48 million people have suffered from food-borne illnesses--a very high number?But if you look at 311 million Americans eating three meals a day, that would be 933 million meals eaten daily or 340 billion eaten each year. If you do the math on this, the food safety rate is 99.9 percent safe. Why is that relevant? Because something's working without the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and without the USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] and without the nanny state saying we're in charge of everything?.food processing companies are very concerned about food safety and their customers' safety, because the way you keep your customers coming back to buy more is to keep them happy, and that means to keep them safe. And it would be hard for me to believe that some of the leading companies in America, such as McDonald's or Burger King or Coca-Cola, have anything on their minds except for food safety.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 193-226. Voting ?yea? were 181 Democrats and 12 Republicans. 224 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have provided $1 million to the Food and Drug Administration to combat outbreaks of food-borne illness linked to E. coli.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 419
Jun 14, 2011
(H.R. 2112) Legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs. In addition to overseeing farm programs, the Agriculture Department funds most food aid and nutritional assistance programs. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (more commonly known as ?food stamps? or SNAP), for example, is funded through the Agriculture Department.

Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) urged support for the resolution and the underlying agriculture bill: ?I find it very interesting in listening to the discussion here today about whose responsibility it is to feed those who are hungry. I don't think anybody on this floor would say that we don't want to help someone who is in need of food or basic essential services. I think what this is is a discussion about the difference in philosophy in Washington about the role of government in Washington?.I can tell you as an American farmer in Indiana that myself and many other American farmers and individuals are much better suited to help those who are in most need, in helping in the community, donating food, being a part of a food pantry. We are a generous nation, and what has become of our ability to help is that we have a federal government that continues to saddle us with more and more debt, more and more taxes and regulation, making it much more difficult to make the profits with which we can then turn around and help our communities with food, with the basic services that our churches, our charities and many other organizations in our local communities provide.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) opposed the resolution and the underlying agriculture bill: ?As written, this is a pro-hunger bill. There is no other way to say it. No matter what anyone says, this bill will increase hunger here at home and around the world. A vote for this bill is a vote to willfully allow people in America and around the world to go without food. A vote for this bill is to take food from children and seniors, to allow food banks to open with half full and empty shelves?.The only thing crueler than ignoring a hungry person is giving a hungry person food and then taking it away. No one would condone that?Yet that's what this bill does. We're not just talking about that tired, old stereotype of the welfare queen gaming the system?.The bill we're talking about are people who play by the rules but who are struggling to make ends meet because of the difficult economy. We are seeing middle-income families who are now turning to food banks and food pantries. In times of need, we are supposed to help our brothers and sisters in need. That's what a community is about. That's what our country is supposed to be about. Yet this bill does not do that. Instead, it cruelly targets those who are hurting at no fault of their own.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 235-180. All 231 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted ?yea.? 180 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing annual funding for Agriculture Department programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Famine Relief
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
N N Lost
Roll Call 417
Jun 14, 2011
(H.R. 2055) On a motion that would have provided $20 million for a veterans? suicide prevention program

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have provided $20 million for a veterans? suicide prevention program. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation providing annual funding for military construction projects and veterans? programs.

Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?There's been much debate in the House today about hard choices. Our veterans made hard choices, made difficult decisions, and many of them suffer because of that?.We are asking that approximately $20 million be appropriated?to assist in the prevention of suicide among veterans. I know as a young man--actually, as a young boy--I had uncles from World War I, friends of my father's from World War II who suffered from PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder]. It wasn't known by that term then, but clearly they did. When you go to Walter Reed, when you go to Fort Drum and you look into the eyes of the young men and women returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, you can see the pain. This is what we are called to deal with today.?

Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) opposed the motion to recommit: ??We have provided funding?to help our men and women in uniform do the job that they do every day defending this nation, to help our veterans as they move out of active duty into retired status, to help the Veterans Administration treat not only the veterans who have suffered or been injured in combat in defense of this nation, but also those veterans who have suffered in some way psychological trauma that would put them at risk of suicide, a growing problem, and one that the committee is deeply concerned about...The?[underlying veterans? bill]?has provided essentially $70 million at the president's request, at the request of the Veterans Administration. We have fully funded in every way the request of the professionals in this area, what they believe is necessary to meet the need that they have determined is out there among the veterans of this nation.?
 
The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 184-234. All 182 Democrats present and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 234 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have provided $20 million for a veterans? suicide prevention program.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 414
Jun 13, 2011
(H.R. 2055) On an amendment that would have exempted any construction project funded by a military construction and veterans? bill from Davis-Bacon Act requirements. (The Davis-Bacon Act requires that all public works projects pay the prevailing wage to workers.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) that would have exempted any construction project funded by a military construction and veterans bill from Davis-Bacon Act requirements. (The Davis-Bacon Act requires that all public works projects pay the prevailing wage to workers.) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for military construction projects and veterans programs.

Amash urge support for his amendment: ??My amendment blocks application of Davis-Bacon to the Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs appropriations bill. There are two main reasons why the House should block Davis-Bacon. First, Davis-Bacon wastes taxpayer dollars on overpriced contracts. A recent study showed that, on average, nationwide, the government-set rate is 22 percent higher than the true market rate. For example, if sheet metal workers in Long Island, New York, are paid $28.79 per hour, while the government-set rate for that area is $45.40, factoring in the cost of materials and other supplies, studies suggest that the federal government overpays for construction contracts by between 10 percent and 15 percent.  Second, Davis-Bacon gives an unfair advantage to union employees. Small businesses, many of which are nonunion, lower their prices to compete against larger union firms. The trade-off for nonunion employees is a lower-wage rate but more work. We should not disadvantage nonunion employees who are willing to perform more construction for less money. By eliminating government-mandated wages, we can better allocate resources, increase efficiency, and put hardworking Americans back on the job.?

Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) opposed the Amash amendment: ?Under the prevailing wage laws, contractors are forced to compete on the basis of who can best train, best equip, and best manage a construction crew, not on the basis of who can assemble the cheapest, most exploitable workforce, either locally or through importing labor from outside. The Davis-Bacon Act does not require a union wage; it requires prevailing wage based upon surveys of wages and benefits that are actually paid to various job classifications of construction workers, such as iron workers in a community, without regard to whether they belong to a union or not. According to the Department of Labor, a whopping 72 percent of prevailing wage rates issued in 2000 were based upon nonunion wage rates. A union wage prevails only if the Department of Labor survey determines that the local union wage is paid to more than 50 percent of the workers in that job classification.  Now higher wages and skills result in greater productivity and lower cost. It's so much greater among high-wage, high-skill workers that projects that use high-skilled workers and high-paid workers often cost less than those that use the low-wage, low-skilled workers due to repairs, revisions, and lengthy delays.?

The House rejected Amash?s amendment by a vote of 178-232. Voting ?yea? were 177 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 178 Democrats and 54 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have exempted any construction project funded by a military construction and veterans bill from Davis-Bacon Act requirements.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Building and Construction
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 413
Jun 13, 2011
(H.R. 2055) On an amendment that would allow federal agencies to enter into ?project labor agreements? (PLAs) for federal construction projects costing more than $25 million. (PLAs refer to collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors that establish the terms of employment for construction projects.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) that would allow federal agencies to enter into ?project labor agreements? (PLAs) for federal construction projects costing more than $25 million. (PLAs refer to collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors that establish the terms of employment for construction projects.) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for military construction projects and veterans programs.

Specifically, President Obama had signed an executive order encouraging but not requiring federal agencies to enter into project labor agreements for all federal construction projects costing more than $25 million. The underlying military construction and veterans bill, however, included language that prohibited the use of federal funds for PLAs. LaTourette?s amendment would reverse that prohibition, and allow federal agencies to enter into project labor agreements.

LaTourette urged support for his amendment: ??Project labor agreements are those agreements wherein someone who is doing a construction project determines that they want to have an all-encompassing universal agreement that covers the construction from start to finish. If union labor is involved, it denies unions the ability to strike. It denies the contractor the ability to lock out. Wages are set. Terms are set. Conditions are set. And, quite frankly, the project labor agreements have been resounding successes?.We hear a lot about these are tough times and we have to tighten our belts. I agree with that. I voted for that consistently. But that [prohibition on PLAs] is just union bashing. This [prohibition on PLAs] is just saying we don't want to know whether a project labor agreement can develop a project that is cheaper, of better quality, and under time.?

Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) opposed the amendment: ?A project labor agreement, under the [Obama administration?s] executive order's own definition, means a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations. So the Obama administration through this Executive order is attempting to unionize any private company in America that wants to do business with the federal government. That's just an outrage?.This is just a blatant attempt by the Obama administration to impose union collective bargaining on any private company in America that wants to do business with the federal government. If indeed the idea were to reduce the costs, that's fine. We are in an era of austerity unlike anything this nation has ever experienced. We confront record debt, record deficit, record public debt held by foreign nations. This is unlike anything we have ever seen before.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 204-203. Voting ?yea? were 177 Democrats and 27 Republicans. 202 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would allow federal agencies to enter into project labor agreements for federal construction projects costing more than $25 million. House Republicans, however, could attempt to pass a prohibition on PLAs in other, subsequent bills. At the time the House passed this amendment, President Obama?s executive order remained intact, and federal agencies were still permitted to enter into project labor agreements.

 


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Building and Construction
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 412
Jun 03, 2011
(H. Con. Res. 51) On passage of a resolution that called on President Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Libya within 15 days of the resolution?s enactment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of a resolution sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) that  called on President Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Libya within 15 days of the resolution?s enactment.

Kucinich?s resolution was one of two measures relating to U.S. military involvement in Libya. Both resolutions were non-binding?meaning they did not have the force of law. Kucinich?s resolution, however, explicitly stated that Obama had violated the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to obtain congressional authorization for a commitment of U.S troops to an armed conflict lasting more than 60 days. Thus, Kucinich?s resolution sought to assert Congress? authority under the War Powers Resolution and direct President Obama to end U.S. involvement in Libya.

On March 19, 2011, the U.S. joined an international coalition (that included France, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Canada) to intervene in Libya?s civil war. This coalition aided rebels who had staged an uprising against the country?s dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, who had ruled Libya since 1969 and whose regime was notorious for human rights violations. On April 4, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO?an international coalition of 28 member countries) assumed operational control of the military mission in Libya.

Unlike Kucinich?s legislation, a separate resolution sponsored by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), did not call for the withdrawal of U.S troops from Libya. Rather, Boehner?s measure criticized the president for his failure to obtain congressional authorization for military action and called on Obama to submit a report justifying and clarifying the U.S. military?s mission in Libya.

Kucinich urged support for his resolution: ?There are those who may hesitate to support my resolution because of the supposed negative impact it will have on the NATO mission and on our image in the eyes of our NATO allies. In the weeks leading up to the [Libyan] war, the administration had time to consult with the Arab League, the United Nations, and the African Union, but apparently had no time to come to this Congress for approval. If our image in the eyes of NATO is a reason to stay in Libya, the administration should not have committed the U.S. to a war of choice without consulting with Congress for an action that was so far outside that which is allowed by the War Powers Resolution. Far more damaging is a Congress that ends up being more concerned with our image in the eyes of NATO than our fulfillment of our constitutional responsibilities and the continued usurpation of the war power by the executive. Our loyalty to NATO and to our President, regardless of party affiliation, does not trump our loyalty to the United States Constitution.?

Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), also supported Kucinich?s resolution: ??The reason I support the Kucinich resolution is it sends a clear message to the White House they cannot do this again. They cannot unilaterally go into Syria or the Ivory Coast or anyplace else without talking to the Congress that represents the people all across this country. The President should not have done this.?

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) opposed Kucinich?s resolution: ?While I share the frustration of my colleagues, I am deeply concerned that an abrupt withdrawal of support for the NATO mission would have repercussions that extend far beyond the borders of Libya. Adoption of this resolution would send a signal to Qadhafi that if he can just hang on for 15 days more, the alliance will crumble and he can resume his destructive behavior and his destabilizing activities. In Egypt, the stability necessary to prevent extremist elements from seizing control could be compromised if the conflict in Libya remains unresolved. Furthermore? providing Qadhafi free rein by forcing the U.S. to rapidly withdraw from the NATO operation would pose an even more virulent threat to such other allies in the region as Israel. An emboldened Qadhafi regime would be in a position to provide both destabilizing types and amounts of conventional weapons, as well as unconventional capabilities through new and existing smuggling routes to violent extremists in Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza, extremists who seek the destruction of Israel.?

Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) also opposed Kucinich?s measure: ?I continue to believe the mission in Libya is relevant and necessary?and I believe it's achieving success. Qadhafi's forces have been driven out of eastern Libya and out of Misrata in the west. High-level defections are on the increase. Demonstrations are once again breaking out in Tripoli, suggesting a weakening of government control. Progress is slower than we would like, but it is steady. Efforts to force a withdrawal of forces would reverse this process and jeopardize the lives of hundreds of thousands of Libyans now benefiting from the NATO operation?.Think about what a removal in 15 days, as required by this resolution, would mean. We would be giving Qadhafi a free hand to maintain control in Libya and continue his campaign against civilians. We would be thumbing our nose at our NATO partners whose support on the ground has been and continues to be so crucial in Afghanistan.?

The House rejected Kucinich?s resolution by a vote of 148-265. Voting ?yea? were 61 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 87 Republicans. 144 Republicans and 121 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a resolution that called on President Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Libya within 15 days of the resolution?s enactment.


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
WAR & PEACE USA Intervention in Libya
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 411
Jun 03, 2011
(H. Res. 292) On passage of a resolution reprimanding President Obama for not seeking authorization from Congress for military action in Libya, and calling on the president to submit a report to Congress clarifying and justifying the U.S. mission in that country. This resolution also expressed opposition to the use of U.S ground troops in Libya, or more specifically, ?the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya.?

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of a resolution sponsored by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) reprimanding President Obama for not seeking authorization from Congress for military action in Libya, and calling on the president to submit a report to Congress clarifying and justifying the U.S. mission in that country. This resolution also expressed opposition to the use of U.S ground troops in Libya, or more specifically, ?the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya.?

On March 19, 2011, the U.S. joined an international coalition (that included France, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Canada) to intervene in Libya?s civil war. This coalition aided rebels who had staged an uprising against the country?s dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, who had ruled Libya since 1969 and whose regime was notorious for human rights violations. On April 4, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO?an international coalition of 28 member countries) assumed operational control of the military mission in Libya.

This resolution, which was non-binding--meaning it did not have the force of law--was one of two measures relating to U.S. military action in Libya. Unlike a separate resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Boehner?s measure did not invoke the War Powers Resolution--which requires the president to obtain congressional authorization for a commitment of U.S troops to an armed conflict lasting more than 60 days?or call on President Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Libya. Rather, it criticized the president for his failure to obtain congressional authorization for military action and called on Obama to submit a report justifying and clarifying the U.S. military?s mission in Libya.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) urged support for Boehner?s resolution, and expressed opposition to requiring the president to withdraw U.S. forces from Libya: ?Members on both sides of the aisle are increasingly frustrated. I share that frustration. Many question the importance of Libya to U.S. interests, and especially the need for military engagement. Many more are outright angry about the disregard with which the President and his administration have treated Congress on the Libya military engagement. But it is not surprising that there is a desire to simply say `enough' and to force the President to withdraw precipitously, regardless of the consequences. But I believe that we would only make a difficult situation worse by taking such drastic action. The negative impact would be widespread?The news that the U.S. House of Representatives had mandated a withdrawal of U.S. forces would send a ray of sunshine into the hole in which Qadhafi is currently hiding. It would ensure his hold on power. It would be seen not only in Libya, but throughout the Middle East and North Africa as open season to threaten U.S. interests and destabilize our allies.?

Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) opposed Boehner?s resolution: ?If the members of the House choose to pass the Speaker's one-Chamber resolution, it should add one finding: that we declare ourselves to be one big constitutionally created potted plant.  This resolution casts all kinds of aspersions on the president. It states the President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale for operations in Libya. It implies that there has been a withholding of documents and information from this body. Could the President provide more information to the Congress? Of course. But we need to look not just at the president's failure to seek an authorization, but the refusal of this body to exercise its authority in this area. The onus rests with us to recognize the sacred duty of authorizing the use of force. A resolution like this, with no operative language, with no invocation of the War Powers Resolution?simply perpetuates a dynamic of congressional acquiescence and acquiescence that, for the most part, has gone on truly since the Korean War.?

The House passed Boehner?s resolution by a vote of 268-145. Voting ?yea? were 223 Republicans and 45 Democrats. 135 Democrats--including a majority of progressives?and 10 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result the House agreed to a resolution reprimanding President Obama for not seeking authorization from Congress for military action in Libya, and calling on the president to submit a report to Congress clarifying and justifying the U.S. mission in that country. Since Boehner?s resolution was non-binding, however, it had no legal effect on U.S. policy in Libya, and had no legal authority to require President Obama to comply with the measure.


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
WAR & PEACE USA Intervention in Libya
N N Lost
Roll Call 410
Jun 03, 2011
(H. Con. Res. 51, H. Res. 292) Two separate resolutions relating to U.S. military operations in Libya: the first would have required President Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Libya within 15 days; the second resolution reprimanded President Obama for not seeking authorization from Congress for military action in Libya, and called on the president to submit a report to Congress clarifying and justifying the U.S. mission in that country ? On setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to both resolutions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a measure setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to two separate resolutions relating to U.S. military operations in Libya. The first resolution, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), would have required President Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Libya within 15 days.

The second resolution, sponsored by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), reprimanded President Obama for not seeking authorization from Congress for military action in Libya, and called on the president to submit a report to Congress clarifying and justifying the U.S. mission in that country. In addition, the Speaker?s resolution expressed opposition to the use of U.S ground troops in Libya, or more specifically, ?the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya.?

On March 19, 2011, the U.S. joined an international coalition (that included France, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Canada) to intervene in Libya?s civil war. This coalition aided rebels who had staged an uprising against the country?s dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, who had ruled Libya since 1969 and whose regime was notorious for human rights violations. On April 4, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO?an international coalition of 28 member countries) assumed operational control of the military mission in Libya.

Both resolutions were non-binding?meaning they did not have the force of law. Kucinich?s resolution, however, explicitly stated that Obama had violated the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to obtain congressional authorization for a commitment of U.S troops to an armed conflict lasting more than 60 days. Thus, Kucinich?s resolution sought to assert Congress? authority under the War Powers Resolution and require President Obama to end U.S. involvement in Libya. In addition, his resolution was a ?concurrent resolution??meaning that it could be passed by both houses of Congress. Boehner?s resolution, however, was a ?House resolution??meaning it would never be considered by the Senate. Boehner?s measure did not require a withdrawal of U.S troops from Libya. Rather, it criticized the president for his failure to obtain congressional authorization for military action and called on Obama to submit a report justifying and clarifying the U.S. military?s mission in Libya.

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) supported Boehner?s resolution, but opposed Kucinich?s measure: ?I am going to support Speaker Boehner's resolution, and I am going to probably oppose Representative Kucinich's resolution for this reason the Speaker convinced me of, and I listened very carefully to him: With regard to within 2 weeks pulling everything that we have in Libya out and coming home, it would set a dangerous precedent in regard to our NATO allies?.I feel it would be a mistake to immediately, within 14 days, pull the rug out from under that operation. I am not completely satisfied with the Boehner resolution, but I think it does lay down a marker. It makes a statement.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) argued: ?What the Boehner resolution simply does is it just expresses the view of Congress. Even though it has pretty strong words in it, it doesn't require the President to do anything. He doesn't have to do anything if this thing passes?.What Mr. Kucinich does is he responds to the obligations that Congress has under the War Powers Resolution.?

The House agreed to the measure setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to both Libya resolutions by a vote of 257-156. All 232 Republicans present and 25 Democrats voted ?yea.? 156 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on two separate resolutions relating to U.S. military action in Libya.


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
WAR & PEACE USA Intervention in Libya
N N Lost
Roll Call 409
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) Final passage of legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.

In total, the bill would provide approximately $42 billion for Homeland Security programs in fiscal year 2012, including $11.8 billion for U.S. Customs and border security, $5.8 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, $10 billion for the Coast Guard, and $7.8 billion for the Transportation Security Administration (which is responsible for airport security, cargo inspection, etc.).

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) urged support for the Homeland Security bill: ?This bill before us today, perhaps more than any other bill, exemplifies the difficult choices that need to be made in order to address our nation's fiscal crisis. This bill demonstrates how we can fully fund vital security programs while also reducing spending overall. Furthermore, this bill does not represent a false choice between fiscal responsibility and security. Both are national security priorities, and both are vigorously addressed in this bill. I am under no illusion that everyone here in this chamber will agree with the spending reductions included in this legislation; but now, more than ever, our government needs fiscal discipline, and this bill takes the necessary steps toward that goal. The bottom line: more money and more government do not equal more security. So in this time of skyrocketing debt and persistent threats, we must get our homeland security priorities right.?

Rep. David Price (D-NC) opposed the bill: ?For the second year in a row, overall funding for the Department of Homeland Security will drop. The bill decreases funding for Homeland Security by 6.8 percent below the president's request [the amount of Homeland Security funding requested by President Obama] and essentially returns funding to the 2009 level, which is concerning to many people, including myself?.Providing a total of $1 billion for all state and local grants, or 65 percent below the president's request, and providing $350 million for firefighter assistance grants--that's almost 50 percent below an already reduced request--breaks faith with the states and localities that depend on us as partners to secure our communities. These cuts will be especially harmful as many of our states and municipalities are being forced to slash their own budgets. For example, according to the International Association of Fire Fighters, 1,600 fewer local firefighters will be on the job if the cuts in this bill are enacted. I can't conceive of any defensible argument for cuts of this magnitude, cuts that come on top of cuts to grants already made in the fiscal 2011 appropriations. They will do great damage to local preparedness, to emergency response in our communities, and to the recovering economy.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 231-188. Voting ?yea? were 214 Republicans and 17 Democrats. 168 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 20 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. The Senate, however, was expected to bring up its own Homeland Security funding bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Absent N Lost
Roll Call 408
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On a motion that would have increased funding for rail and bus transportation security measures by $75 million?but cut funding for a planned research facility that was intended for the study of diseases which pose a threat to U.S. animal agriculture and public health.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have increased funding for rail and bus transportation security measures by $75 million?but cut funding for a planned research facility (known as the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, or NBAF) that was intended for the study of diseases which pose a threat to U.S. animal agriculture and public health. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs.

Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?While airline security upgrades over the past 10 years can help prevent another 9/11, we still face an evolving threat to multiple modes of transportation. In fact, trips by rail exceed air travel by 18 times. Yet air travel receives over 200 times more federal security funding per passenger than rail?.While DHS insists that a new billion-dollar animal disease research lab [NBAF] in the heart both of cattle country and tornado alley [in Manhattan, Kansas] is completely safe, both the GAO [Government Accountability Office] and the National Academy of Sciences have found many faults in safety?We have much higher homeland security priorities than beginning a new billion-dollar facility that will replicate many of the existing functions already conducted at our federal labs.?

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) opposed the motion to recommit: ??This [underlying Homeland Security] bill is about priorities, fiscal discipline priorities as our nation grapples with a genuine budget crisis, and security priorities in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden's death and as we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. This bill includes robust spending reductions on bureaucracy and on programs that are not producing, cutting waste, reducing spending, and instilling genuine budget discipline?.the gentleman's [Bishop?s] motion is simply a political ploy at the end of an open process on a bill that delivers the nation's spending restraints and robust security that our nation needs?.It's time to deliver fiscal discipline, and it's time to deliver robust security. The American people are demanding no less.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 187-234. Voting ?yea? were 186 Democrats and 1 Republican. 233 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding for rail and bus transportation security measures by $75 million?but cut funding for a planned research facility that was intended for the study of diseases which pose a threat to U.S. animal agriculture and public health.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 407
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have eliminated federal funding for a program in which the federal government deputizes local law enforcement officers to identify and detain undocumented immigrants.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have eliminated federal funding for a program (known as ?287(g)? in which the federal government deputizes local law enforcement officers to identify and detain undocumented immigrants. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.

Polis urged support for his amendment: ?This program effectively adds responsibilities, which should be federal responsibilities, to local law enforcement so that they effectively engage in federal immigration enforcement. So instead of keeping serious criminals from threatening our communities, the 287(g) program forces police to waste their time trying to figure out the immigration status of noncriminals, as well as opening them up to charges of racial profiling which can be expensive to defend?.These programs force local law enforcement officers to follow and enforce federal laws even though they are not trained to do so.?

Polis pointed to Maricopa County, where local sheriff Joe Arapio used the 287(g) program to engage in racial profiling. (Arapio was under investigation by the Justice Department for abuse of power and civil rights violations.) Polis argued: ?I would like to show the detrimental effect of the 287(g) program. You can see across Arizona, statewide, incidents of violent crime went down 12 percent in the last 10 years. But they have one particular sheriff who does a particularly bad job of protecting his community. His name is Sheriff Arpaio. He is one of the notorious abusers of the 287(g) program. In his community, Maricopa County, crime went up 58 percent. So you have a 12 percent decrease, and then you have this incompetent sheriff who has a 58 percent increase. Now he might be incompetent in other areas as well, but one of the main reasons crime has gone up in Maricopa County is because he has diverted law enforcement resources to try to enforce federal laws that we in this body are irresponsibly ignoring day in and day out and that this [underlying Homeland Security] bill does nothing to fix.?

Rep. John Carter (R-TX) opposed the amendment: ?I happen to be from the state that has more of the Mexican border than any other State in the union. We are very familiar with that border. We have been living with it for our entire lives, and for the life of our State, from before the time when it was a state when it was a republic?.This is a good program. It is a program that has effectively trained law enforcement to understand the rules that federal agents have to play by, and still gives them the authority to assist people who need their assistance. I would argue that the safest part of the Texas border? where local law enforcement has joined with federal law enforcement to enforce the laws of this land. I think anything short of that is leaving resources on the table that will protect the United States of America?.So I very much oppose this gentleman's amendment, and I very much hope that our colleagues will realize that we need every resource available, and in my opinion even troops, to protect the American border and make sure Americans citizens and their property and their lives are safe.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 107-313. Voting ?yea? were 107 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. 232 Republicans and 81 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated federal funding for a program in which the federal government deputizes local law enforcement officers to identify and detain undocumented immigrants.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 406
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would cut funding for Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners by $270 million (TSA screeners are the security personnel at airports who screen passengers as they pass through security before boarding a plane).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Mica (R-FL) that would cut funding for Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners by $270 million (TSA screeners are the security personnel at airports who screen passengers as they pass through security before boarding a plane). This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.

Mica, who had repeatedly criticized federal TSA screeners as inefficient, argued that airports needed more private, federally contracted screeners--rather than screeners who work directly for the federal government. He contended that the intent of his amendment was to give the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretion to use the $270 million cut from federal screeners to hire private, contracted employees. Mica?s amendment, however, made no mention of private contractors.

Mica argued: ?It's not that I'm just a Johnny-come-lately on the floor to do some mischief with TSA. It's that I helped to actually create the agency. I want it to be effective. I want taxpayer money to be properly expended. But when I see the results--and I've seen the way the TSA operates. They started with 16,500 screeners on 9/11. And what failed on 9/11 was not the private screeners. It was the federal government, because the federal Government failed to put in place the rules, the protocols, the standards and the levels of operation?. I'm saying that this amendment does make certain that for a very cost-effective means of providing passenger screening, we can do a better job. We'll have the money available, and we won't rely on just the all-federal model.?

Rep. David Price (D-NC) opposed the amendment: ?I've been listening carefully to the gentleman as he described his intentions in offering this amendment, and all I can do, I think all any of us can do, is react to the amendment before us, not to hypothetical future amendments or future administrative actions. And on the face of it, I oppose this amendment. The [underlying Homeland Security] bill provides $3.03 billion for screeners. This amendment would cut funding by $270 million. If this amendment is accepted, TSA would need to lay off 5,000 screeners. That's 10 percent of the current screener workforce?.there's no way around it: this would decrease security. It would lead to longer wait lines just at a time when passenger growth is rebounding at our country's airports?.Now, the gentleman has talked about giving the Secretary discretion to somehow make up for this cut in the private screener force. But there is really nothing in this amendment that grants such discretion. There is not any augmenting in this amendment of the private screener account, nor is there any assurance that even if that account were to be augmented, that the people that could be hired would replace, one for one, the 5,000 we are talking about laying off.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 219-204. Voting ?yea? were 218 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 187 Democrats and 17 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would cut funding for Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners by $270 million. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Lost
Roll Call 405
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used for new leases of buildings in the District of Columbia

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used for new leases of buildings in the District of Columbia. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.

Gohmert urged support for his amendment: ?Now, in the District of Columbia right now, the federal government had exactly 304 leases at the start of this year. These leases cover more than 23.6 million square feet. This bureaucracy has grown beyond the bounds of being reasonable. The federal government, in addition to the 23.6 million square feet that it leases, also owns 109 buildings in the District of Columbia?The 23.6 million square feet come at a cost of around a billion dollars every year to the taxpayer. Here we are in financially troubling times, and we need to send a message back to America we know you're tightening your belts. We know that States and municipalities are having to tighten their belts, and we get it here, also.?

Rep. David Price (D-NC) opposed the amendment: ? If adopted, this amendment, as I read it, would or could do several things. First of all, it would not allow DHS to renew leases in the Washington, D.C., area, which means the leases would lapse, leaving DHS employees without offices to work in, and subjecting the Federal Government to lawsuits because the lessors would have no choice but to begin litigation for damages, to include costs to evict and lost rent. The amendment might require DHS to break current construction contracts due to a lack of funds if a new purchase or lease is required?.This amendment would prevent, as I read it, rebuilding if a new construction contract was required as part of that rebuilding, as of course it might well be?.This is not a well-advised or wise amendment. It's far-reaching. It has negative implications. I urge its rejection.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 199-224. Voting ?yea? were 196 Republicans and 3 Democrats. 185 Democrats and 39 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used for new leases of buildings in the District of Columbia.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Won
Roll Call 404
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would prohibit federal agencies from requiring a company seeking a federal contract to disclose political contributions as a condition of being considered for that contract.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) that would prohibit federal agencies from requiring a company seeking a federal contract to disclose political contributions as a condition of being considered for that contract. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.

President Obama had been considering issuing an executive order that would require companies to disclose campaign donations as a condition for receiving government contracts. Republicans strongly opposed such a regulation, and this amendment sought to preemptively block its implementation.

Cole urged support for his amendment: ??In April, a draft executive order was circulated that would force companies as a condition of applying for a Federal contract to disclose all Federal campaign contributions. In my view, if implemented, this executive order would lead to a significant politicalization of the federal procurement process. Instead of a company being evaluated and judged on its merits, their past work experience, their ability to complete the government contract in question, this executive order would introduce the potential that they would be evaluated politically as opposed to professionally. It's never a good idea?in my view, to mix politics with contracting. My amendment would prevent the President from implementing the proposed disclosure requirements.?

Rep. David Price (D-NC) opposed the amendment: ?The amendment before us is a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft Executive order which would provide for increased disclosure of the political contributions of government contractors. The draft Executive order being developed by the Obama administration would require federal contractors to disclose more information about their political contributions than they currently provide. Particularly, those contributions given to third-party entities. Some have said they oppose this effort because additional information could be used nefariously to create some kind of enemies list. In other words, they argue that companies should not disclose more information because people in power could misuse that information to retaliate against them. I just think there are fundamental problems with this premise. Under this logic, all campaign disclosures would be bad, not just the new ones. Government contractors already disclose contributions and expenditures by their PACs and those who contribute to them. Contributions by the officers and directors of government contractors are also required to be disclosed. Should we eliminate those provisions, too? Of course not. The information is required to be provided already in law, and the Executive order that the amendment would circumvent simply enhances the quality of that information.?

The House agreed to Cole?s amendment by a vote of 252-170. Voting ?yea? were 232 Republicans and 20 Democrats. 168 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would prohibit federal agencies from requiring a company seeking a federal contract to disclose political contributions as a condition of being considered for that contract. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Lost
Roll Call 403
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers for collective bargaining activities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) that would prohibit funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers for collective bargaining activities. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.

Rokita urged support for his amendment: ?Contracts and demands of collective bargaining are complex and they are cumbersome. They are less flexible than is needed in national security situations. The union demands will unquestionably make our transportation security more costly and less efficient, and certainly let's not ignore the fact that the recourse that citizens have when they are mistreated, illegally groped or otherwise not served will be reduced if it has not been made nonexistent with a union. I will work to ensure that collective bargaining does not impact the safety of any American travelers or needlessly subjects our rights or personal space to a union or its leaders.?

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) opposed the amendment: ??We have collective bargaining rights for Customs and Border Protection employees?and nowhere have we ever found where our good men and women in uniform cannot perform admirably in any situation. The record is clear: where our union employees are federalized, they do a good job. So this notion that somehow collective bargaining is incorrect or improper should not go unopposed?.The men and women at TSA deserve the right to collective bargaining?.Let the men and women do their job. Collective bargaining is not a bad thing for our men and women at TSA.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 218-205. Voting ?yea? 217 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 187 Democrats and 18 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would prohibit funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers for collective bargaining activities. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate. Thus, TSA workers retained their collective bargaining rights as long as the Senate did not pass similar language. (President Obama had also threatened to veto a bill curtailing collective bargaining rights for such workers.)


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Lost
Roll Call 401
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have prohibited Homeland Security Department employees appointed by the president from delaying or reversing a decision to comply with a Freedom on Information Act request. (The Freedom of Information Act ensures that citizens have access to government records.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) that would have prohibited Homeland Security Department employees appointed by the president from delaying or reversing a decision to comply with a Freedom on Information Act request. The Freedom of Information Act  (FOIA) ensures that citizens have access to government records. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs.

Amash urged support for his amendment: ?My amendment prohibits political meddling in the Department's compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, commonly known as FOIA?.Countless instances of waste, fraud, and abuse have been exposed by using FOIA. In September 2009, political appointees in DHS implemented an unprecedented policy to review FOIA requests and documents proposed to be released?.FOIA is vital to our democracy. It is the most powerful single tool citizens and the press have to discover what our government is doing. And the law has a long track record of exposing corruption and inefficiency to improve government for all Americans. My amendment protects FOIA from politicization at DHS. It prohibits DHS political appointees from improperly blocking the release of FOIA documents. My amendment allows DHS political appointees to continually be aware of FOIA requests in documents proposed to be released, but it prevents the political appointees from interfering with the public's right to know.?

Rep. David Price (D-NC) opposed the amendment: ?I think it's [the amendment] a bad idea and perhaps counterproductive. It could lead to the exact opposite of the gentleman's intended result. Let me explain what I mean. In some cases, political review and decision-making will allow the Department to be more proactive in disclosing information to the public. Under this amendment, the head of the agency or another political appointee could not override an arbitrary decision by a bureaucrat to withhold documents that should be released. That bureaucrat could be protecting himself and his colleagues or those documents should be released. There could be a perverse result, I think, if this amendment were adopted?.the amendment might prevent the agency from faithfully carrying out its responsibility to comply with FOIA requests. That's because, technically, the agency head is in charge of ensuring the process is completed. If they're taken out of the mix, it really calls into question who's accountable and whether the FOIA process would operate as intended. So we better be careful in treading on this ground. We could have exactly the opposite results from what is intended. And for that reason, I oppose this amendment.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 257-164. Voting ?yea? were 231 Republicans and 26 Democrats. 162 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would have prohibited Homeland Security Department employees appointed by the president from delaying or reversing a decision to comply with a Freedom on Information Act request. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate.

 


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
N N Lost
Roll Call 398
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would prohibit the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement from using funds provided by a Homeland Security bill to release on bond or parole undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN) that would prohibit the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using funds provided by a Homeland Security bill to release on bond or parole undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.

Cravaack urged support for his amendment: ??ICE has allowed criminal illegal aliens who are waiting for a deportation hearing to leave Federal detention facilities and reenter the general public if the criminal illegal alien is fitted with a GPS tracking device or regularly checks in with their ICE supervisor. This is very troubling to me?In August, 2010, ICE's policy of releasing dangerous criminal aliens proved deadly?. illegal alien Carlos Montano was sentenced to over 1 year in jail for his second DWI and was released from ICE custody wearing only a GPS tracking device?. Tragically, on August 1, Montano got drunk, got behind a wheel, and collided head on with a vehicle carrying three nuns. This head-on collision killed 66-year-old Sister Jeanette Mosier of Virginia.?

No Democrats spoke in opposition to this amendment. Progressives, however, had long criticized such ?mandatory detention? policies on civil liberties grounds--arguing that undocumented immigrants could be detained indefinitely, no matter how minor the crime that was committed. In addition, some immigrants were detained for crimes committed many years prior to their detention. Refugee Council USA argued that under mandatory detention, ?immigrants? are subject to double jeopardy?they have already paid their dues and yet are subjected to detention.  Individuals can be detained for minor crimes committed in their youth.?

The American Civil Liberties Union had argued: ?The Constitution guarantees every person a day in court ? not just U.S. citizens ? but immigrants who are awaiting a determination on their immigration status are often denied this basic due process protection. Over the last several years, the use of detention as an immigration enforcement strategy has increased exponentially, and immigrants, including lawful permanent residents and asylum seekers, have been detained for prolonged periods of time without any finding that they are either a danger to society or a flight risk. The government is spending millions of dollars locking up people whose detentions serve no purpose. In addition to being cruel and unnecessary, prolonged immigration detention makes it nearly impossible for individuals to fight their cases ? including those with legitimate claims for legal status in the U.S.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 289-131. All 234 Republicans present and 55 Democrats voted ?yea.? 131 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would prohibit the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement from using funds provided by a Homeland Security bill to release on bond or parole undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y N Lost
Roll Call 397
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would prohibit funding provided by a Homeland Security bill from being allocated to over 300 community organizations which supporters of the amendment contended had some affiliation with ACORN. (ACORN was a coalition of community-based groups that advocated on behalf of the poor which had come under fire from conservatives who had alleged that the group had perpetrated voter fraud.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that would prohibit funding provided by a Homeland Security bill from being allocated to over 300 community organizations which supporters of the amendment contended had some affiliation with ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.

ACORN was a coalition of community-based groups that advocated on behalf of the poor with respect to affordable housing, access to health care, and voter registration. ACORN, however, had come under fire from conservatives who alleged that the group had perpetrated voter fraud. In 2009, conservative activists released damaging but selectively edited videos in which local ACORN chapters appeared to offer advice someone posing as a pimp on how to run a prostitution business. The national ACORN organization disbanded in 2010, but local affiliates continued to operate.

King urged support for his amendment: ??We must not forget that our Constitution's foundation is set upon legitimate elections; and to subsidize the people that are in the business of undermining it would be the wrong thing to do. This amendment shuts off the funding to the organizations that have a record of doing so, ACORN and their affiliates. It's a list of over 300. And I would just say over 300 sprouts from one large oak tree grew. These are the associates, the successors, and the affiliates of the larger and now some-disbanded organization known as ACORN. So I urge the adoption of my amendment.?

Rep. David Price (D-NC) opposed the amendment: ??This is an extraordinary amendment, a listing of over 3 pages of organizations by name, singled out on the floor of the House of Representatives for this kind of negative treatment, this kind of legislation that would simply render them ineligible for any kind of activity under this legislation, under this appropriations bill. Now, I seriously doubt that there is money in the Homeland Security bill that would go to any of these organizations; but still, the principle is very troubling.?

Price then began reading from the list of 300 community organization for which the amendment would prohibit the allocation of federal funds?and asked King if he could provide proof that these organizations had maintained a relationship with ACORN.  King replied that he could not produce such information immediately, but could do so later.

For example, Price asked: ?Does the gentleman [Rep. King] have documentation as to what kind of problems he is alleging with the Arkansas Community Housing Corporation that would warrant their inclusion on a list of this sort??

King replied: ?I am confident that I can produce that information for you. I do not have it here.?

Price argued that King?s amendment simply stigmatized hundreds of community-based groups without proof that they had maintained any collaborative relationship with ACORN: ?I guess this would appear to be some kind of guilt by association, but I'm not sure it even rises to that level. Do we know about the associations of these organizations that would warrant their being tarred by this treatment here tonight? Wouldn't the gentleman have the respect for his colleagues to bring to the floor the documentation that leads him to smear these organizations and include them on this extraordinary amendment? You're expecting us to vote on this.?

King replied: ??[The] primary component of this list came from the Government Oversight Committee. We can go get the records from the committee, and we could produce those, but I don't think this Congress is interested in holding up this process while I go contact the chairman [of the Government Oversight Committee] and the staff to pull that information.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 251-168. Voting ?yea? were 230 Republicans and 21 Democrats. 165 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 3 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would prohibit funding provided by a Homeland Security bill from being allocated to over 300 community organizations which supporters of the amendment contended had some affiliation with ACORN. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would have to pass the Senate. Thus, the hundreds of community organizations targeted by King?s amendment would continue to be eligible for funds provided by Homeland Security Department funding bill unless the Senate passed similar language.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 396
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used to enforce an Obama administration executive order that encouraged the use of ?project labor agreements? (PLAs) for federal construction projects costing more than $25 million. (PLAs refer to collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors that establish the terms of employment for construction projects.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used to enforce an Obama administration executive order that encouraged the use of ?project labor agreements? (PLAs) for federal construction projects costing more than $25 million. PLAs refer to collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors that establish the terms of employment for construction projects. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs.

Scalise urged support for his amendment: ??What we are trying to do is prevent the Department from implementing or using taxpayer money to implement Executive Order No. 13502. And the effect of that executive order has been to mandate project labor agreements on projects that are worth $25 million or more?.If you look at The Wall Street Journal, they specifically address the executive order that we are trying to prevent funds from being spent to carry out. The Wall Street Journal actually criticized the executive order and called these handouts `a raw display of political favoritism at the expense of an industry experiencing 27 percent unemployment,' and they also called this a rotten deal for taxpayers. We should be trying to save every dollar we can. We should be trying to promote fair and open competition. That's why the Associated Builders and Contractors support this amendment.?

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) opposed the amendment: ?A project labor agreement is a pre-hire agreement that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project. There is, and the gentleman is part of this, a PLA mandate myth that has been floating around since the executive order was issued that the federal government mandates project labor agreements. Actual language from the executive order says, and I quote: `This order does not require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement on any construction project.' I am sure the gentleman will be pleased to hear that.?
 
The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 207-213. Voting ?yea? were 206 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 185 Democrats and 28 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security bill from being used to enforce an Obama administration executive order that encouraged the use of project labor agreements for federal construction projects costing more than $25 million.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Building and Construction
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 395
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have exempted any construction project funded by a Homeland Security bill from Davis-Bacon Act requirements. (The Davis-Bacon Act requires that all public works projects pay the locally prevailing wage to workers.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) that would have exempted any construction project funded by a Homeland Security bill from Davis-Bacon Act requirements. (The Davis-Bacon Act requires that all public works projects pay the locally prevailing wage to workers. The Labor Department calculates each metro area?s prevailing wage in the following manner: ?We [the Labor Department] first determine if more than 50 percent of the workers in a single classification [of worker] are paid the union wage rate or the same wage rate. If so, then the union or same wage rate prevails for that classification. If not, a weighted average wage rate is calculated.?) This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs.

Gosar urged support for his amendment: ?As members of Congress, we are stewards of the public treasury. We have an obligation to spend taxpayer money wisely. The government does not earn money. The government does not generate wealth. The government takes money from those who work hard for a living. In order to justify that act, we have an obligation at a minimum to spend this money wisely. The Davis-Bacon Act adds unnecessary costs. Research shows that the Davis-Bacon Act imposes costs that average 22 percent above market wages. This is unacceptable. Every dollar wasted is a dollar we can't use on other projects. In most cities, the Davis-Bacon Act imposes wages that bear no resemblance to prevailing market wages. In some cities, the rates are more than double the market wages. I ask for everyone's support in stopping this wasteful use in taxpayer money.?

 Rep. David Price (D-NC) opposed the amendment: ?Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple concept and a fair one. It requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the differences in labor costs that this makes are insignificant. Average labor costs, including benefits and payroll taxes, are roughly one-quarter of construction costs. Thus, if there's an increase in overall contract costs due to higher wages, it likely would be modest to the point in many cases of being virtually undetectable. And in fact, Davis-Bacon, in ensuring that fair wages attract skilled workers, this might actually mean that the work is completed at a higher quality and in less time. This amendment flouts the basic concept of wage fairness. At the exact time we're trying to get people back to work across the country, is this House going to vote to drive down the wages of workers who do business with the government on the theory that it might cost a little less money on construction projects??

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 183-234. Voting ?yea? were 182 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 182 Democrats and 52 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have exempted any construction project funded by a Homeland Security bill from Davis-Bacon Act requirements.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Building and Construction
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 394
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security Department funding bill from being used to violate the War Powers Resolution. (The War Powers Resolution requires the president to obtain congressional authorization for a commitment of U.S troops to an armed conflict lasting more than 60 days.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security Department funding bill from being used to violate the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to obtain congressional authorization for a commitment of U.S troops to an armed conflict lasting more than 60 days. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs.

On March 19, 2011, the U.S. joined an international coalition (that included France, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Canada) to intervene in Libya?s civil war. This coalition aided rebels who had staged an uprising against the country?s dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, who had ruled Libya since 1969 and whose regime was notorious for human rights violations. On April 4, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO?an international coalition of 28 member countries) assumed operational control of the military mission in Libya. When this vote occurred, U.S troops had been deployed to Libya without congressional authorization for more than the 60 days permitted by the War Powers Resolution.

Sherman urged support for his amendment: ?Why is this amendment necessary? Because so many administrations have embraced the idea of an imperial presidency, have embraced the idea that a United States president can send our forces into battle for an unlimited duration, unlimited in scope, and for whatever purposes the executive branch finds worthy. The War Powers Act is the law of this land, and it says that a President may indeed commit our forces but must seek congressional authorization and must withdraw in 60 days if that authorization is not provided by the vote of both Houses of Congress. But this president [President Obama], like some others, believes that he doesn't have to follow the law. And in fact in this case in Libya, we and our allies were not attacked but rather a very important purpose--or thought to be important by the President--presented itself and so he committed our forces?.It is time for us to stand up and say, No, Mr. President, you actually have to follow the law.?

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) opposed the amendment, arguing that it was unrelated (or not ?germane?) to the underlying Homeland Security bill: ?This amendment is not germane to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. This amendment is better addressed within the National Defense Authorization Act or the Defense appropriations bill.?

Rep. David Price (D-NC) also opposed the amendment, arguing it had no place in a Homeland Security spending bill: ?I want to join Chairman Aderholt in urging rejection of this nongermane amendment. Members of course would not want to vote against contravening the law in anything that we do, but we have to acknowledge that this amendment is not germane to this bill. And the rhetoric that has attended the introduction of this amendment contains, just to put it mildly, insinuations and charges that this member finds unacceptable. This is not the place, however?to engage in a full debate of our Libyan operations or our foreign policy in general. So I will restrict myself to simply saying that I do think this amendment is inappropriate for this bill.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 208-213. Voting ?yea? were 111 Republicans and 97 Democrats?including a majority of progressives. 123 Republicans and 90 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a Homeland Security Department funding bill from being used to violate the War Powers Resolution.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
WAR & PEACE USA Intervention in Libya
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 393
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would allow funds provided by a Homeland Security Department funding bill to be used for rehiring laid-off firefighters, and preventing such layoffs from occurring in the first place

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David Price (D-NC) that would allow funds provided by a Homeland Security Department funding bill to be used for rehiring laid-off firefighters, and preventing such layoffs from occurring in the first place. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs.

Specifically, the underlying bill provided funding to fire departments to hire new firefighters under a grant program (known as ?SAFER Grants). The bill prohibited those grants, however, from being used to rehire laid-off firefighters or prevent imminent layoffs. Price?s amendment would allow SAFER grants to be used for these purposes.

Price urged support for his amendment: ?The law traditionally permits SAFER grants only to be used to hire new staff. Now, that provision makes sense when our economy is booming and local governments are in a position to hire new workers. But when the recovery is still fragile and local budgets are actually contracting and workers are being laid off, FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] needs the flexibility to use these grants to keep firefighters from being cut in the first place?.I am proposing a waiver amendment which would save thousands of firefighter jobs. Right now the real challenge to community safety is not the reluctance of local governments to hire new fire personnel. It's the potential and actual layoffs of public safety personnel, which means fewer first responders, longer response times, and more lives being put at risk.?

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) opposed the amendment: ?SAFER was originally authorized for the purpose of increasing the number of new firefighters in local communities--a hand up, not a handout. SAFER was not intended to rehire or retain firefighters, and certainly was not intended to serve as an operating subsidy for what is unquestionably a municipal responsibility?.Under these costly waivers [proposed by Price?s amendment], there are no controls, there are no salary limits, and there are no local commitments. These proposed waivers totally undermine the original purpose and intent of the SAFER program by forcing the taxpayers to subsidize the everyday operating expenses of the local first responders. Given our nation's dire fiscal situation today, we must take a stand that it is not the federal government's job to bail out every municipal budget or serve as a fire marshal for every city and town across this country.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 264-157. Voting ?yea? were 186 Democrats and 78 Republicans. 155 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would allow funds provided by a Homeland Security Department funding bill to be used for rehiring laid-off firefighters, and preventing such layoffs from occurring in the first place. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would need to pass the Senate as well.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 392
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would prohibit the use of Homeland Security Department funds for participation in the Obama administration?s interagency task force on global climate change

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Carter (R-TX) that would prohibit the use of Homeland Security Department funds for participation in the Obama administration?s interagency task force on global climate change. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs.

Carter urged support for his amendment: ?The U.S. government has no shortage of agencies dedicated to studying global climate change and its impact. For fiscal year 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has a budget of $6.6 billion and identifies taking action on climate change as their number one goal in its fiscal year 2011 through 2015 strategic plan. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, which among other things is charged with climate monitoring, has a budget of $5.6 billion for fiscal year 2011. So why?at a time when our nation is running a public debt of over $14 trillion, should the Department of Homeland Security be spending money on a Climate Change Adaptation Task Force? Millions of pounds of illegal drugs are trafficked across our border each year?.An untold number of men, women, and children are trafficked across our border for both sexual and labor exploitation?Additional intelligence recovered from Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, revealed that al Qaeda was considering launching attacks on U.S. trains and subway stations?.These are the priorities that the Secretary should be focusing on, not wasting time duplicating the work of the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.?

Rep. David Price (D-NC) opposed the amendment: ??The debate isn't about whether or not one believes that climate change is being caused by human beings. The fact is that whatever the cause, climate change is occurring in certain parts of the world. Both the U.S. Coast Guard and the Navy have testified before congressional committees that their operations are greatly affected, particularly in the Arctic region. The Department of Homeland Security has identified other specific climate change-related impacts on DHS missions. These include, as you might expect, disaster response activities and the protection of critical infrastructure?.Now it's prudent and necessary for DHS to be able to work with its partner agencies to plan for the effects of climate change on their missions, and it's proper and important that our government agencies be able to talk to each other about the changes they are witnessing and the accommodations to their missions that might need to be made.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 242-180. Voting ?yea? were 233 Republicans and 9 Democrats. 178 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would prohibit the use of Homeland Security Department funds for participation in the Obama administration?s interagency task force on global climate change. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would need to pass the Senate as well. Since this amendment had not passed the Senate, the Homeland Security Department continued to participate in the Obama administration?s interagency task force on global climate change.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Lost
Roll Call 391
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would prohibit Homeland Security Department funds from being used to address environmental damage caused by the construction of border fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) that would prohibit Homeland Security Department funds from being used to address environmental damage caused by the construction of border fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs.

Specifically, the underlying Homeland Security bill allowed the Homeland Security Department to transfer funding to the Interior Department for initiatives intended to lessen the effects of environmental damage caused by the construction of border fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. Such a transfer was necessary because the Homeland Security Department does not have the legal authority to acquire new federal land. (Supporters of this transfer of funding argued that new federal land acquisition could prove necessary in order to address environmental damage caused by border fence construction.) The Interior Department, however, does have this authority.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) urged support for this amendment: ?Most people are not aware that we put money into this budget thinking it is going for Homeland Security, only to see it mysteriously transferred over to another agency without Congress ever understanding or authorizing where that transfer is or what that transfer may be?.This becomes simply a secret slush fund from Homeland Security to Interior, and Congress has no idea or clue on how this money we are putting into Homeland Security's budget is being used?.most of the environmental degradation that is taking place on our southern border, especially in the State of Arizona, is not being done by the Border Patrol; it's being done by illegal immigrants the drug cartels, the human traffickers, potential terrorists who are coming in here with no design and no care about the ecology of the area, or endangered species, or anything else. If we truly want to improve the ecology and improve our environmental quality on that border, you put every dime you can into Border Patrol, you let the Border Patrol have the access that they need to do their jobs, because stopping the illegal bad guys coming across is the only way, the only way we will ever have a true environmental solution on that particular border. So far we do not know how this money is spent.?

Rep. David Price (D-NC) opposed the amendment: ??Responding to concerns about possible environmental problems associated with such a massive construction undertaking, much of which has taken place on environmentally sensitive lands, Congress provided modest amounts to mitigate these potential environmental consequences: $50 million in fiscal 2009 and $40 million in fiscal 2010. Some of this mitigation effort involves acquiring land from willing sellers for buffer zones to protect fragile habitats, principally along the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Since the Department [of Homeland Security] doesn't have the statutory authority to acquire land for the purpose of environmental mitigation, we came to an agreement among Democrats and Republicans last year in the context of negotiations over an omnibus 2011 bill to grant the limited authority to transfer these specific funds to the Department of Interior for land acquisition. Obviously, Interior has the statutory authority to acquire land for this purpose?.as a government we have many responsibilities and priorities. These include, of course, securing our borders? It also includes protecting our natural and cultural resources. The sort of interagency agreement that Homeland Security and Interior have entered into for environmental mitigation is exactly what we should be encouraging??

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 238-177. Voting ?yea? were 228 Republicans and 10 Democrats. 174 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would prohibit Homeland Security Department funds from being used to address environmental damage caused by the construction of border fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would need to pass the Senate as well.


ENVIRONMENT Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE USA-Mexico Frontier Issues
N N Lost
Roll Call 390
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would allow the Homeland Security Department to convert jobs held by federal government employees into private, federally-contracted positions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) that would allow the Homeland Security Department to convert jobs held by federal government employees into private, federally-contracted positions. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department (DHS) programs.

Specifically, the underlying Homeland Security bill prohibited DHS from converting public sector jobs (in which employees work directly for the federal government) within the department to private, federally contracted positions (in which employees work for private contractors) without submitting an analysis to Congress justifying such a conversion. (Such analyses are known as ?A-76? reviews.) Sessions? amendment eliminated this prohibition in the Homeland Security bill.

Sessions urged support for his amendment: ??Cost competitions between the public and private sector brings the best value to the taxpayer. According to Americans for Tax Reform, the average cost of each new Federal employee for salary, benefits, and pensions totals $4.27 million. Without competition, government-run monopolies of commercial activities duplicate and price out the private sector, resulting in inefficient expenditures of taxpayer money.? Sessions also said: ??I believe that there are inherently governmental functions that a government employee must perform. However, when there is something like changing oil for a fleet of trucks, mowing grass, coming in and cleaning a building, performing functions that can be done more efficiently?[by contracted employees.]?

While no members spoke in opposition to Sessions? amendment, nearly all Democrats voted against it. On a nearly identical amendment to a Defense Department spending bill Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) argued: ?I must say we have done these A-76 reviews across the country, and many times we find that the government entity reorganizes itself and can actually do the work at a lesser cost than the private sector. And the other problem with this whole thing is, once the private sector gets it, the costs go right through the roof. So you need to have an analysis done after contracting out is done to make sure that you're not getting ripped off.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 218-204. Voting ?yea? were 217 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 187 Democrats and 17 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would allow the Homeland Security Department to convert jobs held by federal government employees into private, federally contracted positions. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would need to pass the Senate as well.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Lost
Roll Call 389
Jun 02, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would allow small and midsized American cities to receive federal funding from the Urban Area Security Initiative. (The Urban Area Security Initiative provides federal funding to urban areas for measures that help local governments prevent and respond to terrorist attacks.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-MI) that would allow small and midsized American cities to receive federal funding from the Urban Area Security Initiative. The Urban Area Security Initiative provides federal funding to urban areas for measures that help local governments prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.

Specifically, a provision of the underlying Homeland Security bill only allowed the 10 biggest American cities to receive federal funding under the Urban Area Security Initiative. Clarke?s amendment would eliminate that provision.

Clarke urged support for his amendment: ??What this amendment does is remove the restriction that the Urban Areas Security Initiative funding should be restricted to the top 10 urban areas by risk. You see, there are other metropolitan areas in this country that I believe are at similar or even higher risk of terrorist attack or damage through any other type of catastrophe. The metro Detroit area is one of those. That area, the area that I represent, has the busiest border crossing in all of North America and has an international airport. It has a huge metropolitan population center. It has the world headquarters of General Motors. We are at high risk of an attack; but yet right now, according to the Homeland Security risk metrics, we are not rated in the top 10. We should be eligible for this funding, as well as other metropolitan areas.?

Rep. John Carter (R-TX) opposed the amendment: ??The bill limits Urban Area Security Initiative grants to the top 10 highest cities?. this puts scarce dollars to where they are needed most. That means that cities like New York are funded at significantly higher levels than other cities because they are the highest-rent urban areas. I don't think anyone here can argue with that. This does not mean lower-risk areas will lose all funding. It just means that funds will come from other programs such as State homeland grants that are risk and formula based. I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline by aligning funding with the areas of highest risk and vote `no' on this amendment.?

A number of Democrats who represented large cities?and whose congressional districts would stand to lose federal funding if Clarke?s proposal were enacted--opposed this amendment. The Gannett Washington Bureau?s Brian Tumulty reported:

?Downstate [NY] lawmakers were troubled that the House passed an amendment to remove a requirement that eligibility for urban-area security grants be confined to the 10 metropolitan areas facing the greatest threat of a terrorist attack. Removing that requirement would allow other cities to compete for funding.

U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel, D-Bronx, said the grant program was never intended to allow cities facing minimal terrorist threats ?to bring home some money under the guise of homeland security.??

The House agreed to Clarke?s amendment by a vote of 273-150. Voting ?yea? were 143 Republicans and 130 Democrats. 58 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 92 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would allow small and midsized American cities to receive federal funding from the Urban Area Security Initiative. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would need to pass the Senate as well. When this vote occurred, it was unclear whether the Senate would agree to such an amendment.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Lost
Roll Call 387
Jun 01, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would increase by $10 million funding for a border security program that helped residents along the U.S.-Mexico border to communicate via cell phone with the Border Patrol.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) that would increase by $10 million funding for a border security program that helped residents along the U.S.-Mexico border to communicate via cell phone with the Border Patrol.  The amendment also would cut $10 million from the Secretary of Homeland Security?s administrative expenses account. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.

Poe urged support for his amendment: ?On March 27, 2010, rancher Bob Krentz of Arizona was murdered 20 miles north of the border from Mexico in an isolated area of Arizona. The lack of communications capability made Krentz more vulnerable than he would have been otherwise and complicated the search for the assailants. His wife believes it was in a cell phone dead zone where he was killed and that he was trying to call for help, but his cell phone would not work?.These dead zones are so common that often times border ranchers in Arizona and Texas rely on shortwave radios to communicate and call for help when they are in trouble or they see illegal crossings into their property. The inability of the U.S. government to secure the U.S.-Mexico border creates public safety hazards for residents of border areas and the law enforcement agents who patrol them. Many border areas are rural and lack wireless communication capabilities like phone service, and they exacerbate the border-related public safety concern.?

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) opposed the amendment: ??This proposal would further create cuts to the Department's management functions below what is responsible for the Nation's security. The committee has already cut the Department's headquarters and management at historic levels?.The Department must still have robust funding to manage the many organizations under its authority. The Department was created from nearly two dozen agencies and still faces challenges in achieving the unified homeland security enterprise.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 327-93. Voting ?yea? were 205 Republicans and 122 Democrats. 64 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 29 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would increase by $10 million funding for a border security program that helped residents along the U.S.-Mexico border to communicate via cell phone with the Border Patrol--but would cut $10 million from the Secretary of Homeland Security?s administrative expenses account. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would need to pass the Senate as well. Since it had not passed the Senate, funding for the Homeland Security Secretary?s administrative expenses account remained unchanged for the time being. In addition, no funding was immediately allocated for a new cell phone communication program intended to improve border security.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y N Lost
Roll Call 386
Jun 01, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would increase funding by $1 million for a program that helps local governments identify undocumented immigrants.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) that would increase funding by $1 million for a program that helps local governments identify undocumented immigrants. The amendment would also cut $1 million from the Secretary of Homeland Security?s administrative expenses account. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.

Royce urged support for his amendment: ??This amendment, will provide for better enforcement of our immigration laws?.[The program] has been very successful. It allows state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security to enforce immigration law. It was enacted back in 1996, and Congress implemented this program to give local communities help with illegal immigration in their area?.One of the reasons so many cities want to be involved in this [program] is because criminal alien gangs generally victimize people in the cities, often are victimizing other immigrants, often victimize legal immigrants. And, frankly, law enforcement should be trained in how to identify and remove criminal aliens, and this assists in that.?

Rep. David Price (D-NC) opposed the amendment:  ?The bill before us provides full funding for the Department's request for the?program, and $1 million more simply is not needed. The increase proposed by the gentleman comes at the expense of the Secretary for Homeland Security? Further cuts in these accounts would eliminate key staffing positions, limiting the Department's ability to respond to national emergencies and to provide for stable leadership in the event of a large disaster or a terrorist attack.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 268-151. Voting ?yea? were 232 Republicans and 36 Democrats. 150 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would increase funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement by $1 million in order to help local government identify undocumented immigrants. In order for this amendment to become law, however, it would need to pass the Senate as well. Since the Senate had not passed this amendment, funding for the immigration enforcement program remained unchanged for the time being.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
N N Lost
Roll Call 385
Jun 01, 2011
(H.R. 2017) On an amendment that would have increased funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative by $337 million. The Urban Area Security Initiative provides federal funding to urban areas for measures that help local governments prevent and respond to terrorist attacks.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) that would have increased funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative by $337 million. The Urban Area Security Initiative provides federal funding to urban areas for measures that help local governments prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.

Cicilline urged support for his amendment: ?This bill makes dangerous cuts to the Urban Areas Security Initiative, the UASI program, which is a program critical to the security of cities that have been deemed at high risk of terrorist attack. One of those cities is Providence, Rhode Island, in my congressional district, along with more than 50 other urban areas in our country?.the cuts that are proposed in this legislation will cripple the ability of cities to effectively ensure proper safety should an attack occur?.Thousands of devices, like security cameras and radios and projects such as port sirens and watercraft, will not be able to be maintained?.These are urgent, urgent priorities for America's cities?.we cannot in good conscience spend billions of dollars protecting people all over the world at the expense of our own national security.?

Rep. Robert Adherholt (R-AL) opposed the amendment, arguing that the underlying bill cut and consolidated homeland security programs in order to reduce overall federal spending: ??The bill before us today was born out of the need for reform. It consolidates various grant programs?.The consolidation in this bill requires the Secretary [of Homeland Security] to examine the intelligence and risk and put scarce dollars where they are most needed, whether it is a port, rail, surveillance?or whether it is to high-risk urban areas or to states...These cuts will not be easy, but they are long overdue and necessary to address our out-of-control federal spending.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 154-266. Voting ?yea? were 144 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 10 Republicans. 223 Republicans and 43 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative by $337 million.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 382
Jun 01, 2011
(H.R. 2017) Legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs ? Two separate votes: the first on bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to Homeland Security bill; the second on passage of the resolution setting the time limit.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The second vote was on passage of the resolution itself.

In addition to setting the terms for floor debate on the Homeland Security bill, this resolution ?deemed? passed a Republican budget plan to effectively eliminate Medicare?which is a guaranteed, government-provided, single-payer health care program for the elderly?and replace it with a voucher system in which seniors would purchase health insurance in the private market.

Although the Republican-controlled House had passed the budget measure to implement its plan to effectively dismantle traditional Medicare, the Democratic-controlled Senate had rejected that plan.  House Republicans, however, had included language in this resolution that ?deemed? the House budget plan passed by both houses of Congress for the purposes of House consideration of spending bills. For all intents and purposes, this simply meant that all spending bills passed by the House would have to comply with limits set by the House Republican budget. It had no binding effect, however, on legislation considered by the Senate.

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) argued that deeming the House budget passed was necessary so that the House could begin passing annual spending bills: ??So that we are able to move ahead with the important appropriations ? it is essential that we deem this budget [passed] because we have yet to have a conference report. We've yet to see our friends in the other body [the Senate] pass out a budget.?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the sponsor of the Republican budget plan, argued: ??We [Republicans] reform it [Medicare] so that it works like the system members of Congress and federal employees have?where seniors get a choice of plans offered to them by Medicare, guaranteed coverage options from which they can choose, and Medicare subsidizes that plan?.This saves Medicare. This puts Medicare on a path to solvency and, more importantly, by saving it for future generations we can keep the promise to the current generation.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) opposed the resolution: ?This rule [resolution]? deems passed the elimination of Medicare in order to keep in place tax cuts for the highest earners and tax breaks for oil?.I, for one, cannot support a rule that deems passed the elimination of Medicare. Americans resoundingly opposed the approach of dismantling Medicare. They want us to put our economy on more secure fiscal footing and do it while strengthening our economy, creating jobs and mending, not ending, Medicare.?

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) argued: ??If you vote for the rule, you're voting to end Medicare?.You don't save something by ending it. Purely and simply. And to come to this floor and say you're saving it when you're ending it, that kind of talk is a big lie.? Levin continued: ?So don't come and say you're saviors when you're eliminating a program. Stand up and be honest and say you want to replace it with something else. That something else is not Medicare. It's turning it over to the private insurance industry??

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 235-186. All 235 Republicans voted ?yea.? All 186 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the Homeland Security bill. The House then agreed to the resolution by a vote of 231-187. Voting ?yea? were 231 Republicans. All 185 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 381
Jun 01, 2011
(H.R. 2017) Legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs ? Two separate votes: the first on bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to Homeland Security bill; the second on passage of the resolution setting the time limit.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

These votes were on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. The first of these two votes was on a procedural motion known as the ?previous question"--which effectively ends debate and brings the pending resolution to an immediate vote. The second vote was on passage of the resolution itself.

In addition to setting the terms for floor debate on the Homeland Security bill, this resolution ?deemed? passed a Republican budget plan to effectively eliminate Medicare?which is a guaranteed, government-provided, single-payer health care program for the elderly?and replace it with a voucher system in which seniors would purchase health insurance in the private market.

Although the Republican-controlled House had passed the budget measure to implement its plan to effectively dismantle traditional Medicare, the Democratic-controlled Senate had rejected that plan.  House Republicans, however, had included language in this resolution that ?deemed? the House budget plan passed by both houses of Congress for the purposes of House consideration of spending bills. For all intents and purposes, this simply meant that all spending bills passed by the House would have to comply with limits set by the House Republican budget. It had no binding effect, however, on legislation considered by the Senate.

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) argued that deeming the House budget passed was necessary so that the House could begin passing annual spending bills: ??So that we are able to move ahead with the important appropriations ? it is essential that we deem this budget [passed] because we have yet to have a conference report. We've yet to see our friends in the other body [the Senate] pass out a budget.?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the sponsor of the Republican budget plan, argued: ??We [Republicans] reform it [Medicare] so that it works like the system members of Congress and federal employees have?where seniors get a choice of plans offered to them by Medicare, guaranteed coverage options from which they can choose, and Medicare subsidizes that plan?.This saves Medicare. This puts Medicare on a path to solvency and, more importantly, by saving it for future generations we can keep the promise to the current generation.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) opposed the resolution: ?This rule [resolution]? deems passed the elimination of Medicare in order to keep in place tax cuts for the highest earners and tax breaks for oil?.I, for one, cannot support a rule that deems passed the elimination of Medicare. Americans resoundingly opposed the approach of dismantling Medicare. They want us to put our economy on more secure fiscal footing and do it while strengthening our economy, creating jobs and mending, not ending, Medicare.?

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) argued: ??If you vote for the rule, you're voting to end Medicare?.You don't save something by ending it. Purely and simply. And to come to this floor and say you're saving it when you're ending it, that kind of talk is a big lie.? Levin continued: ?So don't come and say you're saviors when you're eliminating a program. Stand up and be honest and say you want to replace it with something else. That something else is not Medicare. It's turning it over to the private insurance industry??

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 235-186. All 235 Republicans voted ?yea.? All 186 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the Homeland Security bill. The House then agreed to the resolution by a vote of 231-187. Voting ?yea? were 231 Republicans. All 185 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 380
Jun 01, 2011
(H.R. 2017) Legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs ? On whether to bring up the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on whether to bring up a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs. Technically, this vote was on a ?question of consideration? ? literally whether to ?consider? or bring up the resolution.

House Democrats forced a vote on the question of consideration to protest a Republican plan to effectively eliminate Medicare?which is a guaranteed, government-provided, single-payer health care program for the elderly?and replace it with a voucher system in which seniors would purchase health insurance in the private market.

Although the Republican-controlled House had passed a budget measure to implement its plan to effectively dismantle traditional Medicare, the Democratic-controlled Senate had rejected that plan.  House Republicans, however, had included language in this resolution that ?deemed? the House budget plan passed by both houses of Congress for the purposes of House consideration of spending bills. For all intents and purposes, this simply meant that all spending bills passed by the House would have to comply with limits set by the House Republican budget. It had no binding effect, however, on legislation considered by the Senate.

House Democrats, however, were unanimously opposed the Republican plan to convert Medicare into a private insurance voucher system. In response to House Republicans having ?deemed? such a plan passed by Congress, Democrats forced this vote on the question of consideration.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) said: ??We have a responsibility to address our deficit. But cutting the lifeline for our seniors is not an act of courage; it's actually cowardly. Claiming to reduce the budget deficit on the backs of Americans who have paid into their retirement their entire lives not only harms American seniors but goes against the basic values of fairness and security that Americans cherish. Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for Americans who pay into it their whole lives. It represents the basic American values of fairness and respect for those seniors which Americans cherish. Siding with lobbyists to give insurance company bureaucrats control of Medicare does nothing to address the deficit, but it does a great deal to reduce health care for our seniors.?

Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) responded: ?I would say that Republicans are not here to destroy Medicare. They are here to save Medicare. We have put forth a responsible plan that has been openly and continuously debated in the public forum and in this chamber about how we're going to move forward with the problem that we have in Medicare. It is a problem we cannot deny. Both sides of the aisle know that Medicare is on a path to bankruptcy. We have put forth a plan. We have put forth a plan that guarantees that we can deal with the problem in such a way that those who are on Medicare are not impacted and that those within a generation of retiring into Medicare are not impacted. Yet we're villainized by the other side for allegedly throwing grandma off the cliff--for taking away Medicare. That is not being honest with the American public. We will be honest with the American public. We recognize the problem in Medicare. We put forth a plan. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not put forth a plan to deal with the problem. They want to engage in electioneering, politicking, and looking at the reelection efforts for 2012.?

The House agreed to this question of consideration by a vote of 234-183. All 234 Republicans present voted ?yea.? All 183 Democrats present voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to bring up and debate a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation that would provide annual funding for Homeland Security Department programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 379
May 31, 2011
(H.R. 1954) Passage of legislation that would have increased the public debt limit from $14.3 trillion to $16.7 trillion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have increased the U.S. public debt limit from $14.3 trillion to $16.7 trillion. When this vote occurred, the federal government?s debt had exceeded its ?statutory limit? ? in other words, the amount of money the country can be in debt. In order for the federal government to borrow more money, it needed to increase its debt limit.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.  

In the debate leading up to this vote, Republicans had demanded cuts to social programs?including Medicare--in return for their votes to raise the debt limit. President Obama and most congressional Democrats opposed placing any conditions on such a measure. House Republicans brought up ?and unanimously voted against--this bill, which increased the debt limit but did not contain any spending cuts.

House Republican leaders argued that the vote was a symbolic effort to prove to President Obama that Congress would not raise the debt limit without imposing deep cuts to social programs.

Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) voted in favor of the bill, but criticized Republicans for bringing the measure up under suspension of the rules?a procedure that is normally reserved for noncontroversial legislation: ?We are playing Russian roulette with a loaded gun in the American economy, and the deficit clock is ticking. This requires a substantial response. The approach taken, a suspension vote, trivializes both our short-term obligation to pay our bills and our long-term obligation to have a long-term deficit reduction plan.?

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), opposed his own bill: ?Today, we are making clear that Republicans will not accept an increase in our nation's debt limit without substantial spending cuts and real budgetary reforms. This vote, a vote based on legislation I have introduced, will and must fail. Now, most members aren't happy when they bring a bill to the floor and it fails, but I consider defeating an unconditional increase to be a success because it sends a clear and critical message that the Congress has finally recognized we must immediately begin to rein in America's affection for deficit spending.?

Many Democrats who supported raising the debt limit voted against this bill as a protest against what they viewed as crude political stunt. In fact, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) urged Democratic House members to vote against the measure. Talking Points Memo?s Benjy Sarlin reported: ?House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is urging his colleagues to vote down today's ?clean? debt limit extension to deprive the GOP of a political win, even though he and the majority of his caucus publicly favor the legislation?.While the legislation is exactly what most Democrats want to see pass, Republicans are bringing it to the floor with the expectation that it will fail -- likely with unanimous GOP opposition. The point of the vote is to divide progressive and conservative Democrats and bolster Republican arguments that major cuts are needed to successfully pass a debt ceiling hike.?

Hoyer spoke in opposition to the bill: ? Ladies and gentlemen, this issue is an important issue that is being treated not as an adult?.this is not an honest debate. This is not an honest proposal?.We need to deal with this issue [the debt limit]?seriously, not in 20-minute debates on each side, not as a simplistic suggestion that somehow President Obama caused this?.I'm going to vote `no' on this.?

Some Democrats voted ?present? to protest the manner in which Republicans brought up the bill. Among those voting present was Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), who said: ?Republicans are willing to jeopardize the full faith and credit of the United States of America, exposing us to great potential economic harm. They think the President will once again yield to their ransom demands?Don't yield to this maneuver, Mr. President. Say `no' to gimmicks and say `yes' to Medicare, one of the best programs ever initiated by this Congress to ensure a little retirement security.?

The House rejected this bill by a vote of 97-318. 97 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, voted ?yea.? All 236 Republicans present and 82 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a bill that would have increased the public debt limit from $14.3 trillion to $16.7 trillion. While the U.S. did not immediately default on its public debt as a result of this bill having failed, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner had indicated the U.S. could default on its debt on August 2, 2011, if Congress did not vote to raise the debt limit.



MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 376
May 26, 2011
(S. 990) Final passage of legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance law known as the ?Patriot Act? for four years. Those provisions included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance law known as the ?Patriot Act? for four years. Those provisions included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records).

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) urged support for the bill: ?The Patriot Act provisions continue to play a vital role in America's counterterrorism efforts not only to prevent another large-scale attack but also to combat an increasing number of smaller terrorist plots. Earlier this year, a 20-year-old student from Saudi Arabia was arrested in my home state of Texas for attempting to use weapons of mass destruction. Khalid Aldawsari attempted to purchase chemicals to construct a bomb against targets including the Dallas residence of former President George W. Bush, several dams in Colorado and California, and the homes of three former military guards who served in Iraq. Information obtained through a section 215 business records order was essential in thwarting this plot. Make no mistake, the threat from terrorists and spies is real. These provisions are vital to our intelligence investigations, and they are effective.?

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) also supported the bill: ?These three provisions have stopped countless potential attacks and play a critical role in helping ensure law enforcement officials have the tools they need to keep our country safe.
The death of Osama bin Laden proves that American intelligence gathering is vital to our national security. The fight against terrorism, however, did not die with bin Laden, and neither did the need for the PATRIOT Act. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.?

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) opposed the bill: ?Surveillance of an individual who concededly is not working with a foreign government or with a terrorist organization is not normally what we understand as foreign intelligence. There may be many good reasons for government to keep tabs on such an individual, but there is no reason to suspend all our normal laws under the pretext that this is a foreign intelligence operation?.I realize that the Republican majority has the votes to extend these expiring authorities, but I am proud to stand with my colleagues of both parties in opposition to the flippant and reckless way in which our liberties are being treated today.?

Rep. Earl Bluemenauer (D-OR) also opposed the bill: ? today I will vote against an extension of the PATRIOT Act because Congress should be refining and narrowing the scope of the Act, not extending it as-is, until 2015. There are real concerns on both sides of the aisle about granting the federal government too much power with little to no mechanisms for oversight by Congress. We are missing an opportunity in the House for bipartisan reform by rushing this extension to the floor. It's time for a more accountable approach that balances individual privacy with our national defense. Our intelligence community has the tools necessary to keep us safe without compromising our privacy. This hasty four-year extension is disappointing because the Act could be more effective if it included the auditing requirements for which many in Congress have advocated.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 250-153. Voting ?yea? were 196 Republicans and 54 Democrats. 122 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 31 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance law known as the ?Patriot Act? for four years. Since the Senate had already passed this bill, House passage enabled President Obama to sign it into law.



HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Government Surveillance of Citizens
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 375
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) Final passage of legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell Policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell (DADT) policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia.

Over the objections of many Republicans, President Obama had signed into law legislation repealing DADT in 2010. The Senate had ratified the nuclear arms agreement with Russia?known as the ?New Start Treaty??that same year. 

This bill also contained a highly controversial provision?known as ?Section 1034??that granted the president the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces." Critics of this provision argued that it amounted to an open-ended authorization for the president to pursue endless warfare in the pursuit of terrorists.

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, urged members to support it: ?The legislation will advance our national security aims, provide the proper care and logistical support for our fighting forces and help us meet the defense challenges of the 21st century?.The legislation we will consider today also makes good on my promise, when I was selected to lead the Armed Services Committee, that this committee would scrutinize the Department of Defense's budget and identify inefficiencies to invest those savings into higher national security priorities. We examined every aspect of the defense enterprise, not as a target for arbitrary funding reductions, as the current administration has proposed, but to find ways that we can accomplish the mission of providing for the common defense more effectively.?

Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI), another supporter of the bill, argued that the measure ?truly supports our men and women in combat, enhances our national security, and is in keeping with the true bipartisan history of the House Armed Services Committee [the committee that drafted the bill].? Langevin also said: ?While I don't agree with every provision in the bill, I am proud that both parties worked together to reach compromises on many measures that support our national defense?.Regrettably, there are also several provisions included that deeply concern me--from attempts to derail the successful repeal of DOD's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy to measures tying the President's hands over decisions about our nuclear arsenal and the closure of Guantanamo Bay. It is my hope that these issues will be further considered and improved upon by the conference committee. However, overall, this bill reflects the recognition of the Congress of the incredible sacrifices that our brave men and women in uniform make for our country every day. I am certainly honored to be a part of this process, and I certainly look forward to supporting this bill as it moves through the legislative process and moves into law.?

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) opposed the bill: ?There is much in this bill to recommend, particularly the way in which it deals with the men and women that are in arms, the support that they need, the benefits that they require, and the care that they require following their missions. However, there is in this bill a missed opportunity, and I must therefore oppose the bill, the opportunity to change the direction of the war in Afghanistan, a war that seems without end, and a war that seems to be perpetual. A successful raid and the successful taking of bin Laden is an opportunity to pivot, and we are missing that opportunity in this bill, and continuing to spend over $100 billion on that war in Afghanistan. Also in this bill is section 1034, the continued authorization for the use of force. That too must be eliminated. For those reasons, I oppose this legislation.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 322-96. Voting ?yea? were 227 Republicans and 95 Democrats. 90 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 6 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell Policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia. The Senate, however, was expected to pass its own Defense Authorization bill later in the year. Following House and Senate passage of their respective defense bills, the two houses could begin reconciling the differences between the two measures.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
WAR & PEACE Arms Controls Treaties
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 374
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On a motion that would have increased combat pay for soldiers by $100 per month

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have increased combat pay for soldiers by $100 per month. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?Regardless of how one feels about the underlying bill or the mission of our troops in Iraq or in Afghanistan, we can all agree, I hope, on the valor, the sacrifice, that we see in our soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors who put themselves in harm's way for our protection. They have been sent overseas to face hostile fire and imminent danger to themselves in service to the Constitution of this great United States. They do an extraordinary job and, I believe, are deserving of our utmost support. My amendment proposes an additional authorization for an increase in combat pay for troops deployed in the field to be added to the underlying bill?.I hope this body will engage in a successful debate to put the United States on a fiscally responsible path, but budgets should not be balanced on the backs of our troops.?

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) opposed the motion to recommit: ?The?[bill] we have before us is a result of extensive bipartisan collaboration and unprecedented transparency, and to offer this motion at this time and on this very important bill is poor form and smacks of pure politics. It pains me that after such an effort on our part to work across the aisle, the Democrats have offered this motion. I fail to see where there's not been ample time and opportunity for input, discussion, debate [on the issue of combat pay], and resolution prior to this moment. I am dismayed that they would deem it necessary and prudent to play politics with this very important bill?. I oppose this motion and ask my colleagues to stand with me.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 185-233. All 184 Democrats present and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 233 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have increased combat pay for soldiers by $100 per month.


WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 373
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have required the president to submit to Congress a plan with a timeframe to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The amendment would also have required the president to submit a separate report to Congress outlining a plan with a timeframe for concluding negotiations ?leading to a political settlement and reconciliation of the internal conflict in Afghanistan.?

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) that would have required the president to submit to Congress a plan with a timeframe to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The amendment would also have required the president to submit a separate report to Congress outlining a plan with a timeframe for concluding negotiations ?leading to a political settlement and reconciliation of the internal conflict in Afghanistan.? This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

McGovern urged support for his amendment: ?Too many people have died in Afghanistan. Since January, I have attended three funerals in my district alone of young men who have sacrificed their lives there. Tens of thousands more have been wounded. And the suicide rate among our veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq is soaring. There is no clear mission. The Karzai government is corrupt. We continue to borrow money to pay for this war. We need to rethink what we're doing in Afghanistan. It's time to define the plan to bring our uniformed men and women home to their families and to their communities, where they belong?.this is the longest war in our Nation's history. It's no longer about al Qaeda. I've met with our troops in Afghanistan. I've met with them after they have come home. They are incredible. Politicians put them into harm's way. And we now have an obligation to get them safely home.?

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) opposed the amendment: ?I would certainly agree that we have gone beyond our security objectives in Afghanistan by building the economy that they never had at U.S. taxpayers' expense, by trying to restructure their society, and giving them a government that doesn't reflect the political culture of the country. But at the same time, we have legitimate security objectives in Afghanistan to keep the Taliban out, to keep it from taking over the country, to keep al Qaeda out, and to have a permissive environment in which to conduct strikes into Pakistan at targets such as Osama bin Laden, or al Qaeda and Taliban leaders as they present themselves. But this amendment speaks to an expeditious withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan at a time when we are very far down the path of a current strategy for which the president says that we will already reduce our footprint in Afghanistan this summer, as well as shift operational control to Afghan security forces by 2014. This would pull the rug out under that entire strategy.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 204-215. Voting ?yea? were 178 Democrats and 26 Republicans. 207 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the president to submit to Congress a plan with a timeframe to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan--and would also have required the president to submit a separate report to Congress outlining a plan with a timeframe for concluding negotiations ?leading to a political settlement and reconciliation of the internal conflict in Afghanistan.?


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 372
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would eliminate all federal funding for the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), which was established to help resolve international conflicts peacefully.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN) that would eliminate all federal funding for the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), which was established to help resolve international conflicts peacefully. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Cravaack urged support for his amendment: ?Make no mistake, funding for government programs and nonprofit organizations that are not critical to the functioning of core government services must be considered for cuts. With an extensive lobbying effort to portray the Institute for Peace as incredibly important to our Nation's work on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, a few U.S. officials have signed letters in its support. While I have seen evidence to the contrary, I will, for the sake of argument and respect for the handful of generals that support the Institute for Peace cede their point. However, I will note that the United States Institute for Peace grant program is entirely duplicative of existing grant programs of the United States, the private sector, and nonprofit organizations. At a time when the government must do more with less, I remain convinced the research, training, workshop holding, and humanitarian work of the United States Institute for Peace, its small staff in Afghanistan and Iraq, can be replicated by divisions or offices with the Department of Defense, the State Department, or through entities like the Peace Corps and USAID. It must.?

Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) opposed the amendment: ?I have to say it boggles my mind how we can argue one minute about whether to withdraw troops from Afghanistan or authorize the use of force in Libya and in the next minute seek to eliminate the one U.S. government institution that is dedicated to resolving such conflicts peacefully. No other institution can accomplish the mission Congress gave the USIP. No other agency has this peace-building mandate?.Under Secretary of Defense [Michele] Flournoy, talking about one specific example in Iraq where ``The USIP helped tribal and local government leaders forge a groundbreaking agreement viewed by local leaders and military officials as a turning point toward peace and stability in one of Iraq's most violent regions.'' I fail to understand what national interests could possibly be served by reducing the number of tools at our disposal. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 226-194. Voting ?yea? were 216 Republicans and 10 Democrats. 176 Democrats and 18 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would eliminate all federal funding for the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), which was established to help resolve international conflicts peacefully. In order for the USIP to be eliminated, however, the Senate would have to vote to repeal it as well. Since the Senate had not voted to defund USIP, it continued to operate.


WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Lost
Roll Call 369
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have reduced federal funding for missile defense systems by $100 million.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) that would have reduced federal funding for missile defense systems by $100 million. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Sanchez urged support for her amendment: ??My Republican colleagues increased the funding of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense [missile defense] system by $100 million. My amendment would simply take out that $100 million and give it towards savings for our country to bring down the deficit. We Democrats support progress on homeland missile defense. We want to see that the technology is proven and reliable, and that it is cost effective. However, additional funds for the GMD [missile defense] are not needed and would be wasteful. The head of the Missile Defense Agency, the director, General O'Reilly, has stated that he does not need the increase in these funds for fiscal year 2012. In fact, in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee at a hearing on April 15, he said: `Right now, sir, I've got the funding I need to address this problem,' meaning some of the failure problems we have, `because I've stopped my production line. My production line was stopped not to save money. It is solely driven by what we need to confirm the design works before we go back into production.'?

Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) opposed the amendment: ?These are dollars that are needed, and the threat that we have is increasing. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system is the only missile defense system that we have that currently protects the American people from long-range ballistic missile threats, a threat that is increasing. This is a program that has had successive cuts in the past. In fiscal year 2010, the [Obama] administration slashed GMD by 35 percent or $445 million in the same year that program had setbacks. This year's fiscal year 2012 request cuts GMD by 14 percent, or $185 million. The department's 5-year spending projection cuts Ground-based Missile Defense by an additional billion, or nearly 20 percent. This is a program that is having setbacks, but it is the only program that we have. We can't cut it and expect to fix it. We can't cut it and expect it get it right.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 184-234. Voting ?yea? were 169 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 15 Republicans. 218 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have reduced federal funding for missile defense systems by $100 million.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 368
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have eliminated $150 million in federal funding for Navy warships known as ?LHA 7s?

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) that would have eliminated $150 million in federal funding for Navy warships known as LHA 7s. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Ellison urged support for his amendment: ?Congress must reassess our budgetary priorities. We should not be in the business of needlessly increasing defense spending while simultaneously cutting spending for critical services that Americans depend upon. Without my amendment, Congress will needlessly approve $150 million for the LHA 7 amphibious warship program. Now, let me be clear. I'm not against such a program in its own right, but I am against authorizing this funding for FY12 because the Government Accountability Office and the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower said we shouldn't do it. And they have very good reasons for coming to that conclusion?. according to the Government Accountability Office report?these funds won't even be used in fiscal year 2012. The report states that contractor delays and labor shortages `will likely have implications on the ability of the shipbuilder to start construction of LHA 7 as currently planned.'?

Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) opposed the amendment: ?Put simply, the gentleman's amendment would further delay the funding of a ship that our Navy and Marine Corps wants and needs?.My colleague mentioned, by the way, the GAO [Government Accountability Office] report. The Navy strongly disagrees with the GAO report that the gentleman has pointed to. The Navy has the shipbuilder's proposal in hand and at this point is working to complete negotiations to get this ship under contract this year, which may happen as soon as August?.It seems to me, as a Member of Congress, that we need to support programs and policies that enable our men and women in uniform to get the best possible equipment at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. The gentleman's amendment does just the opposite. This amendment also jeopardizes American jobs. Nearly 3,500 shipbuilders depend on the ship for work. Cuts to this ship's funding, delays in contracting, and political gamesmanship put these jobs at risk.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 176-241. Voting ?yea? were 164 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 12 Republicans. 220 Republicans and 21 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $150 million in federal funding for Navy warships known as LHA 7.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 367
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would eliminate the ?Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund? ? a fund from which members of Congress could funnel money to local projects in their congressional districts.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would eliminate the ?Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund? ? a fund from which members of Congress could funnel money to local projects in their congressional districts. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

The Mission Force Enhancement Fund, which originally totaled $1 billion, had received considerable scrutiny from critics who argued it was fiscally irresponsible and lacked transparency. CNN?s Cole Deines reported: ?The defense bill?includes a back-door fund that lets individual members of Congress funnel millions of dollars into projects of their choosing?.Under the cloak of a mysteriously-named ?Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund,? Congress has been squirreling away money -- like $9 million for ?future undersea capabilities development,? $19 million for "Navy ship preliminary design and feasibility studies,? and more than $30 million for a ?corrosion prevention program.?"

Flake urged support for his amendment: ?I understand that members want to retain the ability to move money around to areas they feel are underfunded and that should receive additional funding. However, if the committee was able to identify $1 billion in savings, I think it ought to put that savings toward decreasing?the cost of the underlying bill. We have to make tough choices all around in this budget, and Americans across the country are making tough choices with their budget. But to identify a billion dollars in savings, then to move it into a new fund and then allow members to designate their own priorities?I am just not sure what this is all about?.there was a news article a couple of days ago that said that some people think this is some kind of slush fund designed to provide members with a pot of money from which they can transfer money to fund their own projects.?

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) opposed the amendment: ?Resources from this fund will be used to power programs vital to our homeland defense such as Navy shipbuilding, strike aircraft, and ballistic missile defense?I must repeat my concerns about stripping money from our troops and sending it back to the Treasury. I know how important deficit reduction is. We do need to focus on that, but we have stressed very strongly, we will look at everything that the Pentagon spends, we will go through it with a fine-tooth comb?I strongly oppose any amendment that would reduce the defense top line [overall funding for Defense Department programs]. And while I support Mr. Flake, as we all endeavor to get our spending under control, I must oppose this amendment, as it would strip our fighting force of the tools they need to get the job done and to keep America safe.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 269-151. Voting ?yea? were 157 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 112 Republicans. 122 Republicans and 29 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would eliminate the ?Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund? ? a fund from which members of Congress could funnel money to local projects in their congressional districts. Thus, the fund was entirely eliminated from the underlying defense bill.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 365
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have reduced the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000 over five years.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have reduced the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000 over five years. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Polis urged support for his amendment: ?Given our looming fiscal crisis and record deficits, it's critical that we look at smart spending cuts in a responsible way that doesn't hurt our national security--in fact, the budget deficit and our huge national debt are a threat to national security by making us economically beholden to foreign powers--and I propose an amendment that would do just that?.Our European allies?are some of the richest countries in the world. So why are we subsidizing their defense spending? Our European allies have enjoyed a free ride on the American dime for years now. The average American spends over $2,500 on defense; the average European $500. If Europe, itself, has made the decision it can afford to spend less on defense, shouldn't we be confident that we can spend less on their defense as well??

Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) opposed the amendment: ?The gentleman [Rep. Polis] is correct that this is a time of deficits and concerns about spending, but he is not correct that this doesn't hurt our national security. He also states that our troops in Europe are not needed, and that is absolutely not the case. Those troops that are there not only protect us and our European allies, but they also are essential to the operations that we're supporting around the globe, including the important operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq?.The essential problem with this amendment is that it's arbitrary. Our troop strengths are based on extensive studies. There are whole books written about how you look to assessing threats, how you look to our overall assets, how you support the capabilities that we have in supporting our national defense. These are just arbitrary numbers that have been picked as to our withdrawal from Europe.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 96-323. Voting ?yea? were 79 Democrats?including a majority of progressives--and 17 Republicans. 217 Republicans and 106 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have reduced the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000 over five years.


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 364
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have required the president to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Peter Welch (D-VT) that would have required the president to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The amendment would also have required the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a plan to withdraw U.S. troops within 60 days of the enactment of the underlying defense bill. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Chaffetz urged support for his amendment: ? Unfortunately, terrorism is not confined to the boundaries of just Afghanistan. We have to have the very best intelligence, both human and electronic. And when we have intelligence that shows that there is a clear and present danger to the United States of America, our special forces need to take out that threat. That requires deadly force. But that does not necessarily require a hundred thousand of our men and women serving in Afghanistan in what I believe has expanded into mission creep that is just allowing people to participate in nation building?.We should be proud of the fact that bringing our troops home is not putting our tail between our legs. It is victory. It is success. And we will continue to fight the fight.?

Welch argued: ??The policy that we are now pursuing, nation building in Afghanistan, is no longer the policy that is either financially sustainable nor in our best national security interests?.the threat of al Qaeda has diminished in Afghanistan; the threat of terrorism in the world has not. This is not a nation state-centered threat. It is dispersed and decentralized.?

Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA) opposed the amendment: ?We are training the Afghans to be able to take over their country, to make sure that they're going to be successful in maintaining order in that country; making sure that, as we have pushed terrorists out, those terrorists stay out. That is a long-term successful strategy--to secure, hold, build, and transition. Let's make sure that we allow that to happen. It's critical that we don't make an arbitrary transition to another strategy that we've seen in the past hasn't worked. And all of us want to make sure that we are getting our troops out of there. But we also want to make sure that those sacrifices are not in vain. And we can go back and forth about what the end result is, but the end result is that we want to make sure that we're successful there in the long term.?

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) also opposed the amendment: ?If we pull out and think that we can run a counterterrorism mission with a government that is collapsing around us and that does not support us, then we kid ourselves. That's why it is so important?to make sure that we complete the mission and we have a government that can stand so that we can begin to responsibly draw down. I think it's important we draw down [the presence of American troops in Afghanistan], but we have to do so in a responsible way.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 123-294. Voting ?yea? were 107 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 16 Republicans. 217 Republicans and 77 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the president to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 361
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have eliminated a highly controversial provision in a Defense bill that that granted the president the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces."

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) that would have eliminated a highly controversial provision in a Defense bill that that granted the president the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces." Critics of this provision argued that it amounted to an open-ended authorization for the president to pursue endless warfare in the pursuit of terrorists.

Amash urged support for his amendment: ?Section 1034 [of the underlying bill] contains, perhaps, the broadest authorization for use of military force Congress has ever considered. In doing so, it essentially delegates nearly all of Congress' constitutional war powers to the president. It expands Congress' use of force to include `associated forces,' a group the bill does not define?.associated forces don't need to be connected to 9/11. Associated forces don't need to have fought against the United States, and associated forces may even include American citizens. There is no geographical limit to the authorization. Force may be used worldwide at the President's discretion. Please join me in opposing this broad, new AUMF [authorization of use of force]. Please support amendment No. 50 [this amendment].?

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) also supported the amendment: ?This sweeping provision is dangerous. It should not be included in such a massive bill with, once again, little or no debate. It should be removed. I urge every member of the House to consider carefully the ramifications of destroying the balance of powers that exist to protect this democracy and our nation. So I urge an aye vote on this amendment.?

Rep. Allen West (R-FL) opposed the amendment: ?I think as we look across this chamber, there are very few members that have ever served on a 21st century battlefield, a 21st century battlefield that is comprised of nonstate, nonuniform belligerents who have no respect for borders or boundaries?.All?section 1034 says is that we affirm that we are engaged in an armed conflict. It has a very narrow definition. And it also looks at the global conflagration in which we are in. And it also addresses that we should be seeking to remove these belligerents off of the battlefield. I have had the experience in 2003 in Iraq. I have had the experience for 2 1/2 years in Afghanistan. And if we allow an amendment such as this to go forth, it would have precluded us from going in and killing the world's number one terrorist, Osama bin Laden.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 187-234. Voting ?yea? were 166 Democrats?including a majority of Republicans--and 21 Republicans. 214 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House voted to maintain controversial language in a defense bill that granted the president the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces."


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 360
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have established a National Office for Cyberspace to guard against cyber attacks (computer and internet-based warfare)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI) that would have established a National Office for Cyberspace to guard against cyber attacks (computer and internet-based warfare). This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Langevin urged support for his amendment: ??Last year alone, researchers recorded 662 breaches at large companies or Federal agencies that left 16.2 million records exposed. Now, this data enabled cyber criminals to prey on citizens and companies with some estimates putting the cost of cyber threats to our economy at $8 billion annually. But these threats don't just come from criminals. It's believed that there are approximately 1.8 billion attacks on our government servers every month. And the cyber incidents have targeted some of the most sensitive national security data, potentially allowing a foreign intelligence agency to gain a ``digital beachhead'' on our classified and unclassified networks. A larger investment in the security of these networks, which has already been initiated at the direction of the White House, will yield huge efficiencies for our IT systems in the long run while protecting information critical to our security.?

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) opposed the amendment: ?I oppose the amendment because I believe that this is the wrong bill and it's the wrong time to consider it?.just a few days ago the White House sent to Congress a substantial list of proposals on what it believes should be done on cybersecurity. I think the thing that makes the most sense is for us to take a little time and look at what the White House proposed, look at what the gentleman from Rhode Island has proposed, and I think there are some other suggestions out there that need to be considered and need to be in the mix. It is certainly true that some sort of organizational reform may be needed here. But if so, it extends far beyond the Department of Defense, and that is the subject of this bill??

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 172-246. Voting ?yea? were 168 Democrats and 4 Republicans. 231 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have established a National Office for Cyberspace to guard against cyber attacks.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Cyber Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 359
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would prohibit the disturbance of sunken military aircraft only if such aircraft were carrying out non-commercial missions when they were sunk

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL) that would prohibit the disturbance of sunken military aircraft only if such aircraft were carrying out non-commercial missions when they were sunk. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Current law already prohibited the disturbance of sunken military aircraft under the Sunken Military Aircraft Act, which was enacted in 2005. Under this amendment, however, the Sunken Military Aircraft Act would only apply to aircraft that were performing non-commercial duties when they were sunk.

Mack?s amendment was related to a legal dispute between Florida-based deep-sea explorers and the government of Spain over sunken treasure. The Associated Press?s Greg Bluestein reported: ?Florida deep-sea explorers asked a federal appeals court Tuesday [May 24, 2011] to overturn an earlier ruling that 17 tons of treasure recovered from a sunken Spanish galleon belongs to Spain, deepening a long-running battle over a trove worth an estimated $500 million that has unfolded not on the high seas but in federal courtrooms?.The ship, called the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes, was sunk by British warships in the Atlantic in 1804 while sailing back from South America with more than 200 people on board. Odyssey created an international splash in May 2007 when it announced that it raised more than 500,000 silver coins and other artifacts from the wreck and flew the treasure back to Tampa?.Much of Tuesday's arguments centered on whether the Mercedes was classified as a warship or merchant ship. That's an important distinction because Odyssey's attorneys argued that if the vessel was destroyed during commercial activity, Spain would have no firm claim to the property.?

Mack urged support for his amendment: ??The purpose of my amendment is a mere clarification of the Sunken Military Craft Act. The fundamental objective of the Sunken Military Craft Act was to protect sunken United States military vessels, aircraft and spacecraft. This technical correction will make clear that the term `sunken military craft' will only include vessels, warships, naval auxiliaries or other vessels on military, noncommercial service at the time they were sunk.?

Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) opposed the amendment: ?It's my understanding that this amendment draws a distinction between such vessels that were in noncommercial service versus commercial service. And although I think I understand the justification for that distinction, here is our concern with the consequence of that. It is our understanding there is pending litigation between the nation of Spain and a private venture over the disposition of rights to a sunken vessel that at least at one time--I suppose the time it was sunk--may have had some claim in the United States?.Our concern is that by taking statutory action here, we may be in some way interfering with the outcome of that litigation or the process of that litigation.?

Andrews contended that the U.S. Navy was opposed to Mack?s amendment, and urged members to vote against it: ?We have spoken to the Navy about this, and the Navy's objection is predicated upon its concern that there could be an impact on the litigation that is pending that I made reference to and possibly claims of other sovereign nations in similar situations.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 227-293. Voting ?yea? were 199 Republicans and 28 Democrats. 157 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 36 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would prohibit the disturbance of sunken military aircraft only if such aircraft were carrying out non-commercial missions when they were sunk.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
N N Lost
Roll Call 358
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have required the Defense Department to disclose data relating to the maintenance of military aircraft provided that such information would not reveal flight patterns or tactical techniques or procedures.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) that would have required the Defense Department to disclose data relating to the maintenance of military aircraft provided that such information would not reveal flight patterns or tactical techniques or procedures. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Maloney urged support for her amendment: ?It [the amendment] ensures an adequate balance between the Defense Department's appropriate need to protect tactical information while ensuring the public can learn, for example, when the military is not putting our pilots in the best maintained aircraft in the world. Just ask the parents of Jeffrey Smith, with whom I have spoken, one of 45 pilots who died in noncombat accidents in Harrier jets. The Los Angeles Times' reporter Kevin Sack pored through military investigative records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act to show military investigators believe a small shard of plastic clogged the fuel line of Smith's jet as it tore down the runway, leading the jet to crash at the end of the runway. The investigative series used the military's investigative records to show other problems with the Harrier jet, eventually winning a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. Such reporting does nothing to reveal tactical or strategic advantages to our adversaries, but it could save the lives of our pilots, and it goes a long way to ensure our airmen and women are given the very best equipment to protect our nation.?

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) opposed the amendment: ??The gentlelady [Rep. Maloney] is right, there is a possibility--however remote it might be--that we could find something in this data that may save a life. That is a possibility, but the far more likely scenario is that we will give away crucial information that could jeopardize our pilots, jeopardize our fleet, and also jeopardize the men and women that they fly to protect. We could jeopardize disclosed fleet readiness rates, critical parts failure rates, and other sensitive logistics and sustainment data that we just shouldn't be giving out.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 91-329. Voting ?yea? were 90 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 1 Republican. 234 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Defense Department to disclose data relating to the maintenance of military aircraft provided that such information would not reveal flight patterns or tactical techniques or procedures.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 357
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would require all foreign terrorism suspects to be tried in military tribunals (special trials run by the U.S. military, which do not grant suspects the same constitutional rights as suspects tried in U.S. courts).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was an amendment by Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) that would require all foreign terrorism suspects to be tried in military tribunals (special trials run by the U.S. military, which do not grant suspects the same constitutional rights as suspects tried in U.S. courts). This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

The underlying defense bill prohibited the Obama administration from transferring detainees held at the U.S. military?s Guantanamo Bay prison in to a facility in the United States. Thus, the bill effectively barred those detainees from being prosecuted in the United States. Buchanan?s amendment, however, went much further than the underlying bill by requiring all foreign terrorism suspects to be tried in such military tribunals. Thus, Buchanan?s amendment would greatly expand the use of military commissions.

Buchanan urged support for his amendment: ??My amendment requires foreign terrorists to be prosecuted and tried in military tribunals. [Under]The current policy, you have the ability to choose between a civilian court and a military tribunal. What my amendment does is it is easier to convict in a military tribunal. It is easier to protect sensitive, classified information. Foreign terrorists can be imprisoned indefinitely. Foreign terrorists are not allowed the same constitutional opportunities as U.S. citizens; and military tribunals have been used since George Washington.?

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) opposed the amendment: ?This would simply expand that bad idea and deny an even larger segment of people access to Article 3 courts [federal courts]. And it's arguable whether or not it's constitutional. Because there's a little known fact about the Constitution: It doesn't just apply to U.S. citizens; it applies to persons in the United States. So once somebody from wherever they are is in the United States, the Constitution applies to them. And simply taking them out of the justice system and putting them in what I presume would have to be the military, since they are the ones that run our military commissions, I believe would violate the Constitution in this instance, taking away the rights from a person within the United States.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 246-173. Voting ?yea? were 228 Republicans and 18 Democrats. 166 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 7 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would require all foreign terrorism suspects to be tried in military tribunals. This amendment, however, could only become law if it passed both houses of Congress. Since the Senate had not yet passed its annual Defense authorization bill, it was unclear whether it would include the language contained in Buchanan?s amendment.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Lost
Roll Call 356
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have allowed terrorism suspects detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba (a facility operated by the United States) to be transferred to the U.S. and prosecuted in U.S. courts

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) that would have allowed terrorism suspects detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba (a facility operated by the United States) to be transferred to the U.S. and prosecuted in U.S. courts. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Specifically, the underlying defense bill prohibited the Obama administration from transferring Guantanamo Bay detainees to a facility in the U.S. This provision effectively barred those detainees from being prosecuted in the United States. Rather, they would face special trials run by members of the U.S. militaryknownmilitary known as ?military commissions.?

Smith urged support for his amendment: ?The main problem I have with the underlying bill is it takes that possibility off the table and requires either a military commission or indefinite detention, and I think that is a bad and dangerous policy. Now, we have to understand that we have already tried and convicted over 400 international terrorists in our federal courts?. As we sit here right now, or as I stand here right now, we have over 300 convicted terrorists being held in prisons in the United States. There is no question that we can do this, no question that we can do it safely?.So I ask simply that we give the President all the tools in his toolbox. I support military commissions. I support indefinite detention. In certain instances that's going to be necessary, but I also support our Article 3 courts [federal courts] that have over 200 years of history, that are some of the most respected courts in the world for their ability to bring swift and fair justice to all criminals.?

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) opposed the amendment: ?His [Smith?s] amendment would allow Guantanamo detainees and other detainees to be transferred to the United States to face prosecution. I share his goal of seeking justice for victims of terrorism. However, I disagree that it's necessary to bring detainees to the United States to do so.  I feel strongly that many Guantanamo detainees and other law of war detainees overseas should be prosecuted in the military commission system instead of bringing them into the United States. We currently have multimillion-dollar facilities ready to try detainees for their war crimes at Guantanamo that are sitting empty. Additionally, Guantanamo detainees who already have habeas protection would likely be granted further constitutional rights if brought onto U.S. soil?.There is no need to bring Guantanamo or other law of war detainees into the United States.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 165-253. Voting ?yea? were 162 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 3 Republicans. 231 Republicans and 22 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed terrorism suspects detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba to be transferred to the U.S. and prosecuted in U.S. courts.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 355
May 26, 2011
On an amendment that would eliminate the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), which provides information to law enforcement relating to drug consumption, production, and trafficking.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would eliminate the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), which provides information to law enforcement relating to drug consumption, production, and trafficking. This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Flake urged support for his amendment: ??We have to get serious about this fiscal situation we are in. If we can't get serious about a program like this that's been called duplicative and wasteful, and two successive administrations, one Republican, one Democratic, have urged to either eliminate or severely reduce funding for, and yet Congress keeps coming back and providing far more money than the administration even wants for this because they know there are other programs, other agencies, other institutions that are doing this same work, if we can't save money here, I don't know where we're going to save it?Let's do something here for the taxpayer and something for our defense and intelligence and our antidrug efforts by making sure that programs that are not effective end and that funding be placed elsewhere.?

Rep. Mark Critz (D-PA) opposed the amendment: ??As we discuss the NDIC?I am concerned for the folks who are working at the NDIC, doing the great work, and am worried about them as their work and their jobs are, again, turned into a political football?.The NDIC is the only strategic drug intelligence center in the country. They offer strategic drug threat assessments, money laundering reporting, issue-based intelligence reports, support to the intelligence community and senior policymakers?.The Arizona Attorney General's Office recently sent a letter to NDIC, stating, `I wish to take this opportunity to express the appreciation of this office for all of the work NDIC has done in connection with the investigation of money laundering.' Now, when talking about money laundering and the work the NDIC is doing, the money that is made illicitly through drugs also finds its way into illicit activity and terrorism as well, so the NDIC serves as the center where all the information comes in. They produce the reports and then ship them out to all the agencies. They eliminate redundancy. That's their whole mission?.The NDIC is not duplicative. They've proven it time and time again.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 246-172. Voting ?yea? were 215 Republicans and 31 Democrats. 153 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 19 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would eliminate the National Drug Intelligence Center. This amendment, however, could only become law if it passed both houses of Congress. Since the Senate had not yet passed its annual Defense authorization bill, it was unclear whether it would include the language contained in Flake?s amendment. Thus, the NDIC continued to operate.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL War on Drugs
N N Lost
Roll Call 354
May 26, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would require the military?s rules of engagement to ?fully protect the members' [of the armed services?] right to bear arms? and ?authorize the members [of the armed services] to fully defend themselves from hostile actions.?

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Mica (R-FL) that would require the military?s rules of engagement to ?fully protect the members' [of the armed services?] right to bear arms? and ?authorize the members [of the armed services] to fully defend themselves from hostile actions.? This amendment was offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Mica urged support for his amendment: ?I usually don't get involved in armed services matters, but I did have the opportunity to visit our troops in Afghanistan in March of some weeks past?. And I said, ?When I return to Congress, what could I do to help you do a better job? What would assist you?? And every one of them said to me, Mr. Mica, could you change the rules of engagement? So I'm offering this amendment on their behalf and on behalf of all the servicemen and -women who should be able to defend themselves in hostile areas. I'm not trying to micromanage the military, but I have just a basic provision that says--and let me read it: `The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the rules of engagement applicable to members of the armed services assigned to duty in any hostile fire area''--and we have a definition for that--`shall,' and then `one, fully protect the members' rights to bear arms; and, two, to authorize the members to fully defend themselves from hostile actions.'?Please help me in arming our Armed Forces and also providing them with what I believe is the opportunity to adequately defend themselves in hostile theaters.?

Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) opposed the amendment: ?My objection, respectfully, to this amendment is it supplants the decision of the commander in the field with the judgment of the Congress. I frankly agree that there are very, very few circumstances I could imagine where we would not want our troops in the field to be fully armed to their complete comfort and satisfaction level. And so it's hard for me to imagine a circumstance where that's not the case. But it's easy for me to understand a circumstance where the person in the field who is charged with the responsibility of achieving the mission and achieving maximum protection of his or her troops should have the authority to make that decision. So my objection to this is not the intent. I think we share it. My objection is the fact that the amendment supplants the judgment of that commander in the field and replaces it with the judgment we are making here thousands of miles away based on facts that we could not possibly foresee.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 260-160. Voting ?yea? were 217 Republicans and 43 Democrats. 142 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 18 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would require the military?s rules of engagement to ?fully protect the members' [of the armed services?] right to bear arms? and ?authorize the members [of the armed services] to fully defend themselves from hostile actions.? This amendment, however, could only become law if it passed both houses of Congress. Since the Senate had not yet passed its annual Defense authorization bill, it was unclear whether it would include the language contained in Mica?s amendment.


WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 353
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have prohibited the Defense Department from making payments to any defense contractor for activities relating to the closure of the shipyard manufacturing complex located in Avondale, Louisiana.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) that would have prohibited the Defense Department from making payments to any defense contractor for activities relating to the closure of the shipyard manufacturing complex located in Avondale, Louisiana. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Richmond urged support for his amendment: ?We have a business in Avondale, Louisiana that employs almost 5,000 shipbuilders. They were spun off this year. Northrop Grumman received $1.4 billion for this company. By the way, Northrop Grumman made $530 million this quarter. So the new company, Huntington Ingalls, is closing the shipyard. And because they're closing the shipyard, the U.S. government--the taxpayers of this country--will pay them up to $310 million for closing. That's insanity?And as I met with those employees last week, they said, Congressman, we don't know if you can stop it, but the offensive part, the part that makes this very hard for us, is the fact that our tax dollars are being used to pay our employer who is giving us all pink slips.?

Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA) opposed the amendment: ?Passage of this amendment may result in the government being liable for the costs of maintaining these idle facilities. If we're looking at the total picture here, we want to make sure we are making the most efficient decision in right-sizing this industry. And after a thorough review and endorsement by the Department of Defense, the contractor's plans to wind down ship construction were approved back in 2010. This amendment seeks to prohibit payments under existing Federal law for restructuring costs associated with the transition of the Avondale shipyard. And I want to emphasize `transition' is the key word here because as the law is currently written, it allows the facility in Louisiana to potentially be reconfigured to an alternate use in the future.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 177-246. Voting ?yea? were 158 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 19 Republicans. 217 Republicans and 29 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited the Defense Department from making payments to any defense contractor for activities relating to the closure of the shipyard manufacturing complex located in Avondale, Louisiana.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Military Contractors
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 352
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have suspended the implementation of Defense Department workforce management policies intended to improve efficiency until the Defense Secretary submits a review of those policies to Congress.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) that would have suspended the implementation of Defense Department workforce management policies intended to improve efficiency until the Defense Secretary submits a review of those policies to Congress. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Andrews urged support for his amendment: ?I think we've built a bipartisan consensus around the proposition that, on a case-by-case basis over time, we should collect evidence and decide whether or not a certain function is best performed by employees of the Department of Defense or whether it is best performed on a competitive contracted-out basis.?I don't think there's a member on this floor who would oppose an efficiency initiative. But efficiency is not something that presupposes that one answer is always better than the others. And I think the record shows that we're presently living under an initiative that presupposes that contracting out is better than having federal employees perform that function. Here's the evidence: Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2010, Department of Defense services performed by contracting agencies--that is to say companies--increased from $73 billion in fiscal 2001 to $181 billion in fiscal 2010. This is an increase of 147 percent, or about 15 percent per year. During the same period of time, the cost of compensating Department of Defense civilian employees grew from $41 billion in fiscal 2001 to $69 billion in fiscal 2010, a 68 percent increase, or just under 7 percent per year. Now, I am not prejudging as to whether the decisions that make up those aggregate numbers were all right or all wrong?.But I think that kind of imbalance shows that we're not conducting the kind of careful, fact-driven, merit-driven evidentiary process that we ought to be following.?

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) opposed the amendment: ??It [the amendment] would suspend all the sourcing and workforce management policies based on all of DOD's efficiency initiatives, which is a wide gamut?. I think that, even though, as I mentioned before, I think oftentimes the Department of Defense has been wrong in some of its efficiencies, that doesn't mean they've been wrong in every situation. And one of the things that I think is a vital flaw in the gentleman's amendment is that there's no offset for the amendment to cover the reverse on the planned savings. In fact, according to the information I have been given, the cost of not implementing these efficiencies could be as much as $3 billion. That is off of the top line of the Defense budget. And I know the gentleman would agree with me that, at this particular point in time, such a huge hit to the Department of Defense would not be in the best interest of the national defense of the country.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 178-246. Voting ?yea? were 175 Democrats and 3 Republicans. 233 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have suspended the implementation of Defense Department workforce management policies intended to improve efficiency until the Defense Secretary submits a review of those policies to Congress.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 351
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have required the Defense Department to conduct an outreach program for women and minority-owned businesses prior to awarding defense contracts.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have required the Defense Department to conduct an outreach program for women and minority-owned businesses prior to awarding defense contracts. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Jackson Lee urged support for her amendment: ?It [the amendment] is simple. It is engaging, embracing. It is recognizing that all of us have our good neighbors back in our district. It is also an affirmation of the importance of the work of the United States military, and the many, many small businesses who desire to be of service. And so this amendment is simply informational, but it has a basis in success; outreach, to make sure that our small businesses around the nation have a sense of what available opportunities are there for them. It calls for renewed vigor in advocating and constructing effective policies that will make the United States the most talented, diverse, effective, and powerful workforce in the increasingly globalized economy.?

Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) opposed the amendment, arguing that it would result in a delay in the awarding of federal contracts: ??This is nothing more than a delay tactic to stop outsourcing. We need to use outsourcing where it makes sense, to utilize the benefits of reducing cost, which has the potential to help our small businesses, which I think we all support. Whether they are women-owned or minority-owned businesses, small businesses are important, and I think outsourcing does that.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 191-232. Voting ?yea? were 185 Democrats and 6 Republicans. 229 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Defense Department to conduct an outreach program for women and minority-owned businesses prior to awarding defense contracts.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Helping Small Business
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 350
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have required that any financial savings that resulted from assigning duties which had previously been carried out by contractors to federal government employees be used for deficit reduction.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) that would have required that any financial savings that resulted from assigning duties which had previously been carried out by contractors to federal government employees be used for deficit reduction. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Himes urged support for his amendment: ? The underlying text of the National Defense Authorization Act [the underlying bill] calls for the shift of certain inherently governmental functions, currently being performed by contractors, to civilian employees within the Department of Defense. My amendment is simple. It requires that any cost savings achieved by this transfer be used for deficit reduction. I'm going to say that again. Any cost savings associated with shifting work from contractors to civilian employees will get used for deficit reduction. Reaching the debt limit last week was a stark reminder of the consequences of ballooning spending throughout the federal government, including defense spending. Committing cost savings to deficit reduction is the first step toward returning to a fiscally sustainable budget.?

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) opposed the amendment: ?The reason that DOD [the Department of Defense] has an incentive to try to make these efficiencies is so that they can reprioritize and use these dollars for programs that are absolutely vital and important for the national defense of the country. To say that every time they make those savings we are going to take off of the top line of the Department of Defense will be a disincentive for the Department of Defense to make those savings.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 184-240. Voting ?yea? were 123 Democrats?including a majority of progressives--and 61 Republicans. 175 Republicans and 65 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required that any financial savings that resulted from assigning duties that had previously been carried out by contractors to federal government employees be used for deficit reduction.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 349
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have required the Defense Department to publicly disclose attempts by senior officials within the department to obtain employment at private defense contractors.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) that would have required the Defense Department to publicly disclose attempts by senior officials within the department to obtain employment at private defense contractors. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Maloney urged support for her amendment: ?This amendment is about bringing more accountability and sunshine to the $379 billion average annual defense contracting business by making a revolving door database, which already exists, publicly available. It would allow the public access to important ethics information about some DOD employees who leave to go through the resolving door to jobs in the defense contracting industry, often with companies with whom they have been negotiating billions of dollars in contracts. Current and former public servants should not be able to use their positions for private gain, and powerful defense contractors should not be able to rig the system.?

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) opposed the amendment: ?Public disclosure of this personal information serves no purpose but to infringe on the rights and the privacy of civil servants. The second point, the data required is already being reviewed by the DOD [Department of Defense] Inspector General. There's no oversight value in making it publicly available. This will only hamper the DOD's efforts to recruit talented acquisition personnel.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 176-248. Voting ?yea? were 169 Democrats?including a majority of progressives--and 7 Republicans. 229 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted ?nay. As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Defense Department to publicly disclose attempts by senior officials within the department to obtain employment at private defense contractors.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Military Contractors
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 348
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have required the Defense Department to ensure that all Defense contractors at military installations in the United States set aside 40 percent their subcontracting work for local qualified subcontractors (subcontractors within 60 miles of the military installation).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) that would have required the Defense Department to ensure that all Defense contractors at military installations in the United States set aside 40 percent their subcontracting work for local qualified subcontractors (subcontractors within 60 miles of the military installation). This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Garamendi urged support for his amendment: ?This is about local jobs for local companies. Many of us have in our districts military facilities of large and small size. All too often those facilities and the work done on those facilities, performed by contractors, often national contractors, totally ignores and provides little or no opportunity for local subcontractors. This amendment would simply require that for prime contractors on military installations across this nation they would be required to allow 40 percent of their contracts, by dollar value, to be available for local subcontractors.  Not a bad idea, it seems to me. I know that, in my area of Travis Air Force Base in Solano County, there are constant--constant--complaints from local contractors that the big boys come in, hog all the work, and leave nothing behind except a few more burgers bought at McDonald's. Not good enough. This amendment deals with that issue by providing local contractors, often Republican contractors, the opportunity to have work in their communities, and `local' is defined as within 60 miles of the base.?

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) opposed the amendment: ??I have to oppose the gentleman from California's amendment. While it is straightforward, it is bad policy, quite frankly?.You can't fence out competition. I understand that folks don't like to compete. This morning at baseball practice for the Republicans, we had a bunch of new guys out of the 87, and the coach said, Folks, all nine positions are up for competition. Well, I'm No. 2 on the depth chart. I'm not real happy about that, but it spurred me to compete better for that position. Competition works. It works for the big guys, and it works for the little guys. To arbitrarily and capriciously set a 60-mile perimeter around a military base and say 40 percent of everything has to be provided to the folks inside that is wrong-headed, so I oppose this amendment.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 168-256. 162 Democrats?including a majority of progressives--and 6 Republicans voted ?yea.? 230 Republicans and 26 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Defense Department to ensure that all Defense contractors at military installations in the United States set aside 40 percent their subcontracting work for local qualified subcontractors.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Military Contractors
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 347
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that prohibited federal agencies from requiring a company seeking a federal contract to disclose political contributions as a condition of being considered for that contract

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) that prohibited federal agencies from requiring a company seeking a federal contract to disclose political contributions as a condition of being considered for that contract. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

President Obama had been considering issuing an executive order that would require companies to disclose campaign donations as a condition for receiving government contracts. Republicans strongly opposed such a regulation, and this amendment sought to preemptively block its implementation.

Cole urged support for his amendment: ??Last month a draft Executive order was circulated that would require companies to disclose all federal campaign contributions as a condition for submitting a bid on a federal contract. If implemented, this Executive order would effectively politicize the federal procurement process. Companies and their bids would run the risk of being judged on the basis of politics as opposed to their professional capabilities. The danger of that is obvious. It's never a good idea to mix politics and contracting. My amendment would prevent the President from implementing his proposed disclosure requirements.?

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) opposed the amendment: ?The amendment is nothing more than a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft executive order, which would provide for increased disclosure of political contributions of government contractors. The draft executive order being developed by the Obama administration would require federal contractors to disclose more information about their political contributions than they currently provide, particularly those contributions given to third-party entities.? He also argued: ?I think we have to guard our democracy, and one of the best ways to guard it is through disclosure. If folks aren't doing anything, there's nothing to be afraid of. So why do we want to hide? We need a transparent democracy. That's what this is all about: transparency.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 261-163. Voting ?yea? were 225 Republicans and 26 Democrats. 162 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that prohibited federal agencies from requiring a company seeking a federal contract to disclose political contributions as a condition of being considered for that contract.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Lost
Roll Call 346
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have authorized the Defense Department to consider domestic employment as a factor when awarding contracts to outside companies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) that would have authorized the Defense Department to consider domestic employment as a factor when awarding contracts to outside companies. (For example, the Defense Department could take into account whether awarding a contract to a certain company could result in American jobs being moved overseas.) This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Murphy urged support for his amendment: ?We have, over the last 10 years, lost 42,000 factories in this country. We have lost 5 million jobs in manufacturing. And we've had a long discussion here in this Congress over the past 3 years as to what we can do to stimulate that engine of middle class job growth and security. This amendment seeks to increase our defense industrial capacity without spending any additional money. What the amendment before us simply allows is for the federal government to be able to?the amount of jobs being created here in the United States by a particular bid for U.S. defense work. Frankly, most of my constituents think this already happens. Most of my constituents think that there is an ability for the federal government today to factor in, when awarding a particular bid, which bid is going to create more jobs here in the United States versus overseas?.This seems like common sense to me. The reason to make sure that our taxpayer dollars are spent through the Defense Department on U.S. jobs is certainly economic in nature. At 9 percent unemployment, we should be better stewards of U.S. taxpayer dollars, on making sure that to the extent possible they are spent on U.S. jobs.?
 
Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) opposed the amendment: ?I do oppose the gentleman from Connecticut's amendment on the grounds that it's really bad policy. Having spent several years working with the acquisition system, that is relatively complicated throughout the Department of Defense, to add one more layer of considerations to that system is, in my view, wrongheaded?.At the end of the day, at the beginning of the day, whatever part of the day you want to talk about, acquisition by the Department of Defense should be about something this straightforward. It should be about buying the gear, the equipment, and the goods and services our warfighters need at the time they need it at a price that is appropriate for the taxpayer to pay. And while jobs get created under that circumstance, that should not be a consideration as to what the warfighter needs, how we get it, how it's acquired, and that process.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 208-212. 183 Democrats and 25 Republicans voted ?yea.? 208 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have authorized the Defense Department to consider domestic employment as a factor when awarding contracts to outside companies.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Military Contractors
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 345
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have prohibited the Defense Department from entering into ?public-private partnerships? in which work was contracted out to private companies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) that would have prohibited the Defense Department from entering into ?public-private partnerships? in which work was contracted out to private companies. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Specifically, a provision of the underlying bill lifted a suspension of such Defense-related public-private partnerships. Sarbanes? amendment would have eliminated that provision from the Defense bill (thus maintaining the prohibition).

Sarbanes urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment is designed to preserve current law with respect to the service contracts and outsourcing activity of the Department of Defense. Current law now has in place a requirement that before the Department of Defense can do more outsourcing, can do more privatization of service contracts, they have to do an inventory of the contracting activity that's already in place. And this makes perfect sense. This is really a good government proposition if you think about it. It's important enough that it was included in the 2010 Defense Authorization Act; so it is part of current law. Unfortunately, the proposed bill, the new Defense Authorization Act, would remove this requirement. And if you remove that requirement, you're really undermining the public's stake in making sure that government is functioning in an efficient manner.?

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) opposed the amendment: ?I will tell you, when it comes to the workforce, there are some people who don't like the word ``balance.'' They either want every single employee to be a government employee and hired by the government--some on this side, some on this side--but then?there are other people who want everybody to be in the private sector. I think the beauty of this piece of legislation is it struck the right balance for the national defense of this country because it struck a balance. And it said what we realize is from every general, every admiral, everyone who testified: we can no longer do it with just all government employees; we can't do it with all military employees; we can't do it with all contract employees; but every single one of them will tell you we need that mix. The wonderful thing about this piece of legislation that this amendment tries to take away is that it creates a comprehensive approach to workforce management and a total force management, which is what we need to do, the most important thing this legislation does, which is to defend and protect the people of the United States of America.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 198-225. Voting ?yea? were 185 Democrats and 13 Republicans. 222 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited the Defense Department from entering into ?public-private partnerships? in which work was contracted out to private companies.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 344
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1540) On an amendment that would have established a pilot program to provide scholarships to military children (children of those enlisted in the U.S. military) with special education needs. The amendment allowed recipients to use these scholarships at public, private, or charter schools.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) that would have established a pilot program to provide scholarships to military children (children of those enlisted in the U.S. military) with special education needs. The pilot program would have been open to 250 children, and provided a scholarship of up to $7,500 per child. The amendment allowed recipients to use these scholarships at public, private, or charter schools. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Hunter urged support for his amendment: ?The most important assets we have in our United States military are our personnel, the men and women that we move around. They get moved around, they usually don't have a choice of where they move from base to base and camp to camp, and this amendment specifically covers those ladies and men who protect us that have special needs children?What this [amendment] would do would start a pilot program for up to 250 kids to allow them to choose whatever school fits their needs best, whether it's a private school, a charter school or public school, and to see if that helps alleviate some of the pain that the families face as they travel from base to base, as they go overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan, so we can take care of their kids here at home.?

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) opposed the amendment: ??This is not what is in the best interests of the children of our servicemembers. To give them a $7,500 voucher to go get special needs education is a license for them not to get the education they need. As everyone in this body knows, the costs of special needs children can sometimes be as much as $100,000 a year to our public schools. There are some children out there who have some very, very strong needs. Fortunately, because of the IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act], the public schools in this country are 100 percent obligated to meet that need. Talk to any school superintendent who has to deal with this, it's an enormous cost, but it's also an enormous benefit to these children. They have to meet those needs, and if they don't, it is precisely the parent who has the law on his or her side to say the public school must meet that requirement.  If you give them a $7,500 voucher and send them off to whatever private school is out there, they are not subject to those same requirements. They do not have to meet that same dollar value. What you are doing is you are undermining the education for these special needs children in a way that could be very detrimental to our families.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 203-213.  Voting ?yea? were 199 Republicans and 4 Democrats. 178 Democrats and 35 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have established a pilot program to provide scholarships (which could have been used at public, private, or charter schools) to military children with special education needs.


WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Won
Roll Call 343
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1540 ) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for the procurement of the V-22 Osprey, a military aircraft that has been criticized by some Democrats as expensive and ineffective.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for the procurement of the V-22 Osprey, a military aircraft that has been criticized by some Democrats as expensive and ineffective. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for Defense Department programs.

Woolsey urged support for her amendment: ?The Osprey's mishaps have become practically the stuff of legend. It's a poster child for the excesses and inefficiencies of the military industrial complex. Its safety record is abysmal. Thirty Americans have been killed during V-22 training exercises. Most recently? during a public demonstration in New York last spring, its prop rotors knocked down tree limbs and injured 10 civilian bystanders?.The V-22 Osprey is a boondoggle. One aspect of its maintenance even includes a special lightweight paint that costs $75,000 per aircraft--and we thought $600 toilet seats at the Pentagon were a rip-off. At a time when Americans are being forced to tighten their belts, they don't want to pay $75,000 to paint a plane that has done little to keep the country safe.?

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) opposed the amendment: ?The V-22 is performing very well, previously in Iraq and right now in Afghanistan?. I don't know if any of the members are particularly interested in learning the ground truth of what's going on with the V-22 or have talked with marines or Special Operations Forces about how it's performing; but I'd suggest if they want to know the real facts, they ought to go talk to the people who really fly it because that way they will learn about what is really happening.  A month ago, I did have the opportunity to fly in the V-22 in Afghanistan, and I did talk to the pilots about how it's performing, about any maintenance issues they had, and a whole variety of things--all of which they thought was performing very, very well?.Now, the bottom line is this aircraft is saving lives; it is enabling our marines and special operators to do the mission that we've asked them to do. It is on-target as far as cost, production schedule, the rest. It is doing more than we expected, and such amendments to remove it at this stage are shortsighted at best.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 83-344.  Voting ?yea? were 75 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 8 Republicans. 228 Republicans and 106 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for the procurement of the V-22 Osprey.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 342
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1540) Legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell Policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell (DADT) policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia.

Over the objections of many Republicans, President Obama had signed into law legislation repealing DADT in 2010. The Senate had ratified the nuclear arms agreement with Russia?known as the ?New Start Treaty??that same year.

The underlying bill also contained a highly controversial provision that granted the president the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces." Critics of this provision argued that it amounted to an open-ended authorization for the president to pursue endless warfare in the pursuit of terrorists.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?I rise in support of the rule and of H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act [the underlying bill], and I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for bringing this important bill to fruition. The legislation we have demonstrates support for our troops. It is a good bill that will provide them with the tools and support they need as they protect our freedoms and our liberties.   In funding our military for 2012, we ensure our troops who are deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the world have the equipment and resources they need to succeed in their missions. There is no higher priority than advocating on their behalf, and they deserve nothing less than the best?.I support our troops, and I am proud to stand with them as they protect our freedoms.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) criticized the underlying bill because it did not reduce American military involvement in Afghanistan. He also criticized this resolution for allocating only five minutes of debate to proponents of an amendment that required the president to clarify the U.S. mission in that country. McGovern said: ?We see corruption everywhere within the Karzai government in Afghanistan, and we see the basic needs of our own communities--roads, bridges, clean water systems, education, health care, and hunger programs--cut or eliminated for lack of funds. Where does it all end? When does it all end?? We have 5 minutes to describe why the president needs to clearly lay out to Congress, to the American people, to our military men and women, and to our military families exactly how and when we will complete the accelerated transition of our military operations to the Afghan authorities?This Defense bill would give the executive branch carte blanche to fight global terrorism anywhere and by any means?That's not debate, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, it's an insult??

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 243-170. Voting ?yea? were 230 Republicans and 13 Democrats. 169 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department Programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell Policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 341
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1540) Legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell Policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell (DADT) policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

Over the objections of many Republicans, President Obama had signed into law legislation repealing DADT in 2010. The Senate had ratified the nuclear arms agreement with Russia?known as the ?New Start Treaty??that same year.

The underlying defense bill also contained a highly controversial provision that granted the president the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces." Critics of this provision argued that it amounted to an open-ended authorization for the president to pursue endless warfare in the pursuit of terrorists.


Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Our nation faces some daunting challenges: to provide adequate resources for our national defense going forward, to pay personnel and to provide promised benefits for our all-volunteer force?.The infrastructure needs of our military continue to slip further and further behind?and a backlog of needed improvements to fill vital military missions grows even greater. A strong national defense is directly related to a strong national economy and to a strong jobs outlook. national defense makes everything else that we enjoy in this country--our cherished way of life, our freedoms--possible. The underlying legislation, H.R. 1540, does a remarkable job, given all of the fiscal restraints that have been involved, in continuing to provide for our common defense.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?All Members of this House are strongly committed to protecting our national security regardless of party, region or political point of view. It has been the tradition of the House Armed Services Committee, at the staff and member level, to work in a bipartisan way to carefully craft the annual Defense authorization bill?.Given such a tradition, it comes as a surprise to see so many provisions in H.R. 1540 that attempt to repudiate and attack several of the President's national security policies: from warehousing low-level detainees for an indeterminate amount of time, to delaying the implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask-Don't Tell, to hamstringing the implementation of the bipartisan-supported New START Treaty, to seeking a so-called ``updated'' authorization for the use of military force that?gives broad authority to the executive branch to pursue military operations anywhere and for any length of time. Such changes have all the appearance of a partisan agenda.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 239-181. All 236 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted ?yea.? 181 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing annual funding for Defense Department Programs, continuing the Don?t Ask Don?t Tell (DADT) policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military, and prohibiting the Obama administration from implementing a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 340
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1216) Final passage of legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year.

Specifically, this graduate medical education bill repealed a provision of a major health care reform law (that established near-universal health care coverage in the U.S., and was signed into law by President Obama in 2010) that provided ?mandatory? federal funding for programs that provide training to medical residents. Mandatory funding is not subject to any limitations set by Congress. (Social Security and Medicare are prime examples of programs that operate on mandatory funding.) This bill would have converted the medical education initiative to a ?discretionary,? program?meaning it would be subject to limits imposed by annual spending bills. The bill also limited federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year.

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) urged support for the bill: ?This bill is not about the merits of graduate medical education or teaching health centers. Everyone agrees that there is a strong need for more primary care physicians in our health care system, but picking and choosing one program over another to receive automatic funding is irresponsible. Making these programs mandatory spending is unfair to all of the other health care programs that have to compete every year to continue to receive funds?.We are $14.3 trillion in debt, and our deficit for this year will approach $1.5 trillion. Congress is making difficult decisions about which programs to fund and which to reduce. We must prioritize, and I find it unfair that some programs are completely shielded and do not have to prove their merit to earn continued funding.?

Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) opposed the bill: ? It's hypocritical for my Republican colleagues to take away this funding. They continue to argue that there are not enough physicians to provide care to people who need them in primary care services. This program is designed to help address this very problem. But they keep trying to have it both ways in health reform debate, and this is just another example?.Turning the health center program into a discretionary one will make it challenging for these 11 programs that have already made the decision to participate in consultation with key stakeholders, like teaching hospitals and their boards, and based on the expectation that continued funding will be available. Converting this program to discretionary funding will also deter other entities from making the business decision necessary to expand residency training, since funding over the next few years could be subject to the annual appropriations fight. This is yet another political stunt by the majority to attempt to defund health reform--this, through their playing games with funds dedicated to ensure that we have physicians in our country.

The House passed this bill by a vote of 234-185. Voting ?yea? were 231 Republicans and 3 Democrats. 181 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year. The Senate, however, was unlikely to bring up this bill. Thus, the graduate medical education program remained intact.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
N N Lost
Roll Call 339
May 25, 2011
(H.R.1216) On a motion that would have required that medically underserved communities be given priority with respect to federal funding for graduate medical education.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required that medically underserved communities be given priority with respect to federal funding for graduate medical education. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year.

Specifically, this underlying graduate medical education bill repealed a provision of a major health care reform law (that established near-universal health care coverage in the U.S., and was signed into law by President Obama in 2010) that provided ?mandatory? federal funding for programs that provide training to medical residents. Mandatory funding is not subject to any limitations set by Congress. (Social Security and Medicare are prime examples of programs that operate on mandatory funding.) This bill would have converted the medical education initiative to a ?discretionary,? program?meaning it would be subject to limits imposed by annual spending bills. The bill also limited federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year.

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?I oppose this [underlying] bill because we need to be training more primary care doctors, not fewer; but at a minimum, we must ensure that the nation's neediest areas have access to the doctors they need. This final amendment [motion to recommit] will ensure that training programs in the areas most in need of primary care doctors are to be prioritized for funding. This is common sense. My district, like so many others represented in this body, has some very rural communities. In many areas, families have to drive for dozens of miles to reach the nearest doctor. People who live in remote communities, like Brittons Neck and Salters, travel great distances in search of primary care, and many don't have public or private transportation. This is not just an abstract debate about compassion. For many people, it is literally a matter of life and death.?

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) opposed the motion to recommit: ?On the underlying bill, what's interesting is that this bill only takes this program back to the way it was passed out of the House in the health care bill. We are doing exactly what the [former Democratic] majority passed out of the House. It changed to a mandatory program in the Senate [health care bill], and was adopted when it came back from the Senate [for a final vote]. So, if this program is so important that it has to be mandatory funding as they say it has to be, why didn't they do it when they debated the health care bill before and include the provision that is in this motion to recommit? As a matter of fact?[the health care law] authorizes changes in medical education in hospitals, teaching hospitals, children's hospitals, nurses' programs, geriatric programs, pediatric programs. There are all sorts of them, and none of them have the provision that this motion to recommit wants to put on this program?.I ask my colleagues to vote against this motion to recommit.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 184-236. Voting ?yea? were 183 Democrats and 1 Republican. 234 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have required that medically underserved communities be given priority with respect to federal funding for graduate medical education.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 338
May 25, 2011
(H.R. 1216) On an amendment that barred federal funding for graduate medical education from being used to train physicians to perform abortions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) that barred federal funding for graduate medical education from being used to train physicians to perform abortions. This amendment was offered to legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year.

Foxx urged support for her amendment: ??Approximately 50 million children have been aborted in the United States. This is a tragedy. According to a CNN poll last month, more than 60 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortion. This number includes many of my constituents and is consistent with my strong pro-life convictions?.This amendment ensures that the grants being provided to teaching health centers are not being used to perform elective abortions and makes it crystal clear that taxpayer money is not being used to train health care providers to perform abortion procedures?.The unborn are the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society and their right to life must be protected. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.?

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) opposed the amendment: ? Ensuring that doctors and nurses are fully trained in abortion procedures is essential to ensuring that they can be providing lifesaving care when abortion is a medically necessary procedure to save the life of a pregnant woman. Now, most pregnancies, thank goodness, progress safely. But sometimes there's an emergency. And sometimes a medical abortion is necessary to protect a woman's health or life. For example?in cases of preeclampsia, hemorrhage, and severe pulmonary hypertension, or bleeding placenta previa, which can be fatal if left untreated, an abortion is a life-saving procedure. In addition, in managing a miscarriage, sometimes an abortion procedure is essential to saving the woman's life. Now, under this amendment, virtually any type of health care facility could face the loss of funding if they needed to provide abortion care in an emergency situation. And moreover? residents need to be trained in how to handle these very complicated conditions that could necessitate an abortion.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 234-182. Voting ?yea? were 221 Republicans and 13 Democrats. 172 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result the House agreed to an amendment that would have barred federal funding for graduate medical education from being used to train physicians to perform abortions.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
N N Lost
Roll Call 337
May 24, 2011
(H.R. 1216) On an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office (GAO, which conducts studies and investigations on behalf of Congress) to conduct a study on the impact of federal funding for graduate medical education on physician shortages

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) that would have required the Government Accountability Office (GAO, which conducts studies and investigations on behalf of Congress) to conduct a study on the impact of federal funding for graduate medical education on physician shortages. This amendment was offered to legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year. 

[Specifically, the underlying graduate medical education bill repealed a provision of a major health care reform law (that established near-universal health care coverage in the U.S., and was signed into law by President Obama in 2010) that provided ?mandatory? federal funding for programs that provide training to medical residents. Mandatory funding is not subject to any limitations set by Congress. (Social Security and Medicare are prime examples of programs that operate on mandatory funding.) This bill would have converted the medical education initiative to a ?discretionary,? program?meaning it would be subject to limits imposed by annual spending bills. The underlying bill also limited federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year.]

Cardoza urged support for his amendment: ?Countless studies have demonstrated a serious and growing shortage of health professionals facing the United States--most critically a shortage of primary care physicians and dentists. However, where I come from, there is a shortage of specialties as well. With an existing shortage well established and an aging population increasing, our country desperately needs investments in the health care workforce, not rescissions. In my home state of California alone there are 567 designated health professional shortage areas, which include a population of more than 3.8 million medically underserved individuals. In California's San Joaquin Valley, there are already fewer than 87 primary care physicians for 100,000 patients of population. The doctor/patient ratio in my region is not getting better; it is getting significantly worse. That is why I have consistently advocated for the need to improve access to care and address this vital shortage.?

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) opposed Cardoza?s amendment: ??I don't think that moving an authorized and mandatory spending program to an authorized and discretionary spending program renders that program meaningless. If it does do that, then all the other programs that I have listed earlier in the debate--training in general hospitals, training in children's hospitals, training in behavioral education and health, training in nurse retention, training in nurse practitioners--that means that those programs that were in the health care act would not have as much strength as well. And so the comment that by moving this from one part of the budget to the other makes it meaningless, to me, is just not accurate.?

The House rejected Cardoza?s amendment by a vote of 182-232. Voting ?yea? were 180 Democrats and 2 Republicans. 229 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on the impact of federal funding for graduate medical education on physician shortages.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
HEALTH CARE Funding for Rural Hospitals
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
HEALTH CARE Native American Health Care
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 336
May 24, 2011
(H.R. 1216) On an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office (GAO?which conducts investigations, audits, and studies on behalf of Congress) to determine the impact of limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year on the number of primary care physicians that could be trained.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) that would have required the Government Accountability Office (GAO?which conducts investigations, audits, and studies on behalf of Congress) to determine the impact of limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year on the number of primary care physicians that could be trained. This amendment was offered to legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year.

Specifically, the underlying graduate medical education bill repealed a provision of a major health care reform law (that established near-universal health care coverage in the U.S., and was signed into law by President Obama in 2010) that provided ?mandatory? federal funding for programs that provide training to medical residents. Mandatory funding is not subject to any limitations set by Congress. (Social Security and Medicare are prime examples of programs that operate on mandatory funding.) This bill would have converted the medical education initiative to a ?discretionary,? program?meaning it would be subject to limits imposed by annual spending bills. The underlying bill also limited federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year.

Tonko urged support for his amendment: ??My amendment is very simple. It requires that we find out exactly how many primary care physicians we will lose if Republicans succeed in cutting teaching health centers across the country. My amendment commissions the Government Accountability Office to report on these findings so that the American people can see how drastically these cuts will eliminate jobs and will hurt the quality, access and affordability of primary care health options. I am interested to know? if some of my Republican colleagues are aware that, if H.R. 1216 is adopted, there will be fewer primary care doctors working in their communities. For example, this bill cuts funding for 23 physicians at the teaching health center in the heart of Scranton, Pennsylvania. These 23 individuals are being trained to provide basic health care for constituents in the greater Scranton area.?

Rep. Guthrie (R-KY) opposed the amendment: ?I oppose the general premise that a program must have mandatory funding in order to be effective. This type of thinking has led us to massive budget deficits as far as the eye can see?.It seems to me that some people's solutions to reining in the discretionary ledger of our Federal budget is to simply shift programs from discretionary to mandatory and let the spending cruise on auto pilot. That is not responsible governing. In a time of $1.5 trillion annual deficits, we must make spending priorities. However, setting priorities involves tough choices. The people that oppose this bill do so because they are unwilling to make the tough choices on what programs the federal government should fund and what they should not.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 186-231. Voting ?yea? were 181 Democrats and 5 Republicans. 229 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office to determine the impact of limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year on the number of primary care physicians that could be trained.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 334
May 24, 2011
(H.R. 1216, H.R. 1540) Legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year, as well as a separate bill that provided annual funding for Defense Department programs ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year, as well as a separate bill that provided annual funding for Defense Department programs.

The underlying graduate medical education bill repealed a provision of a major health care reform law (that established near-universal health care coverage in the U.S., and was signed into law by President Obama in 2010) that provided ?mandatory? federal funding for programs that provide training to medical residents. Mandatory funding is not subject to any limitations set by Congress. (Social Security and Medicare are prime examples of programs that operate on mandatory funding.) This bill would have converted the medical education initiative to a ?discretionary,? program?meaning it would be subject to limits imposed by annual spending bills. The bill also limited federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year.

In addition to providing for House consideration of the medical education bill and the Defense bill, this resolution also provided for a ?same-day rule? (see explanation of a ?same-day rule? below) that allowed for expedited consideration of legislation extending the controversial government surveillance law known as the ?Patriot Act.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued that funding graduate medical education through discretionary spending was the more fiscally responsible approach: ?Discretionary spending allows Members of Congress the opportunity to be wise stewards of the taxpayers' money by not funding ineffective or duplicative programs. On the contrary, mandatory spending operates irrespective of congressional appropriations and must be spent whether we have the money or not. The most recognized mandatory spending programs are Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security which operate on autopilot and have not been subject to congressional oversight from year to year as funds automatically stream from the treasury to anyone who qualifies for a particular benefit.

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA) criticized the underlying graduate medical education bill: ?Unfortunately, the bill before us would call all of this into question. If this bill were enacted, we would no longer have the pipeline of primary care providers to meet demand and we would continue the status quo, which for too many is either foregoing care or seeking care in the emergency room. This perpetuates the onset of chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. This is increasing costs and costing lives.?

Foxx also praised the underlying Defense bill: ?Not only does this bill ensure that our troops are properly equipped, but it also provides the men and women of the military and their families with the resources and support they need, deserve, and have earned. The fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act takes a detailed approach to ensuring that the investments in our national security are in line with our fiscal priorities and realities.?
 
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) opposed the underlying Defense bill because it sought to continue the military?s Don?t Ask Don?t Tell policy, which banned gays from serving openly in the armed forces. President Obama had signed legislation repealing that law in 2010. Polis argued: ?Don?t Ask, Don't Tell requires brave men and women in our military to live in constant fear of being dismissed for an aspect of their personal lives that has no bearing on their job performance. It's a law that serves no purpose. It's a law that hinders our military's effectiveness. It's a law that Congress has already voted to appeal[repeal]. And it's a law, frankly, that's un-American. Yet here we are, again, considering a bill that would continue to codify discrimination. We should not go back to those dark days, and we will not go back.?

[Normally, the House Rules Committee passes a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments may be offered to bills. The full House then votes on that resolution. Following passage of the resolution, the chamber begins debate on the underlying bill. House rules, however, prohibit the full House from voting on such a resolution until the day after it passes the Rules Committee. In order for the House to pass a resolution on the same day it was passed by the committee, it must receive a two-thirds majority vote.

Occasionally, the House circumvents this requirement by passing what is known as a ?same-day rule.?  A same-day rule is a resolution that waives the two-thirds majority vote requirement, and allows for passage with a simple majority vote. Under this procedure, the House first passes the same-day rule (which waives the two-thirds majority vote requirement). Following the vote on the same day rule, the House then passes the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments to the underlying bill. After passing that resolution, the House can begin debate on the underlying bill. Democratic leaders used this ?same-day rule? procedure for legislation extending the Patriot Act.]

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 238-181. Voting ?yea? were 232 Republicans and 6 Democrats. 180 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year, as well as a separate bill that provided annual funding for Defense Department programs. As an additional result, the House approved a ?same-day rule? allowing for expedited consideration of the government surveillance law known as the Patriot Act.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
N N Lost
Roll Call 333
May 24, 2011
(H.R. 1216, H.R. 1540) Legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year, as well as a separate bill that provided annual funding for Defense Department programs ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year, as well as a separate bill that provided annual funding for Defense Department programs. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

The underlying graduate medical education bill repealed a provision of a major health care reform law (that established near-universal health care coverage in the U.S., and was signed into law by President Obama in 2010) that provided ?mandatory? federal funding for programs that provide training to medical residents. Mandatory funding is not subject to any limitations set by Congress. (Social Security and Medicare are prime examples of programs that operate on mandatory funding.) This bill would have converted the medical education initiative to a ?discretionary,? program?meaning it would be subject to limits imposed by annual spending bills. The bill limited federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year.

In addition to providing for House consideration of the medical education bill and the Defense bill, this resolution also provided for a ?same-day rule? (see explanation of a ?same-day rule? below) that allowed for expedited consideration of legislation extending the controversial government surveillance law known as the ?Patriot Act.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) urged support for the resolution and the underlying graduate education measure: ?H.R. 1216 restores congressional oversight to federal spending by ending the autopilot spending for physician residency programs at teaching health centers and restoring it to the annual appropriations process. When a program is put on autopilot, Congress abdicates its authority to unelected bureaucrats and takes a hands-off approach. House Republicans are committed to ending that approach to federal spending and ensuring that government programs are accountable for how they are spending money. No longer will we accept politically popular excuses. Each program must prove that it is a wise steward of taxpayer dollars. If Congress will not address out-of-control spending now, we are passing the buck to our children and grandchildren.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) opposed the resolution and the underlying bills. With respect to the underlying graduate medical education measure, he said: ?Now, everyone knows there is a shortage of primary care physicians in this country. Why, then, do Republicans want to undercut efforts to bring physicians into areas of desperate need?...Making these funds discretionary does nothing to help our constituents who are struggling to obtain primary care. Making this program discretionary will deter other entities from making business decisions necessary to expand residency training??

Foxx also praised the underlying Defense bill: ?One need not look too far back in history to find words that remind us of our responsibility to provide for the common defense. President Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, promised to `check and reverse the growth of government,' but also to `maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we will have the best chance of never having to use that strength.' That message? still holds true today.?

McGovern opposed the underlying Defense measure: ?All Members of this House are strongly committed to protecting our national security--regardless of party, region, or political point of view. It has been the tradition of the House Armed Services Committee, at the staff and member level, to work in a bipartisan way to carefully craft the annual defense authorizations bill?But given such a tradition, it comes as a surprise to see so many?that attempt to repudiate and attack several of the president's national security policies. From warehousing low-level detainees [terrorism suspects] for an indeterminate amount of time, to delaying the implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell [which banned gays from serving openly in the military, to hamstringing the implementation of the bipartisan-supported New START Treaty [a nuclear weapons reduction agreement between the U.S. and Russia]?such changes have all the appearance of a partisan agenda.?

McGovern also opposed the portion of the resolution which provided for expedited consideration of legislation extending the Patriot Act: ?The Senate is currently debating this reauthorization, and the Republicans feel it necessary to?jam this bill through this House as soon as the Senate is done with it. This is no way to debate legislation dealing with our homeland security and basic civil rights and civil liberties. This is an important issue. Members need time to be able to understand all of the implications of the Patriot Act.?

[Normally, the House Rules Committee passes a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments may be offered to bills. The full House then votes on that resolution. Following passage of the resolution, the chamber begins debate on the underlying bill. House rules, however, prohibit the full House from voting on such a resolution until the day after it passes the Rules Committee. In order for the House to pass a resolution on the same day it was passed by the committee, it must receive a two-thirds majority vote.

Occasionally, the House circumvents this requirement by passing what is known as a ?same-day rule.?  A same-day rule is a resolution that waives the two-thirds majority vote requirement, and allows for passage with a simple majority vote. Under this procedure, the House first passes the same-day rule (which waives the two-thirds majority vote requirement). Following the vote on the same day rule, the House then passes the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments to the underlying bill. After passing that resolution, the House can begin debate on the underlying bill. Republican leaders used this ?same-day rule? procedure for legislation extending the Patriot Act.]


The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 233-179. All 230 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted ?yea.? 179 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation limiting federal funding for graduate medical education to $46 million per year, as well as a separate bill that provided annual funding for Defense Department programs. (This resolution also provided for expedited consideration of the government surveillance law known as the Patriot Act.)


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Government Surveillance of Citizens
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 328
May 13, 2011
(H.R. 754) On a motion that would have honored President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, the Navy SEALS, and the intelligence community for their contributions to the killing of Osama Bin Laden?and would also have required intelligence agencies to make the defeat of Al Qaeda their ?highest priority.?

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have honored President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, the Navy SEALS, and the intelligence community for their contributions to the killing of Osama Bin Laden?and would also have required intelligence agencies to make the defeat of Al Qaeda their ?highest priority.?. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies.

Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-NY) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?This motion to recommit?properly honors all those responsible. It appropriately commends everyone involved in the long road we took to bring bin Laden to justice--President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, our Navy SEALs, and our intelligence community?.The death of Osama bin Laden was a triumphant victory, but our work is not done. This final amendment reminds us that we cannot rest on our laurels. The threat of al Qaeda remains real and continuing. That is why in this final amendment we make clear to our intelligence community that the highest priority for funding in this bill is the disruption, dismantlement, and defeat of al Qaeda.?

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) opposed this motion to recommit: ??The first part [of the motion to recommit] was great. You said thank you very much to the folks and hid behind the great work of the men and women of the intelligence community. But then you blow up the entire intelligence bill by prioritizing of funding?.There's a priority framework in the intelligence community that sets these standards and tells the intelligence community, here are your priorities, given place, given region, given resources. That happens already. So you basically say, well, we don't believe that you ought to be doing that. We should be doing that. Wrong answer?.I recommend a strong rejection of this amendment [motion to recommit].?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 182-228. All 182 Democrats present voted ?yea.? All 228 Republicans present voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have honored President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, the Navy SEALS, and the intelligence community for their contributions to the killing of Osama Bin Laden?and would also have required intelligence agencies to make the defeat of Al Qaeda their ?highest priority.?



WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 326
May 13, 2011
(H.R. 754) On an amendment expressing the ?sense of Congress? that intelligence agencies should make rail security a priority and include funding for rail security in their annual budgets

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Carney (D-DE) expressing the ?sense of Congress? that intelligence agencies should make rail security a priority and include funding for rail security in their annual budgets. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies.

Carney urged support for his amendment: ??Over the past week, officials have announced that preliminary intelligence gathered from Osama bin Laden's Pakistan hideout shows that al Qaeda had been plotting a terrorist attack on our Nation's rail system. While roughly 1.7 million passengers ride on domestic and international flights daily, every weekday 34 million Americans ride on trains and transit systems. The issue of rail security is more relevant now than ever. And I'm here today to argue for making rail security a national intelligence priority. On March 11, 2004, nearly 200 people were killed in Madrid as a result of a terrorist bombing while riding the commuter rail to work. In 2005, over 50 people were killed and 700 injured on the London transit system in a series of explosions during the morning rush hour. An attack on our rail system here in the United States would be devastating. It would almost certainly result in the loss of life.?

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) opposed the amendment: ?While I agree with the need for strong security in the railway sector, I just don't believe this amendment is best suited for the Intelligence authorization bill, as it seems to address the policy issues that are not authorized or otherwise addressed in the FY11 [fiscal year 2011] Intelligence authorization bill. The intelligence community does not have transportation security plans or transportation security budgets, nor do individual intelligence community agencies. In order to meet the requirement of this, they would have to restructure themselves to bring in the right people to do the plans for security for the railway.?given the time pressures on our intelligence community to stop real-time threats and pass that information on to people in the TSA and others, I would argue that this is an amendment that we should all oppose...?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 221-189. Voting ?yea? were 181 Democrats and 40 Republicans. 187 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment expressing the ?sense of Congress? that intelligence agencies should make rail security a priority and include funding for rail security in their annual budgets.


ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
Y Y Won
Roll Call 325
May 13, 2011
(H.R. 754) On an amendment that would have required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to the House and Senate intelligence committees on human rights violations committed by Argentina?s military government during the 1970s and 1980s.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) that would have required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to the House and Senate intelligence committees on human rights violations committed by Argentina?s military government during the 1970s and 1980s. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies.

Hinchey urged support for his amendment: ??In 1976, amid social unrest and a deep political crisis in Argentina, a military coup installed one of the cruelest dictatorships South America has ever seen. Illegal detentions, torture, and summary executions of dissidents became routine?.Over the years, as the victims of the repression increasingly went missing, a new tactic of the Argentine security forces was revealed. It is estimated that 30,000 people disappeared in Argentina between 1976 and 1985. Many of these victims, known as `the disappeared,' were abducted. They were tortured and then dropped far out into the ocean?.This amendment that I am offering would direct the Director of National Intelligence to report to the House and Senate Intelligence panels on information it has regarding the human rights violations of the military government in Argentina and also seeks to help shed light on the unknown fate of the Argentine children who were born in captivity?.Thousands of families have waited more than 30 years to learn the fate of their loved ones, and today we have an opportunity to make a significant contribution to truth and justice and help bring to a close this troubling chapter in Argentina's history.?

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) opposed this amendment: ?I certainly can sympathize with the gentleman's intention to try to bring some closure for families in this particularly difficult issue in Argentina, and it may certainly result in some information to those who are conducting maybe historical research and analysis and certainly to mend the wounds that have been created in this particular situation. It would also do something, I think, equally damaging to today's effort in the war on terror. It would divert the intelligence community from its mission of protecting the United States and our interests from current threats?.There are too many threats in too many places for our people to handle it. And what this amendment does, although it is very well intended, it takes resources away to apply it to a problem that is 20 to 30 years old. I am sorry, we just don't have that luxury today.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 194-214. Voting ?yea? were 176 Democrats and 18 Republicans. 207 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to the House and Senate intelligence committees on human rights violations committed by Argentina?s military government during the 1970s and 1980s.


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 324
May 13, 2011
(H.R. 754) On an amendment that required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to Congress outlining a plan to consolidate U.S. intelligence agencies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on amendment by Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) that required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to Congress outlining a plan to consolidate U.S. intelligence agencies. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies.

Gibson urged support for his amendment: ??I will tell you that, particularly, my experiences in Iraq commanding an airborne infantry battalion task force?I saw firsthand the virtues of intel and operations being fused for successful operations.  And so what concerns me today is the fact that since the 11th of September, we've had significant growth in the intel community to address various concerns. And what I think we need to do now is pause, reflect, and look for ways to consolidate all that growth so that we can continue to have effective intel operations in a manner that's consistent for Republicans, and one that we can afford.  So what I offered is actually a very simple amendment. It asks the Director of National Intelligence to provide his recommendations on consolidation with an eye towards effectiveness and efficiency.?

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) opposed the amendment: ?I appreciate Congressman Gibson's intent. And I also want to thank him for his service in the military.?I believe we should always be looking for efficiencies to help reduce costs throughout the government. The Director of National Intelligence is conducting a similar review that will identify redundancies without sacrificing core missions. I want to see the product of those efforts before asking the DNI, Director of National Intelligence, to submit an additional report. For this reason I oppose the amendment.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 278-123. All 222 Republicans present and 56 Democrats voted ?yea.? 123 Democrats, including a majority of Republicans, voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to Congress outlining a plan to consolidate U.S. intelligence agencies.


WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
N N Lost
Roll Call 323
May 13, 2011
(H.R. 754) On an amendment that would have eliminated a provision in an intelligence bill that required an audit of U.S. intelligence programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) that would have eliminated a provision in an intelligence bill that required an audit of U.S. intelligence programs. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies.

Rogers urged support for his amendment: ?While this provision?[is] intended to promote auditability of intelligence funds, some technical issues have arisen; and I believe it was prudent to hold this over until the FY12 [fiscal year 2012] bill. It is something that I support and hope to return to the bill in FY12.?

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) argued: ?In this era of tight budgets, I believe it is our responsibility to manage every taxpayer dollar efficiently and effectively?Section 412 [the provision of the intelligence bill that was eliminated by this amendment] will allow for an accurate audit of taxpayer dollars. This important tool will save us money in the long run. We must identify programs that are not working and trim those costs. A thorough audit will help us do that. We must ensure any cuts do not negatively impact on the performance of the mission. The [Obama] administration supports section 412, and so do I.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 224-174. Voting ?yea? were 219 Republicans and 5 Democrats. 174 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that would have eliminated an audit of U.S. intelligence programs.


WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
N N Lost
Roll Call 322
May 12, 2011
(H.R. 754) Legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies.

The intelligence budget?which is classified?includes funding for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The bill we are discussing today authorizes the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States government for fiscal year 2011 in order to enhance the national security of the United States, to support and assist the armed forces of the United States, and to support the president of the United States in the execution of the foreign policy of the United States of America. This bill is a vital tool for congressional oversight of the classified activities of the intelligence community, and it is critical to ensuring that our intelligence agencies have the resources and authorities they need to accomplish this important work on behalf of keeping America free.?

While the vast majority of Democrats supported the underlying bill, they opposed this resolution (often referred to as a ?rule?) because it limited the number of amendments that could be offered to intelligence bill. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) said: ?I urge a `no' vote on the rule because? this is not an open rule [an ?open rule? allows for unlimited amendments]?if it were an open rule, then all members would be able to offer an amendment to the bill.?

Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) noted that the resolution allowed nine amendments, and argued that Republicans were providing a more open amendment process than had been in place when the Democrats controlled the House: ?We have nine amendments that are going to be considered under this rule and in this chamber tomorrow?. that is a direct change from the history that has been demonstrated here for years prior to us coming here. It is time that we on this side of the aisle recognize that we are going to listen to the American people.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 251-133. Voting ?yea? were 230 Republicans and 21 Democrats. 133 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies.


WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
N N Lost
Roll Call 321
May 12, 2011
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 320
May 12, 2011
(H.R. 1231) Final passage of legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas).

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, which in turn had contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster. 

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) urged support for this bill: ??The Americans suffering from $4 a gallon gas today, $5 a gallon gas next month must feel like they're experiencing a sense of deja vu. It was just three short years ago, in 2008, when gasoline prices reached a record high of $4.11 per gallon. Those high prices cut deep into the pockets of Americans that summer and generated enough public outcry to force Congress to act?.Now American families and businesses are once again facing $4 gasoline, as I said, $5 the first of June; and we're no further ahead in expanding American energy production than we were 3 years ago. That's outrageous and unacceptable. The House has already passed two bills to increase offshore energy production, create jobs, and lower prices. Today, we will vote on a third offshore drilling bill, H.R. 1231, in order to reverse the moratorium that President Obama has single-handedly placed on new offshore drilling. This bill requires the administration to move forward with offshore lease sales in areas containing the most oil and natural gas.?

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) also supported the bill: ??As record high gas prices are causing American families to suffer in their daily routines, like buying groceries at the grocery store and driving to work each morning, it is inexcusable that this liberal administration continues to turn its back on the problem. Just last month, Americans spent around $368 on average just to fill their tanks, about the same amount a family would spend on groceries for 2 weeks. Yet the Democrats' only solution to the pain at the pump is to raise taxes on domestic oil producers, and they've already admitted that it will not lower gas prices. I fully support?[the bill], a real proposal which would lift the president's ban on offshore drilling and get the ball rolling on domestic energy production. I urge my Democrat colleagues to pass this bill because both our cars and our economy should be running on American resources, not on their empty promises. Pass this bill to create American jobs and a strong American economy.

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) opposed the bill: ? It's unconscionable that we're voting today to expand offshore drilling even before stronger safeguards can be put in place, to mandate new leasing off the economically important coastlines of southern California, Alaska, and the entire eastern seaboard, each time these waters are open to drilling. And it's cynical to claim that more drilling will relieve high gas prices. More drilling only means more profits for the oil industry, not lower costs at the pump. We all know oil companies hardly need a boost right now. They're receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and reaping record profits. On top of that, the oil industry is already drilling more than ever before. For example, offshore production has increased by more than a third in the last 2 years, and the gulf produced 1.6 million barrels of oil per day last year, an all-time record. Yet, despite all that drilling, gas prices continue to soar, and the reason is clear: More drilling here in the U.S. has little effect on the global oil market.?

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) also opposed the bill: ?H.R. 1231 would force the Interior Department to open up vast swaths of the American coastline to drilling, including California and all of the Mid and North Atlantic. It is incomprehensible that the majority would take such a reckless radical step before we even know the full cost of the gulf spill. Let's be smart. This bill in particular represents something worse than the pre-spill mentality; it represents an alternative reality: facts evidently don't matter. Never mind the fact that, 1 year ago, 11 workers died in a Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion. Never mind that about 60 died over the last decade. Never mind the fact that, prior to the gulf spill, offshore drilling in U.S. waters was four times more deadly than drilling of the same operations, the same kinds of operations by the same companies elsewhere in the world, even in the inhospitable territory of the North Sea?.No, thank you. I prefer to live in the real world where facts matter, and where this bill could have devastating real-world consequences. I urge my colleagues, remember the spill. Vote down this bill.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 243-179. Voting ?yea? were 222 Republicans and 21 Democrats. 170 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 9 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 319
May 12, 2011
(H.R. 1231) On a motion that would have required all oil and gas produced as a result of leases authorized by an offshore oil drilling bill to be sold exclusively in the United States. (This requirement was intended to lower domestic gas prices.) The motion would also have required the Secretary of the Interior to reduce the number of ?nonproducing offshore oil and gas leases? (leases which were issued to companies, but were not being used by those companies to actively drill for oil and gas) by 50 percent by 2017.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required all oil and gas produced as a result of leases authorized by an offshore oil drilling bill to be sold exclusively in the United States. (This requirement was intended to lower domestic gas prices.) The motion would also have required the Secretary of the Interior to reduce the number of ?nonproducing offshore oil and gas leases? (leases which were issued to companies, but were not being used by those companies to actively drill for oil and gas) by 50 percent by 2017. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas).

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) urged support for this motion to recommit: ? The truth is that giving away more of the American people's offshore resources to Big Oil companies will do absolutely nothing to ease the prices at the pump. How do we know? Because the oil giants already are sitting on 11.6 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico without lifting a finger to extract it. If my colleagues really believe that more domestic drilling is the answer to high gas prices, then they should support this final amendment, which does two things: first, to encourage the oil companies to drill on the tens of millions of acres of public land they already hold so that Americans can benefit from domestic oil production before the oil companies rush to lock up more land; and second, the amendment would help to keep the oil produced within the United States of America here at home?.Oil companies are active on just 10 million of the 34 million acres under lease in the gulf.?

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) opposed this motion to recommit: ?This Democrat motion is just one more example of congressional Democrats attempting to obstruct a bill that will increase access to American energy resources?.This motion is trying to deflect criticism from the policies that have been perpetrated that block American energy production, cost jobs and raise prices. It is simply a distraction from the real work that needs to be done to increase the supply of American energy?.With this motion, the party opposite is standing for a `drill there and not here' policy?.that is not a strategy that will work to create American jobs. The underlying bill will create these jobs?.I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion. Let's pass this [underlying] bill to return these American energy resources back to where they belong, and that is to the American people.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 180-243. Voting ?yea? were 179 Democrats and 1 Republican. 231 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have required all oil and gas produced as a result of leases authorized by an offshore oil drilling bill to be sold exclusively in the United States?and would also have required the Secretary of the Interior to reduce the number of ?nonproducing offshore oil and gas leases? by 50 percent by 2017.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 318
May 12, 2011
(H.R. 1231) On an amendment that would have banned oil and gas drilling from taking place off the coast of Washington State without the approval of Washington?s governor and state legislature.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) that would have banned oil and gas drilling from taking place off the coast of Washington State without the approval of Washington?s governor and state legislature. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas).

Inslee urged support for his amendment: ?I rise to protect the beaches and shoreline and economy of the state of Washington. This amendment is quite simple. It would simply say that we will not allow the federal government to run over the State of Washington on issues of drilling off of our coastline, that we won't be shackled to this antiquated policy of drilling without first providing reasonable protection? Basically our position is we don't think in the state of Washington, or any state, and particularly the state of Washington, which is the Evergreen State, we ought to have this policy foisted upon us that is not an evergreen energy policy for this century...?

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) opposed the amendment: ??This bill is focused on increasing American-made energy, creating new jobs, and decreasing our dependence on energy from foreign nations. Congress needs to focus on increasing energy production, and this amendment goes in the opposite direction. In fact, this amendment attempts to impose unprecedented and impossible obstacles to fostering more American energy in federal waters.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 160-256. Voting ?yea? were 150 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 10 Republicans. 220 Republicans and 36 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have banned oil and gas drilling from taking place off the coast of Washington State without the approval of Washington?s governor and state legislature.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 317
May 12, 2011
(H.R. 1231) On an amendment that would have prohibited oil and gas drilling off the Northern coast of California

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) that would have prohibited oil and gas drilling off the Northern coast of California. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas).

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, and contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster. 

Thompson urged support for his amendment: ?Drilling on the north coast of California is a disastrous idea, and the legislation must be clear that it is not acceptable to drill off California's north coast?.Just about 3 weeks ago, we marked the 1-year anniversary of the nation's worst oil spill. I will not let what happened to the Gulf of Mexico happen to the north coast of California. I have introduced separate stand-alone legislation which would permanently ban drilling off the coast of my district?.?

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) opposed the amendment: ?The underlying bill is focused on opening the Outer Continental Shelf to safe and responsible energy production?.This amendment proposes to take America in exactly the wrong direction in which we should be heading. Congress should not foreclose the possibility of future energy production. With the price of gasoline going to $4 and $5 a gallon, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and keep our focus on those offshore areas that contain substantial oil and natural resources, where increased American energy production will create new jobs, lower energy prices, and increase our economic and national security.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 156-263. Voting ?yea? were 152 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 4 Republicans. 226 Republicans and 37 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited oil and gas drilling off the Northern coast of California.


 


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 316
May 12, 2011
(H.R. 1231) On an amendment that would have permanently banned oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) that would have permanently banned oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas).

Brown urged support for her amendment: ?This amendment would not have any effect on the budget?However, it would have a significant impact on the economy of Florida, given that the state's tourist industry will be protected from future oil spills which could destroy our beautiful beaches and coastal areas. Certainly, Florida's coastline is a treasure, not just for Floridians but for all Americans and people throughout the world. For years, the Florida delegation has worked together to protect our coastline and natural resources, and as long as those rigs are in this area, the potential for devastation to Florida beaches persists. If an accident was to occur causing oil to wash ashore and to Florida beaches, both the environmental and the economic damage would be devastating to the State. And following the disaster off of Louisiana's gulf coast last year, we saw a quick glimpse of what could happen to Florida's economy in the event of an oil spill.?

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) opposed the amendment: ?This amendment seeks to go backwards and single-handedly undo that agreement to close off forever the possible energy production in a portion of the Gulf of Mexico. This is exactly the wrong direction for America to be heading. Congress should not foreclose the possibility of future energy production. This is especially true in the eastern planning area of the gulf, which the Department of the Interior believes contains technically recoverable resources in the amount of 4 billion barrels of oil and over 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 134-279. Voting ?yea? were 129 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 5 Republicans. 222 Republicans and 57 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have permanently banned oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 315
May 12, 2011
(H.R. 1231) On an amendment that would have required all oil and gas companies that were issued leases for oil drilling to outline a ?worst-case scenario? oil spill stemming from the proposed oil drilling operations. The applicant would also have been required to submit a plan to contain and clean up the damage stemming from this worst-case scenario.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA) that would have required all oil and gas companies that were issued leases for oil drilling to outline a ?worst-case scenario? oil spill stemming from the proposed oil drilling operations. The applicant would also have been required to submit a plan to contain and clean up the damage stemming from this worst-case scenario. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas).

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, and contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster. 

Tsongas urged support for her amendment: ? Last summer, we all saw the painfully disorganized and ineffective response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The frustration was palpable across our country. During that tragedy, it was clear that BP and the federal government had no plan to contain the oil spill and that BP lacked the capacity to respond to a spill of that magnitude. The amendment that I am offering today is very straightforward and simple, one that seeks to implement the lessons learned from the events of last summer. My amendment would require that all applicants for a drilling permit under a lease sold under H.R. 1231 [the underlying bill] submit a plan for containment and cleanup of a worst-case scenario oil or gas spill. This amendment does not limit drilling. It says simply and sensibly that when we drill, we should have a plan in place before an accident occurs.?

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) opposed the amendment: ?The Department of the Interior already requires that applicants must calculate worst case discharge before approving a permit. On June 18, 2010, the Department of the Interior issued a notice to lessees outlining the information requirements and standards to be met before a permit would be approved. In the notice it is required that a lessee `describe the assumptions and calculations that you used to determine the volume of your worst case scenario.'?The [Democratic] minority continues to try to divert attention away from the real issue of increasing energy production, creating jobs, lowering energy costs, and improving national security by lessening our dependence on foreign oil?.Republicans want to make U.S. offshore drilling the safest in the world, and it is the safest in the world, so we can produce more American energy, create American jobs and strengthen our national security.?

Tsongas responded that the Interior Department?s June 18 notice was insufficient, and that the requirement that companies plan for a worst case scenario should be codified in legislation: ?The June 18 notice to lessees is a great first step toward having worst case scenario containment and cleanup plans. But a notice to lessees is not the same as legislation. It is not intended to set policy, and it is not intended to have the force of law, which is why I am offering this amendment today.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 195-223. Voting ?yea? were 180 Democrats and 15 Republicans. 215 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required all oil and gas companies that were issued leases for oil drilling to outline a ?worst-case scenario? oil spill stemming from the proposed oil drilling operations?and submit a plan to contain and clean up the damage stemming from this worst-case scenario.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 314
May 11, 2011
(H.R. 1231) On an amendment that would have required the Secretary of the Interior to disclose the executive bonuses for any company that was issued a lease for oil and gas drilling

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA) that would have required the Secretary of the Interior to disclose the executive bonuses for any company that was issued a lease for oil and gas drilling. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas).

Keating urged support for his amendment: ?As our constituents see soaring gas prices, oil companies have revealed record profits. The top five multinational oil companies earned over $1 trillion in the past decade. These firms are eating up more and more of our constituents' paychecks. And where is it going? Only a small portion of the profits are reinvested back into the company to pave the way for efficiencies and research into alternatives to oil. Rather, oil companies are providing bumps to stockholders and high bonuses to their company executives, a pat on the back for high prices at the pump. My amendment would provide transparency to the U.S. taxpayer. The amendment requires the Secretary to disclose the executive bonuses for any company that is given a drilling lease. The time is now to hold the largest oil companies accountable, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to provide transparency back to the American taxpayer.?

 Rep. Don Young (R-AK) opposed the amendment: ?The Department of the Interior should spend its time focusing on reviewing permits, conducting environmental safety reviews, protecting our resources and leasing offshore areas that are most prospective for oil and natural gas production. The Department shouldn't have dozens of employees sitting around reading companies' Securities and Exchange Commission filings and assembling a list of which executives got what bonus?.The information that this amendment would burden the Interior Department with gathering and publishing is already publicly disclosed. It should be made public, and that's why it already is. This amendment is not about openness and transparency of disclosing information. That's already the law. The real effect of this amendment is duplicative requirements and government waste. Let's get away from the political games and gotcha amendments.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 186-240. Voting ?yea? were 175 Democrats and 11 Republicans. 224 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Secretary of the Interior to disclose the executive bonuses for any company that was issued a lease for oil and gas drilling.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 313
May 11, 2011
(H.R. 1231) On an amendment that would have required oil companies seeking new leases for oil and gas drilling to renegotiate previous leases on which they paid no royalties

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have required oil companies seeking new leases for oil and gas drilling to renegotiate previous leases on which they paid no royalties.  This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas).
 
Markey urged support for his amendment: ??What my amendment says is that they can't apply for any more leases on taxpayers' land unless they're willing to renegotiate the mistaken leases that were given to them that, by the way, will allow them to escape having to pay $53 billion in taxes, in royalties. That's another word for taxes, `royalties.' When you're talking about oil, `royalties' is the word we use to describe taxes. This blank check to the oil industry is absolutely undeserved. The Republican approach to offshore oil royalty policy is to treat the Big Oil companies like royalty and to treat the consumers and taxpayers like peasants. They're just going to give away all these breaks to the oil industry. You know, Prince William and Kate Middleton just left on their honeymoon. Their royalty honeymoon is just beginning. But for the oil companies who are drilling for free on public land, they have a royalty honeymoon that has been going on for way too long, and today, we're going to give the members of the House a chance to end the honeymoon on the royalties that the oil industry has to pay.?

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) opposed the amendment, and pointed out that this amendment had been defeated when it was offered to past oil-related bills: ?It's ironic to me, this House has debated and voted on this amendment over the years. They've defeated it by a bipartisan vote. Just like a bad penny, it keeps showing up and the Big Oil is all bad. All I know, the American public is being taxed every year, $1,100 every year by this administration's high gas prices.  Let's review the facts. The Deepwater Royalty Relief Act [which provided for royalty-free oil drilling leases] leases were issued by, oh, boy, Bill Clinton and [former Interior Secretary] Bruce Babbitt in 1996 and 2000. Oh, my good Lord, it was the Republicans that did all this. They're [the Clinton administration] the ones that issued these leases?If this amendment passes, those holding such leases will be required to renegotiate the lease terms with DOI [Department of Interior]?Bill Clinton would turn over--no, he's not in his grave, so I can't say that?.forcing companies to renegotiate the leases would be a violation of contract law and would be challenged in court.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 189-238. Voting ?yea? were 175 Democrats and 14 Republicans. 223 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required oil companies seeking new leases for oil and gas drilling to renegotiate previous leases on which they paid no royalties.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 312
May 11, 2011
(H.R. 1231) On an amendment that would have banned oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf if such drilling would ?impede operations? of the U.S. military

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) that would have banned oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf if such drilling would ?impede operations? of the U.S. military. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas).

Connolly urged support for his amendment: ??This simple amendment clarifies that any expanded oil production will not interfere with ongoing operations by the Armed Forces of the United States?.As you know, the United States has more than two dozen coastal naval bases, including those located in Virginia, Washington, California, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, and Hawaii?.These areas are important because the military uses some of these areas for surface and subsurface training as well as practice with live ordnance. Oil wells and live ordnance don't mix so well?.The Navy wants to ensure that oil drilling in that area does not interfere with live ordnance release and impact, including air to surface bombing; sensitive undersea and surface operations; combined shipboard systems qualification trials; and equipment testing and evaluation.?

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) opposed the amendment: ??The Department of Defense never notified, never talked to us about any opposition to this legislation?.I also want to point out that gaining access to domestically available and affordable energy resources is also of paramount importance to our national security because it lessens our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Let me say that again. It must be very clear: Energy security and energy independence are a national security priority?.This amendment isn't truly aimed at protecting DOD [Department of Defense] activities. It's aimed at trying to block lease sales and stopping offshore energy and development. That's what this is about. So I congratulate the people who are offering this amendment. It's exactly what you'd like to do.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 193-228. Voting ?yea? were 176 Democrats and 17 Republicans. 216 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have banned oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf if such drilling would ?impede operations? of the U.S. military.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 311
May 11, 2011
(H.R. 1231) Legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas) ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas).

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, which in turn had contributed to high gasoline prices.

Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX) urged support for this resolution and the underlying bill: ?Since President Obama took office, the national average price of gasoline has nearly doubled to $4 a gallon in most states, and the energy policies of the Obama administration have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of barrels of domestic daily oil production?.It is not too late to change our country's course of action and to begin to undo the damage done by these policies. The energy reserves off our coasts and under our public lands belong to the American taxpayers, and should be utilized in an efficient and environmentally safe manner to create jobs, to grow our economy, to lower energy prices, and to enhance our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil?.This important legislation will require the Obama administration to expand access to areas offshore that contain the most oil and natural gas reserves. When we do so, we will improve our energy security and grow American jobs.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?This bill here will do nothing, absolutely nothing, zero, to impact the price of gasoline. It does nothing. Everybody knows how Big Oil operates, and they do whatever they want to do. At a time when they're raising their prices, they're going to make more money this year than they did last year. It's outrageous what they're doing to the American people, how they're gouging the American people. This bill is not an answer to anything. It is just a sound bite for them to go home and say, hey, we did something, knowing it will never pass the Senate, but also knowing that even if it did pass the Senate and if the president signed it, it would mean nothing. So rather than focusing on things to help create jobs, to help make it in America, to help create more products in this country, we are going through these ridiculous exercises every week on different subjects; and today it happens to be a bill that is a big wet kiss to Big Oil.

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 243-179. Voting ?yea? were 233 Republicans and 10 Democrats. 178 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 310
May 11, 2011
(H.R. 1231) Legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas) ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (specifically, those areas with more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas). If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, which in turn had contributed to high gasoline prices.

Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?In my congressional district in western New York, my constituents, my family, my wife and I are routinely forced to pay in excess of $4 per gallon for gasoline for automobiles. We need to develop policies that will lessen our dependence on foreign fossil fuels, create stability in the financial markets, and provide relief to our constituents?.Drilling for oil and natural gas can be done safely and responsibly. There have been millions of wells drilled in the United States. There is a strong record of sound environmental practices. Total petroleum industry spillage has decreased consistently over the last 40 years.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Although Republicans continue to frame these efforts as a cure for rising gas prices and a way to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, the truth is that oil prices are set on a world market. It's simply not possible for us to drill our way out of these problems?.I want to remind my colleagues that energy companies are sitting on thousands of drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico, and they're not producing anything. And?no drilling moratorium currently exists. Since October 2010, when the drilling moratorium was lifted, 39 shallow water and 10 deepwater permits have been granted, roughly the same average rate even before the BP oil spill?.while H.R. 1231 [the underlying bill] may make for a good sound bite, this is not a serious solution to bringing down high gas prices. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose H.R. 1231.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 241-179. All 235 Republicans present and 6 Democrats voted ?yea.? 179 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the most oil-rich regions of the Outer Continental Shelf.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 309
May 11, 2011
(H.R. 1299) Final passage of legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application. If the secretary failed to act on a permit within 60 days, it would be ?deemed approved.? In addition, the bill prohibited litigators who successfully sue the federal government over oil drilling projects from receiving attorneys? fees.

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, which in turn had contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster.

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) urged support for the bill: ??Families and businesses across the country are struggling with skyrocketing gasoline prices that in many places have already passed $4 per gallon. Everyday activities, such as commuting to work or taking the kids to soccer practice, have strained family budgets, forcing Americans to make tough choices and sacrifices. Unfortunately, rising gasoline prices are not the only energy crisis currently hurting our country. For over a year, communities along the Gulf of Mexico have suffered through a real and then de facto moratorium on offshore drilling imposed by the Obama administration?.The bill being considered by the House today will help address all of these concerns. It will put the people and businesses along the gulf back to work by requiring the administration to act on new drilling permits in a timely manner. For Americans across the country who are suffering from rising gasoline prices, this bill acts now to expand American production to help lower costs.

Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) also supported the bill: ?For heaven's sake, there's a reason we have a structural increase in the cost of our energy. It is, very simply, that we're constraining the output of oil. So let's get on it. Let's finally start producing oil in this country, and let's become energy independent once and for all. Louisiana is being hurt in two ways?. [Economist] Dr. Joseph Mason from Louisiana State University, from my home State, said that we're looking at a loss of 36,137 jobs over an 18-month period out of the gulf coast alone.?


Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) opposed the bill: ?This bill is a dangerous solution in search of a really nonexistent problem. Since the implementation of new safety and environmental standards in June of last year, the [Interior] Department has added staff, improved its review, and has issued 52 shallow water drilling permits?.Ironically, the enactment of H.R. 1229 [the underlying bill] could halt this progress. This bill could hamper new permits being issued or stop new permits altogether because the Department might be forced to deny permits if the safety and environmental reviews are not completed in the arbitrary 60 days?.  In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the principles guiding offshore drilling should be smart and safe. If H.R. 1229 is enacted, the guiding principles will be fast and loose. This is the wrong response to the largest oil spill in U.S. waters. We should not rush to allow drilling permits to be deemed approved without the appropriate safety and environmental checks. We should not provide blanket extensions to existing leases. We should not close the doors of the courthouse to American citizens. We should not pass this bill.?

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) also opposed the bill: ?This Republican proposal is very poor public policy. And as a member who represents a community that is dependent on the gulf coast's economy, frankly, it is appalling for my Republican friends to press to eliminate safety standards on oil companies who want to continue to drill and come closer and closer to our beautiful beaches. Really, it is beyond the pale. And I have to ask, did my colleagues not learn anything from this disaster? In our economy on Florida's gulf coast, we depend on clean water and clean beaches, and when you bring up a bill like this, it feels like a direct challenge to our economic recovery.?The hotels and motels on the beach, the seafood industry, all the mom and pop shops who are dependent on the tourism industry, we are still struggling to come back.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 263-163. All 235 Republicans present and 28 Democrats voted ?yea.? 163 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 308
May 11, 2011
(H.R. 1299) On a motion that would have prohibited oil and gas companies from receiving new oil drilling leases if they had been ordered to pay civil or criminal penalties as a result of an oil spill, and had not yet paid the required fines.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have prohibited oil and gas companies from receiving new oil drilling leases if they had been ordered to pay civil or criminal penalties as a result of an oil spill, and had not yet paid the required fines. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application.

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, which in turn had contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) urged support for this motion to recommit: ??This simple motion to recommit ensures that oil companies clean up their mess from their oil spills prior to receiving a new permit under the guidelines of this bill?.Although we may disagree on the underlying bill, we surely can agree that it is necessary to protect taxpayers who would otherwise have to foot the bill for cleaning up oil companies' oil spills. It's also necessary to protect the individuals whose lives have been directly affected by those spills. To illustrate how important this final amendment is look no further than last year's Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The gulf's fisheries were worth $5.5 billion annually prior to the spill. Shouldn't we require BP to pay those economic damages before it receives another permit to drill again??

Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA) opposed the motion to recommit: ??My Democrat colleagues are trying to distract us from the central issue, which is jobs. We're trying to put people back to work, but instead of putting people back to work, we're having to deal with procedural gamesmanship. The American people are tired of games. They want results?.Let's put our differences aside. Let's put America back to work. Let's crank up those steel mills in Pennsylvania. Let's tell the boys in Illinois that we need those Caterpillar engines. Let's tell the Texans, the Louisianans, the Mississippians, the ones in Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, that jobs are coming back to the gulf. Let's fuel our plants with American energy and American oil. No more shall we beg those who hate us for their oil. America is on her way back, and it starts in the Gulf of Mexico. Let's put the gulf back to work so we can put America back to work.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 186-239. Voting ?yea? were 185 Democrats and 1 Republican. 235 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have prohibited oil and gas companies from receiving new oil drilling leases if they had been ordered to pay civil or criminal penalties as a result of an oil spill, and had not yet paid the required fines.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 307
May 11, 2011
(H.R. 1299) On an amendment that would have allowed litigators who successfully challenged federal oil drilling policies in court to collect attorneys? fees

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) that would have allowed litigators who successfully challenged federal oil drilling policies in court to collect attorneys? fees.

The Equal Access to Justice Act awards fees up to $125 per hour (plus expenses) to litigators who sue the federal government and prevail in court. The underlying bill prohibited those suing the federal government over oil drilling projects from collecting such fees. Hastings? amendment would have eliminated that prohibition.

Hastings urged support for his amendment: ?Eliminating the awarding of attorneys' fees means the traditional groups that bring lawsuits on environmental or safety grounds, such as fishermen, small business owners and environmental groups, will no longer be reimbursed for the cost of successfully litigating these kinds of claims. The idea that the bill will somehow eliminate an excess of lawsuits is ridiculous. Since litigation is by its nature so expensive, these cash-strapped plaintiffs usually only bring those lawsuits with the most likelihood of success. Without the possibility of receiving attorneys' fees, legal challenges will effectively become impossible.?

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) opposed the amendment: ?The Equal Access to Justice Act provisions in this bill are necessary to avoid costly delays to domestic energy development based on the extreme anti-energy agenda of a few groups. The Equal Access to Justice Act was intended to allow people and small businesses with limited financial means the ability to challenge the actions of the federal government. However, it is now being abused by deep-pocketed special interest organizations. For example, in 2005, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council received nearly $200,000 in taxpayer dollars after suing the Federal Government in an offshore energy project in California. The Sierra Club has annual revenues of $85 million, and the Natural Resources Defense Council has annual revenues of over $100 million. There is no justification for forcing the American taxpayer to pay the attorneys' fees of special interest groups that have ample funds of their own.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 185-239. Voting ?yea? were 183 Democrats and 2 Republicans. 231 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed litigators who successfully challenged federal oil drilling policies in court to collect attorneys? fees.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 306
May 11, 2011
(H.R. 1299) On an amendment that would have allowed district courts outside the Fifth Circuit (which included only Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) to hear civil lawsuits regarding oil-drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) that would have allowed district courts outside the Fifth Circuit (which included only Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) to hear civil lawsuits regarding oil drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico.

Specifically, the underlying bill prohibited district courts outside the Fifth Circuit (in other words, those courts outside of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) from hearing civil cases involving oil-drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico. Deutch?s amendment would have eliminated that prohibition.

Deutch urged support for his amendment: ?Under this provision, litigation relating to leases on energy development can only be filed in a district court in the Fifth Circuit. And while the Fifth Circuit includes the Gulf States of Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, two states that comprise substantial gulf coastlines, Florida and Alabama, are in the 11th Circuit, and it makes no sense that the residents of these states will have to travel to the Fifth Circuit to have their cases heard. The effect of this section would be to prevent the district courts in Florida and Alabama from considering civil cases related to the issuance of leases for energy development, production and exploration off the coastlines of these States.  Congress has no business telling courts within a state that they are prohibited from considering issues involving a lease for energy development, production and exploration that have the potential to cause irreparable environmental and economic damage to the gulf coast area of that state. In addition, requiring these cases to be moved from Florida and Alabama to a state within the Fifth Circuit will cause substantial hardship for the parties involved in the litigation, substantial hardship for the witnesses who would need to testify, and would result in substantial costs.?

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) opposed the amendment: ?In order to ensure that there is a circuit court that is familiar with the legal issues surrounding civil actions involving gulf energy production, it is important that venue be restricted to the Fifth Circuit so that those district and appeals court judges would have the essential experience and legal precedent to fairly rule on these technical cases. For that reason, I oppose this amendment. The Fifth Circuit, as was pointed out earlier, does include Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, all Gulf Coast states. If various district courts and courts of appeal throughout the country were able to hear these cases, there may be a result of having no uniformity in decision-making, and judges who do not have as much expertise or background could be making vital decisions in which the energy security of our nation hangs in the balance.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 205-222. Voting ?yea? were 181 Democrats and 24 Republicans. 212 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed district courts outside the Fifth Circuit to hear civil lawsuits regarding oil-drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 305
May 11, 2011
(H.R 1299) On an amendment that would have required all applications for offshore oil drilling permits to include an estimate of the amount of oil and gas expected to be produced from the well, as well as an estimate of the amount by which crude oil and consumer prices would be reduced if the well yielded the estimated amount of oil and gas.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) that would have required all applications for offshore oil drilling permits to include an estimate of the amount of oil and gas expected to be produced from the well, as well as an estimate of the amount by which crude oil and consumer prices would be reduced if the well yielded the estimated amount of oil and gas. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application.

Hastings urged support for his amendment: ??Speeding up the permitting process and thereby making it easier to drill off our country's shores in the manner that this bill does will do little to help Americans at the gas pump?.At maximum output, the United States holds less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, not nearly enough to significantly impact the price per barrel?Though production in our country has actually increased every year since 2005, crude oil hit a record $147 per barrel over the same time period, demonstrating that there is little correlation between drilling levels in the United States and the price of oil. More drilling will put our businesses, as well as our environment and health, at an increased risk with little return to the average American.?The only way we can reduce gasoline prices is to decrease our country's demand for fossil fuels by increasing our energy efficiency, improving the fuel mileage of our cars, and developing real renewable energy resources. federal policies should focus on making these changes, not on dangerously restricting federal oversight of the industry.?

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) opposed the amendment: ?I must oppose this amendment. The effect of the amendment is that we are going to hold ourselves hostage to foreign energy unless we can prove that domestic energy meets some abstract standard and satisfies some bureaucrat. Where I disagree with this amendment the most is the assumption that domestic energy production might not be good for America and might not be allowed. More supply cannot help but to lower prices, reduce dependence, generate revenue and create jobs. I see all these results of domestic energy production as good: good for America, good for consumers and good for our balance of trade. This is true whether the impact from a single well is sufficient in and of itself to move the price of oil prices overseas or not. The real result of this amendment would be that we don't create jobs, revenue and more energy.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 169-258. Voting ?yea? were 168 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 1 Republican. 235 Republicans and 23 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required all applications for offshore oil drilling permits to include an estimate of the amount of oil and gas expected to be produced from the well, as well as an estimate of the amount by which crude oil and consumer prices would be reduced if the well yielded the estimated amount of oil and gas.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 304
May 11, 2011
(H.R. 1299) On an amendment that would have prohibited oil companies from receiving offshore oil drilling permits that had not been approved by the Secretary of the Interior if the Interior Department lacked the staff and budget needed to review all applications for such permits

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have prohibited oil companies from receiving offshore oil drilling permits that had not been approved by the Secretary of the Interior if the Interior Department lacked the staff and budget needed to review all applications for such permits.

Specifically, the underlying bill required the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application. If the secretary failed to act on a permit within 60 days, the bill provided that the permit would be ?deemed approved.? Thus, the bill effectively allowed drilling permits to be issued without the Interior Secretary?s approval. Polis? amendment would have eliminated that provision from the bill if the Interior Department lacked the staff and budget needed to review all oil drilling permits.

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, and contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster.

Polis urged support for his amendment: ?If the Department isn't going to be given enough resources and expertise to do the job right and on time, the Department shouldn't be forced to do the job too fast. We should be working to make government more efficient and more effective. My amendment addresses the root of this issue by lifting the arbitrary timeline requirements if the Department isn't given the necessary resources it needs to properly process applications expeditiously.?

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) opposed the amendment: ?The purpose of H.R. 1229 [the underlying bill] is to get residents of the gulf back to work in producing offshore energy. It is not only good for them; it is good for the entire country. This amendment, whether intended or not, would allow the administration to continue to impose a de facto moratorium that would delay American energy production and keep thousands of people out of work. The residents of the gulf are simply in a holding pattern, waiting for their jobs to come back. Some of them are even seeing their jobs outsourced to other countries as rigs leave the Gulf of Mexico, bound for other parts of the world?..This amendment would delay American energy production. For that reason, I oppose it.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 174-254. Voting ?yea? were 173 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 1 Republican. 236 Republicans and 18 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited oil companies from receiving offshore oil drilling permits that had not been approved by the Secretary of the Interior if the Interior Department lacked the staff and budget needed to review all applications for such permits.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 303
May 11, 2011
(H.R. 1299) On an amendment that would have prohibited oil companies from receiving offshore oil drilling permits that had not been approved by the Secretary of the Interior

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) that would have prohibited oil companies from receiving offshore oil drilling permits that had not been approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

Specifically, the underlying bill required the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application. If the secretary failed to act on a permit within 60 days, the bill provided that the permit would be ?deemed approved.? Thus, the bill effectively allowed drilling permits to be issued without the Interior Secretary?s approval. Holt?s amendment would have eliminated that provision from the bill.

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, and contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster.

Holt urged support for his amendment: ?H.R. 1229 [the underlying bill] includes language that would add a timeline to the permitting process for offshore oil and gas drilling. This provision states that, `If the Secretary has not made a decision on the application by the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date the application is received by the Secretary, the application is deemed approved.' My amendment would simply strike this section. In other words, as it stands in the legislation before us, if for whatever reason--incomplete information, new information--the Secretary has not made a decision whether or not to approve the application, then the application will be considered from then on approved. There are a number of provisions in this bill that could make offshore drilling less safe. My amendment is aimed at perhaps the most dangerous of those provisions. This bill short-circuits existing requirements to protect oil industry workers and those who depend on marine resources for their livelihoods and so forth. Ensuring that environmental and safety standards are met--so that the new permits will not result in a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon disaster--is really too important to allow permits to go through the door prematurely and automatically simply because of an arbitrary timeline imposed by this legislation.?

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) opposed the amendment: ?The legislation on the floor today is designed to put Americans in the gulf region back to work and to ensure that permits are processed in a timely fashion and that bureaucratic delays are not hampering the nation's energy production?.It's important that people understand that nowhere in this bill do we require the administration to do anything but reach a decision, whatever that decision might be. They may deny an application at any time in the process as long as they provide a clear description of why they are doing so?.In the end, the administration must reach a decision. The provision this amendment proposes to remove is the final deadline that the administration must meet and one that should be firm to ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner?.This amendment, if adopted, would simply further delay offshore energy production. It would continue to allow the Department to arbitrarily impose a de facto drilling moratorium that could cost thousands of jobs and allow higher prices on energy with less supply.

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 179-247. Voting ?yea? were 177 Democrats and 2 Republicans. 233 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited oil companies from receiving offshore oil drilling permits that had not been approved by the Secretary of the Interior.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 302
May 11, 2011
(H.R. 1229) On an amendment that would have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from issuing a permit for offshore oil drilling until the secretary has certified that the applicant has calculated a ?worst-case scenario? for the proposed oil drilling operations. The applicant would also have been required to demonstrate the ability respond immediately and effectively to this worst-case scenario.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI) that would have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from issuing a permit for offshore oil drilling until the secretary has certified that the applicant has calculated a ?worst-case scenario? for the proposed oil drilling operations. The applicant would also have been required to demonstrate the ability respond immediately and effectively to this worst-case scenario. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application.

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, and contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster.

Hanabusa urged support for her amendment: ??We are talking here to the people, the people across this nation and in the world who watched the worst-case scenario, what happened in the BP oil spill. What we are simply saying is that before any permit is issued, that the Secretary take the precaution of, first, having assessed what that worst-case scenario could be; and, second, that applicant who is seeking this permit has both the capability and technology, and has demonstrated as such, to address that worst-case scenario?. it is a requirement that the people would like to see. No one wants to sit there and experience a BP oil spill again.?

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) opposed the amendment, arguing that it was duplicative because the Interior Department already required a worst-case scenario assessment. (While the Interior Department had already imposed this regulation on oil companies, the underlying bill did not require the department to do so. Hanabusa?s amendment would have codified the Interior Department?s regulation in federal law.) Lamborn argued: ?This amendment attempts to expand upon the language in the bill that already mandates that the Secretary conduct a safety review to affirm oil spill response and containment capability prior to issuing a permit. We believe that the Department of the Interior already requires that applicants must calculate worst-case discharge before approving a permit.  On June 18 of last year, the Department issued a notice to lessees outlining the information requirements and standards to be met before a permit could be approved. In the notice it is required that a lessee `describe the assumption and calculations that you used to determine the volume of your worst-case discharge scenario.'  This exact language, this exact intention has already been addressed, so I would oppose this amendment as redundant and unnecessary.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 187-235. Voting ?yea? were 177 Democrats and 10 Republicans. 224 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from issuing a permit for offshore oil drilling until the secretary has certified that the applicant has calculated a ?worst-case scenario? for the proposed oil drilling operations?and would also have required applicants to demonstrate the ability respond immediately and effectively to this worst-case scenario.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 301
May 10, 2011
(H.R. 1299) On an amendment that would have implemented new oil drilling safety standards proposed by a commission on the 2010 BP oil spill disaster, including new standards for blowout preventers (which monitor and control oil wells), as well as requirements for cementing and well design (in which cement seals the well and prevents such blowouts).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have implemented new oil drilling safety standards proposed by a commission on the 2010 BP oil spill disaster, including new standards for blowout preventers (which monitor and control oil wells), as well as requirements for cementing and well design (in which cement seals the well and prevents such blowouts). In addition, the amendment required a third party to certify that all safety requirements were being adhered to. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application.

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite the lifting of the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, and contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster. A commission on the BP oil spill issued a report outlining measures that could prevent another disaster in the future. This amendment sought to implement those measures.

Markey urged support for his amendment: ??Here is the BP Blue Ribbon Commission report that was conducted to investigate and to make recommendations as to what the causes were and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. Right now, nothing that is in this report has been implemented in terms of legislation here on the House floor?.First, the amendment sets minimum standards for blowout preventers, including a requirement that blowout preventers operate as intended even when the force of an ongoing blowout shifts the drill pipe out of position. The amendment also requires new standards on safe well design and cementing to ensure multiple redundant barriers within the well against uncontrolled oil or gas blow that could lead to a blowout. The amendment also requires independent third-party certification of blowout preventers and well designs.?

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) opposed the amendment: ? This amendment micromanages and dictates specific safety and blowout preventer standards for permit applications. Many of these standards would do little or nothing different than what is already being done by the Department of the Interior. However, these restrictions would, if this amendment passes, be etched into law, making Congress the technical arbiter and micromanager of Outer Continental Shelf regulations, and reducing the flexibility and ability of the Department to adapt to new technology and new development in drilling safety?.?  

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 176-237. Voting ?yea? were 165 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 11 Republicans. 222 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have implemented new oil drilling safety standards proposed by a commission on the 2010 BP oil spill disaster, including new standards for blowout preventers (which monitor and control oil wells), as well as requirements for cementing and well design (which uses cement to seal the well and prevent such blowouts).


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
LABOR RIGHTS Occupational Safety and Health
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 300
May 10, 2011
(H.R. 1299) On an amendment that would have required the Secretary of the Interior to consult with an independent drilling safety organization not affiliated with the American Petroleum Institute when reviewing oil-drilling permits

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) that would have required the Secretary of the Interior to consult with an independent drilling safety organization not affiliated with the American Petroleum Institute when reviewing oil drilling permits. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application.

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite the lifting of the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, and contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster.

Garamendi urged support for his amendment: ??The legislation before us seems to ignore every one of the recommendations that the bipartisan, independent commission made about how to conduct deepwater drilling in a safe manner?.The proposal that I have before us deals with one of the recommendations that the commission made, and that is that there be an independent safety organization created to provide an additional level of review of the requirements that drilling be done safely. The legislation before us ignores that recommendation by the commission and basically says that the American Petroleum Institute is quite capable of doing this. Well, the independent, bipartisan commission, said, `The American Petroleum Institute is culturally ill-suited to drive a safety revolution in the industry. For this reason, it is essential that the safety enterprise operate apart from the American Petroleum Institute,' and I could not agree more?.My amendment would require that, as the Secretary is trying to determine whether permit applications meet the critical safety requirements, he must consult with an independent safety organization, and that organization must not be affiliated with the American Petroleum Institute.?

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) opposed the amendment: ? I do oppose this amendment. Although well intended, the Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act [the underlying bill] itself makes drilling already safer by requiring that the Secretary ensure that any proposed drilling operation be subject to a safety review--it's there in the bill already--and that it meet established critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill response and containment requirements, and this has to be done before the issuance of a permit. The decision to approve individual permit applications is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior. I don't believe it should be farmed out to other organizations that may or may not have the background, the expertise, or the resources to evaluate drilling permits?.Oversight is the federal government's responsibility, and it should not be delegated to outside organizations.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 169-240. Voting ?yea? were 163 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 6 Republicans. 224 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Secretary of the Interior to consult with an independent drilling safety organization not affiliated with the American Petroleum Institute when reviewing oil-drilling permits.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 299
May 10, 2011
(H.R. 1299) On an amendment that would have required the Interior Department to ensure that oil-drilling projects comply with all environmental and fisheries laws when reviewing applications for drilling permits

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have required the Interior Department to ensure that oil-drilling projects comply with all environmental and fisheries laws when reviewing applications for drilling permits. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application.

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite the lifting of the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, and contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster.

Polis argued that, given the environmental havoc that resulted from the BP oil spill disaster, Congress needed to ensure that oil drilling was being conducted in an environmentally safe manner: ??Following last year's BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, one would think that a foundational and critical element of any bill related to offshore deepwater oil drilling would be to improve our safety and environmental safeguards based on the lessons that we learned the hard way from a horrific national tragedy, costing jobs and reducing health and damaging the environment?.for years an ongoing problem in issuing permits for offshore drilling has been the Department of the Interior's failure to follow requirements set out under our nation's foundational environmental protection laws and fisheries laws. These laws?protect wildlife as well as fisheries and beaches that sustain the gulf's fishing and tourism industries.

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) opposed this amendment: ?Although well intended, this amendment is duplicative and would add delays to the permitting process and production of American-made energy. It is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior as overseers of permitting in the gulf to ensure safe and environmentally responsible drilling in the gulf?.In carrying out its responsibilities, the department already must comply with numerous environmental statutes, regulations, and executive orders. These regulations include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. And I may have left some out. This demonstrates the redundancy in this amendment and why it is not necessary. Administration officials?have stated on numerous occasions to both the Natural Resources Committee and the American people that they would not permit operations if they did not believe they meet all the requirements to be conducted safely, efficiently, and in an environmentally responsible manner?.The real effect of this amendment, whether intended or not, is more delays to offshore energy production and more lengthy and burdensome lawsuits.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 167-245. Voting ?yea? were 164 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 3 Republicans. 230 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Interior Department to ensure that oil-drilling projects comply with all environmental and fisheries laws when reviewing applications for drilling permits.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 298
May 05, 2011
(H.R. 1230) Final passage of legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration.

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, and contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster.

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) urged support for the bill: ??The national average price of gasoline has gone up 10 cents in just the last week, and is now about 1 1/2 cents nationally from $4 a gallon. By comparison, the price was $1.84 a gallon when President Obama was sworn into office. In my home district in Central Washington last week, I heard from farmers, the foundation of our region's economy, who are finding it harder and harder to pay these high energy prices. And I have no doubt that my colleagues from other parts of the country have heard similar stories from their constituents. The pain being felt today has been exacerbated by the actions of this administration, this administration which, for the past 2 years, has repeatedly blocked, hindered, and raised the cost to access to our American energy resources.?Today we are debating H.R. 1230, the Restarting America Offshore Leasing Now Act. This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and natural gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Virginia that have been delayed or canceled by this administration.?

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) also supported the bill: ?Most Americans understand the concept of supply and demand, and in fact a third of oil now comes from the gulf. The Department of Energy's information agency tells us that last year's production in the gulf was 20 percent less than projected in 2007, and in 2012 we are going to be getting a half a million barrels a day decline in production from 2010. What happens when the production goes down and the demand goes up? The price goes up--way up?.This legislation, if we pass it today and get it enacted, helps turn the key to unlocking the door on domestic energy production. This legislation is not about new lease sales. It is simply catches up with the leases already approved.?

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) opposed the bill: ?One year ago today, we were 2 weeks into the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We were 2 weeks into what would ultimately become the worst environmental disaster in our Nation's history, with more than 4 million barrels of oil spilling into the Gulf. And since that disaster, we have learned many things about the safety of offshore drilling?.We learned that the oil companies had neither the resources nor the ability to stop a deepwater blowout. BP spill response included an attempt to shoot golf balls and bits of rubber into the well. When we were told that the industry was relying on the most sophisticated technologies, we assumed that they meant technologies developed by MIT and not the PGA?.And yet here we are debating legislation that would do nothing to improve the safety of offshore drilling and could actually make drilling less safe. The legislation before us represents a return to the pre-spill mentality of speed over safety.?

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) also opposed the bill: ?I rise in strong opposition to this oil spill amnesia bill that threatens our coastal communities?.The bill sidesteps safety and environmental reviews, acting as if the Nation's worst oil spill in history never happened. And, it pushes a failed energy plan that pours billions of dollars into already overstuffed oil industry coffers. The only thing it adds up to? is a false promise. The truth is the Republican majority is hoping to delude the public into believing that this rush to new offshore drilling will provide a quick fix to high gas prices, but the harsh reality is this: The U.S. is never going to have control over world oil supplies or gas prices through drilling. We simply don't have the oil reserves, no matter how much we drill. What we do have is the ability to control prices by lowering our consumption, and that's just what we're starting to do.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 266-149. Voting ?yea? were 233 Republicans and 33 Democrats. 147 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 297
May 05, 2011
(H.R. 1230) On a motion that would have required all oil and gas produced as a result of leases authorized by an offshore oil drilling bill to be sold exclusively in the United States

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required all oil and gas produced as a result of leases authorized by an offshore oil drilling bill to be sold exclusively in the United States. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Virginia that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration.

Rep. Ben Ray Lujan urged support for this motion to recommit: ??American families are hurting right now. When the cost of gas at the pump rises, that means that the cost of groceries goes up, the cost of goods goes up, and the cost of just getting to work goes up. The American people need relief; and the way this legislation is written, it will do nothing to decrease the price at the pump, and it will do nothing to lower the international price of oil. All day today, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested that drilling more is the solution to high gas prices. If my Republican colleagues really believe that increasing drilling in the U.S. will lower gas prices, then we should all be able to agree that oil produced in America should stay in America to help American families and American businesses. That's why I am offering this final amendment today--to ensure that oil resources that are produced through leasing under this act are kept here and sold here in the United States. Simply put, this means, if we produce it here, we should keep it here for the American people.?

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) opposed the motion to recommit: ?Quite frankly, this amendment [motion to recommit] is redundant, unnecessary, and another attempt to divert attention from the real issue of increasing energy production in order to create jobs, lower energy costs, and improve national security by lessening our dependence on foreign oil.?exports are already subject to the Export Administration Act. Before any oil or gas can be exported, the President must find that the exports will not diminish the total quantity or quality of petroleum available to the U.S. and the national interests and are in accord with the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1969. If the President finds that exports are in violation of the Export Administration Act, an executive order can halt all these exports if Congress finds that the exports are in conflict with the national interests, and they can act accordingly.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 171-238. Voting ?yea? were 170 Democrats and 1 Republican. 234 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have required all oil and gas produced as a result of leases authorized by an offshore oil drilling bill to be sold exclusively in the United States.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 296
May 05, 2011
(H.R. 1230) On an amendment that would have postponed oil drilling at a site off Virginia?s coast until the Secretary of Defense certified that would not impede naval or other military operations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) that would have postponed oil drilling at a site off Virginia?s coast until the Secretary of Defense certified that would not impede naval or other military operations. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Virginia that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration.

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, and contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster.

Connolly urged support for his amendment: ?The Department of Defense issued a report which stated that 78 percent of the area [where drilling would take place]?is currently used by the Navy for equipment testing, practicing with live ordnance, underwater training, and other critical operations?.As you know, Norfolk is the largest naval base in America. It is critical for our national security and has beneficial side effects, obviously, for the regional economy. But billions of dollars have been invested in Norfolk and in that test bed area. Perhaps it is possible for offshore oil exploration or wind energy development to be compatible with continued naval operations. That is why we asked for certification. But if energy development forced the Navy to relocate, our national security would suffer, preparedness would suffer, and billions of dollars of extra cost in federal expenditures would be incurred.?This amendment ensures that energy development would not cripple naval operations by simply requiring the President with the Secretary of Defense to certify that moving forward with Lease Sale 220 won't impede naval operations and harm national security.?

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) opposed the amendment: ?While I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to accomplish, the underlying bill already protects the Defense Department's responsibilities in the Outer Continental Shelf of Virginia. So this amendment is totally unnecessary.  Because preserving the working relationship between the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior is of great importance to the Virginia congressional delegation and to the Natural Resources Committee, H.R. 1230 already ensures the mutual goals of national security and energy independence by requiring that the lease sale be conducted with stipulations on surface use, as well as additional requirements to make certain that the leases issued in this area would not impact defense operations?.Virginians, along with their Governor, both Democratic Senators, and a majority of the congressional delegation here in Congress, and the city council of Virginia Beach, off of which much of the development would take place, do support offshore leasing and development because they understand it can bring much-needed jobs and revenues to the state.?

Connolly replied: ?I thank my friend from Colorado for his remarks. But, frankly, if he is so certain of the protections contained in this legislation, then surely this extra special amendment to make sure that Virginia is protected would not find objection on the other side of the aisle.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 176-240. Voting ?yea? were 171 Democrats and 5 Republicans. 231 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have postponed oil drilling at a site off Virginia?s coast until the Secretary of Defense certified that would not impede naval or other military operations.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 295
May 05, 2011
(H.R. 1230) On an amendment that would have required additional environmental studies to be conducted on the impact of offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) that would have required additional environmental studies to be conducted on the impact of offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This amendment was offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration.

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, and contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster.

The underlying bill had ?deemed? an environmental review that had been conducted in 2007?prior to the BP oil spill?to be sufficient for allowing new oil drilling permits. Holt?s amendment would have removed that language from the bill and required additional environmental impact studies.

Holt urged support for his amendment: ?The authors of this bill are so eager to accelerate the giveaways to Big Oil, rather than protect the consumers, the environment and workers, that they, in their legislation, deem that the shoddy environmental analysis conducted 4 years ago, in other words, years prior to the gulf oil blowout, to be sufficient for all future lease sales in the gulf, despite their glaring deficiencies. They deem--in other words, assume, declare--that this is sufficient. Look, this environmental impact statement was not adequate then, and we know it's not adequate now. `Deem' is a dangerous word in legislation, especially legislation that could jeopardize worker safety and imperil the economic structure of coastal communities. My amendment would strike the language deeming the pre-spill environmental work to be sufficient and it, therefore, would require a new, updated analysis.?This amnesia bill before us learns no lessons from the worst environmental oil spill in our history.?

Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA) opposed the amendment, arguing it was simply meant to delay oil drilling projects: ?Here we go again. Delay, delay, delay. The poor people of my district will have to sit there, unemployed and wait again. We've gotten environmental study after environmental study after environmental study that will happen after these lease sales.?I can tell you that this administration pulls delay tactic after delay tactic after delay tactic in permitting wells in the Gulf of Mexico. They lift the moratorium, and then they don't issue permits. So what do they do now, the other side of the aisle, my [Democratic] colleagues on the other side? They say, well, it looks like we have a piece of legislation in front of us that's going to finally start to open the gulf back up. So let's see how many roadblocks we can put in front of it. I urge my colleagues, defeat this amendment. Let's get on with the business of providing this country with affordable energy and let's get this economy rolling and let's get back to creating jobs.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 174-240. Voting ?yea? were 166 Democrats and 8 Republicans. 226 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required additional environmental studies to be conducted on the impact of offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 294
May 05, 2011
(H.R. 1229, H.R. 1230) Legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application, as well as a separate bill requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application, as well as a separate bill requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration.

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, and contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bills: ?H.R. 1229 is a bill that goes to the heart of the bureaucratic delays, which are preventing the approval of drilling permits within the Gulf of Mexico; and it modifies the standards and procedures governing federal leases and permits in order to streamline the process, making the development of these domestic resources a reality instead of the status quo of paying lip service to drilling and then stifling drilling through bureaucratic inaction. H.R. 1230 is a bill that would direct the sale of oil and gas leases within the Outer Continental Shelf, reversing a failed administration policy of canceling and delaying those processes.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) opposed the resolution and the underlying bills: ?We know that Big Oil would rather do without the fuss of showing that they can drill safely; but that's what this bill, in fact, delivers. This legislation states that the Interior Secretary must act on any drilling permit within 60 days, or it's automatically approved. What should be a very serious process to ensure safe drilling, to ensure that there aren't further disasters, and to ensure that jobs are not destroyed turns into little more than a rubber stamp, a rubber stamp for the further degradation of our economy and of our environment?.Together, these bills will not relieve pain at the pump, but they will increase the chances of another Deepwater Horizon disaster, costing lives, livelihoods, and hurting some of our precious natural resources. Why? Because that's what Big Oil wants.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 245-167. All 234 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?yea.? 167 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application, as well as on a separate bill requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 293
May 05, 2011
(H.R. 1229, H.R. 1230) Legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application, as well as a separate bill requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation (H.R. 1229) requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application, as well as a separate bill (H.R. 1230) requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. Under the first bill (H.R. 1229), if the Secretary failed to act on a drilling permit within 60 days, it would be ?deemed approved.?

Following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration imposed an offshore drilling moratorium. The administration lifted that moratorium, however, in May 2010. Despite lifting the moratorium, however, Republicans argued that the administration had been too slow in approving leases for drilling, and contributed to high gasoline prices. The Obama administration (and many congressional Democrats) countered that it was seeking to improve drilling safety in order to prevent another oil spill disaster.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bills: ?I hate to say this, but under President Obama, the cost of energy has skyrocketed. The administration has actively blocked and delayed energy production. It's cost jobs. It's raised energy prices. It's made the United States more reliant on unstable foreign countries for our energy.?this House is actively working to increase American energy production to lower gas prices, to create American jobs, to generate revenue to help reduce the deficit, and to decrease our dependence on foreign energy?.These two bills are the first of several signals that this House wants to send to the world and to the economy that says our goal should be to come as close to economic and energy self-sufficiency and independence as possible.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) opposed the resolution and the underlying bills: ?These bills would make offshore drilling more dangerous for offshore workers, 11 of whom died on the Deepwater Horizon [where the explosion that caused the BP oil spill occurred]. These bills would make offshore drilling more dangerous for the environment, which was coated with 4.1 million barrels of oil along the Gulf Coast and is killing fish and wildlife in the area to this day as a result of BP's recklessness. These bills would make offshore drilling more dangerous for our national security because they reinforce the complete myth that America can somehow drill our way out of dependence on oil. And these bills are more dangerous for the economy, risking destroying fishing and tourism jobs in affected areas. But one thing these bills do not do is make filling up at the pump any more affordable at all for American families?.So if this legislation isn't about reducing the price at the pump, what is it about? It's about exploiting our legitimate concerns about high gas prices to deliver another huge giveaway to Big Oil, an industry that made over $35 billion in profits in the last quarter alone. Meanwhile, the majority refuses to end Big Oil's nearly $50 billion of special interest tax breaks.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 241-171. All 234 Republicans present and 7 Democrats voted ?yea.? 171 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve or deny offshore oil drilling leases within 30 days of receiving an application, as well as a separate bill requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off Virginia?s coast that had been cancelled or delayed by the Obama administration.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 292
May 04, 2011
(H.R. 3) Final passage of legislation prohibiting federal funds?including tax credits and deductions--from being used for abortions or any health care coverage that includes abortion services.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation prohibiting federal funds?including tax credits and deductions--from being used for abortions or any health care coverage that includes abortion services.

The underlying bill provided for an exception to this prohibition for abortions resulting from rape or incest. However, the measure could also alter the federal definition of rape so as not to include statutory rape. (In other words, only sexual assaults that involved physical force would be recognized as rape under federal law.) The bill?s text does not redefine rape. However, the bill?s committee report?a report issued by the congressional committee that drafted the bill, and the document that would be used by the courts to determine Congress? intent when interpreting the legislation?indicated that Congress had intended to use the narrow definition of  ?forcible rape.? In other words, if the underlying bill were to be contested in the courts, Congress would be on record as having redefined rape so to exclude all sexual assaults that do nonot involve physical force by the rapist.

In addition, the bill barred local tax revenue collected in the District of Columbia from being used for abortions.

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) urged support for this bill: ?Many Members and the American people have strong feelings about the subject of abortion, but one thing is clear: The Federal funding of abortion will lead to more abortions?.The American people do not want federally funded abortions. A Zogby poll found that 77 percent of Americans feel that Federal funds should never pay for abortions or should pay only to save the life of the mother. That is the policy of the Hyde Amendment, which H.R. 3 would enact into law. H.R. 3 [the underlying bill] does not ban abortion. It also does not restrict abortions or abortion coverage in health care plans as long as those abortions or plans use only private or State funds. This legislation places no additional legal restrictions on abortions. It simply protects taxpayers from having to fund or to subsidize something they morally oppose.?

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) also supported the bill: ??Today we are presented with an opportunity to take a giant step toward protecting the unborn. For almost 35 years, restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion have been enacted separately and have been contained in annually renewed congressional temporary funding restrictions, regulations and executive orders. Such policies have sought to ensure that the American taxpayer does not fund the destruction of innocent human life through abortion. The legislation on the floor today will end the need for numerous separate abortion funding policies, and will finally put into place a permanent ban on any U.S. government financial support for abortion.

Rep. Judy Chu (D-A) opposed the bill: ?Imagine what life would be like for women under H.R. 3. Imagine you are pregnant and then diagnosed with breast cancer. Your doctor says that chemotherapy could save your life, but will permanently harm the baby. The diagnosis is devastating. But to add to your grief, because of H.R. 3, an abortion will not be covered by your private health insurance. You must pay out of pocket, even though it is necessary to save your life?.This bill forces women to live their lives as if America was Orwell's 1984, where big brother Washington bureaucrats dictate the personal and private health decisions of American families.?

Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) also opposed the bill: ?Members who are pro-life or pro-choice should oppose this bill because it does violence to the Constitution. This bill purports to say that through the Tax Code, we can favor or disfavor the exercise of constitutional rights. That's not right, and that's not constitutional. The members on the majority side would certainly not support, nor would I, a provision that says you can't take a charitable contribution to support a group that lobbies in favor of pro-life causes. But if we wanted to disfavor that point of view in the Tax Code, this is the way we would do it. There is no difference between what the majority's doing here and that odious provision that I just described.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 251-175. Voting ?yea? were 235 Republicans and 16 Democrats. 175 Democrats, including a majority of progressives, voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation prohibiting federal funds?including tax credits and deductions--from being used for abortions or any health care coverage that includes abortion services. President Obama, however, had threatened to veto the measure if it were to reach his desk.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
N N Lost
Roll Call 291
May 04, 2011
(H.R. 3) On a motion that would have prohibited the federal government from gaining access to the private medical records of victims of rape and incest

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have prohibited the federal government from gaining access to the private medical records of victims of rape and incest. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation prohibiting federal funds from being used for any health care coverage that includes abortion services.

The Democrats offered this motion to recommit because the underlying bill opened the door to possible audits of women who have been raped. Since the bill banned the use of federal tax credits or deductions to pay for abortions, rape victims who had elected to have abortions and had received federal tax credits or deductions could have been required to provide proof that they had been raped. Many Democrats worried that in order to prove they had been raped, victims could be forced to grant the IRS access to their private medical records.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?Americans believe in privacy. Justice Brandeis once said in a court opinion, `Every American has the right to be left alone.' This is something we can all agree on. My motion would simply prohibit Federal agents from accessing a woman's health or other medical records because she was a victim of rape or incest. Now, that's pretty simple. If you're a victim of rape or incest, no Federal agency or agent will be able to access your medical records in order to prove that you, in fact, were raped or were a victim of incest?.We should be treating these victims like victims and not like criminals. Medical privacy is a longstanding and protected right for every American. Why should the right be forfeited because you are a victim of rape or incest??

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) opposed the motion to recommit: ? I rise in opposition to this motion to recommit. The amendment supposes that the bill does something that it doesn't do. Nothing in this bill allows the IRS any greater access to health information than they have ever had?. This is simply an amendment looking for a problem that isn't there?.I would simply say that before the sun sets today in America, 4,000 unborn children will die of abortion on demand, and in every case a nameless little baby will die a tragic and lonely death, a mother will never be quite the same, and all the gifts that child might have brought to humanity will be lost forever. I would like to tell you that this bill does something to prevent that same thing from happening tomorrow, but it doesn't?.this bill simply says that taxpayers in the future will no longer have to pay for or worry about their taxpayer dollars being used for that purpose.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 192-235. All 191 Democrats present and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 235 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have prohibited the federal government from gaining access to the private medical records of victims of rape and incest.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Women?s Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 290
May 04, 2011
(H.R. 1214) Final passage of legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers.

The 2010 health care reform law?which was signed into law by President Obama and established near universal health coverage in the U.S.?provided federal funds for school-based health care centers. This bill rescinded those funds.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) urged support for the bill: ??The American people know that we are borrowing 43 cents for every dollar we spend these days. We do not need to be giving grants of dollars that we have collected from hardworking taxpayers to local entities to build or renovate school-based health centers. This is not a core function of the federal government. It is not a core function of our taxpayers.?

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) also supported the bill: ?In our current financial situation, it is not only necessary but it is our responsibility that we examine all of our spending and make all necessary adjustments. H.R. 1214 [the underlying bill] is a simple bill aimed at a simple goal--to get some of the spending that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act advanced inappropriately. Section 4101(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act funds only the construction of school-based health centers.?

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) opposed the bill: ?My colleague from Texas has said over and over again he supports school-based clinics. He even supportsfsupports funding for school-based clinics. Then what is the possible rationale for posting this bill?...School-based health clinics are a tremendous success story. These programs provide primary care, mental health, dentaland dental health services to vulnerable children across the country in every state. Multiple studies have found that these programs are cost-effective investments. They result in lower emergency room usage, hospitalizations, and Medicaid costs. In fact, patients seen at school-based health centers cost Medicaid on average $30.40 less than comparable non-school-based health center patients.?

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) also opposed the bill: ?I rise again in opposition to this bill.
I do so with somewhat of a personal angle on this. My wife, Audrey, is a pediatric nurse practitioner. At one time she worked in a school-based health center. She doesn't today, presently. But I certainly, through her, have gotten a chance to be exposed to the benefit of school-based health centers. There is no more efficient delivery system. It makes sure that kids get good, high-quality care at school, gets them back on their feet, back in class where they belong, rather than going to emergency rooms and spending hours waiting for care or being sent home many times in an unsupervised situation out of class. Again, the beauty of a school-based health clinic is that it obviously is in a setting where children are located. Again, the turnaround in terms of making sure that they're back doing what's good for them and good for their future is just smart investment.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 235-191. Voting ?yea? were 232 Republicans and 3 Democrats. 187 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers. President Obama, however, had threatened to veto the bill if it were to reach his desk.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 289
May 04, 2011
(H.R. 1214) On a motion that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to post on its website a list of the school districts that would lose federal funding for school health centers as a result of legislation repealing a provision of major health care reform law that provided funding for those health centers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to post on its website a list of the school districts that would lose federal funding for school health centers as a result of legislation repealing a provision of major health care reform law that provided funding for those health centers. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion was offered to legislation repealing a provision of the 2010 health care reform law?which was signed into law by President Obama and established near universal health coverage in the U.S.?that provided federal funds for such school-based health care centers.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?School-based health centers are on the front lines of preventative care, and preventative care saves lives and saves money, and school-based centers are on the front lines of preventative care. As a nurse for over 30 years, I know that prevention can keep people out of the emergency rooms that taxpayers help fund, and it keeps them from needing expensive procedures and medicines that drive up insurance costs. Patients seen at school-based centers, for example, cost Medicaid an average of $30 less than comparable nonschool-based health center patients. School-based health centers play an important role in treating sports concussions and halting the spread of infectious diseases like the flu?.I offer this motion to recommit today to highlight the terrible impacts of the Republican approach in this legislation.?

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) opposed the motion to recommit: ?Washington's addiction to spending has become crystal clear to the American people, and the passage of this massive health care law by President Obama last year is exhibit A. Of the thousands of problems in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the underlying bill, H.R. 1214 [the underlying bill], addresses but one of them and a very small one at that. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides $200 million in mandatory funding for the construction of school-based health centers. The bill eliminates this funding as our nation faces a mounting deficit and debt crisis. Funding for school-based health center construction may be a good idea. Maybe it's not a good idea. Maybe we should have that debate, which we didn't in the run-up to the passage of this bill [health care reform law]. But the 111th Congress, the last Congress, did not think about it before they threw literally $200 million at the program [in the health care reform law]?.The motion to recommit, brought forward by the other side, shows they simply do not realize that we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C?.I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit, `yes' on the underlying bill. Let's get our fiscal house back in order.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 180-230. Voting ?yea? were 180 Democrats. All 222 Republicans present and 8 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to post on its website a list of the school districts that would lose federal funding for school health centers as a result of legislation repealing a provision of major health care reform law that provided funding for those health centers.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 288
May 04, 2011
(H.R. 1214) On an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office (GAO?which carries out studies, audits, and investigations for Congress) to conduct a study on which school districts were most in need of new or renovated school-based health care centers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) that would have required the Government Accountability Office (GAO?which carries out studies, audits, and investigations for Congress) to conduct a study on which school districts were most in need of new or renovated school-based health care centers. This amendment was offered to legislation repealing a provision of the 2010 health care reform law?which was signed into law by President Obama and established near universal health coverage in the U.S.?that provided federal funds for such school-based health care centers.

Pallone urged support for his amendment: ? This amendment provides for a GAO study to determine school districts most in need of constructing or renovating school-based health centers. Basically, it asks the?[GAO] to conduct a study to determine the school districts most in need of construction and renovation, and not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment, the Controller [of the GAO] has to submit to the Congress a report setting forth the results and conclusions of the study under this subsection?.I would like to have this amendment passed and hopefully accepted by the other side so that we can find out exactly how many more of these clinics, or centers, are in need of funding.?

No Republicans spoke in opposition to this amendment during floor debate. The vast majority of Republican members, however, voted against it. Requests for comment by Republican offices were not returned as of press time.

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 205-210. Voting ?yea? were 177 Democrats and 28 Republicans. 202 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on which school districts were most in need of new or renovated school-based health care centers.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 287
May 04, 2011
(H.R. 1214) On an amendment that would have required the Department of Health and Human Services to post on its website the amount of funding rescinded from school-based health care centers as a result of repealing a provision of a major health care law that provided federal funding for those health centers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have required the Department of Health and Human Services to post on its website the amount of funding rescinded from school-based health care centers as a result of repealing a provision of a major health care law that provided federal funding for those health centers. This amendment was offered to legislation repealing a provision of the 2010 health care reform law?which was signed into law by President Obama and established near universal health coverage in the U.S.?that provided federal funds for such school-based health care centers.

Jackson Lee urged support for her amendment: ?When the Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010 [the health care reform measure], and the President signed it into law, the Department of Health and Human Services was given a mandate to provide funding for expanded and sustained national health investment in school-based health center construction programs to improve clinical preventive services and help restrain the growth in private and public health costs. Nearly every state has school-based health centers. There are about 2,000. It provides mandatory funds for building and improving school-based health centers. There are now 350 applications for 46 States with shovel-ready projects. It couldn't be all bad. If H.R. 1214 [the underlying bill]  is passed, it will kill those funds. It will repeal it. And yet this particular amendment will point out Sophie's choices--not really good choices--to take away from our children good health care under the pretense of cutting the deficit?.So I would ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment, to support this amendment, because it shows the light of what we should and should not be doing.?
 
No Republicans spoke in opposition to this amendment. The vast majority of Republican members, however, voted against it. Requests for comment by Republican offices were not returned as of press time.

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 207-218. Voting ?yea? were 181 Democrats and 26 Republicans. 209 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Department of Health and Human Services to post on its website the amount of funding rescinded from school-based health care centers as a result of repealing a provision of a major health care law that provided federal funding for those health centers.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 286
May 04, 2011
(H.R. 3) Legislation prohibiting federal funds?including tax credits and deductions--from being used for abortions or any health care coverage that includes abortion services -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation prohibiting federal funds?including tax credits and deductions--from being used for abortions or any health care coverage that includes abortion services.

The underlying bill provided for an exception to this prohibition for abortions resulting from rape or incest. However, the measure could also alter the federal definition of rape so as not to include statutory rape. (In other words, only sexual assaults that involved physical force would be recognized as rape under federal law.) The bill?s text does not redefine rape. However, the bill?s committee report?a report issued by the congressional committee that drafted the bill, and the document that would be used by the courts to determine Congress? intent when interpreting the legislation?indicated that Congress had intended to use the narrow definition of  ?forcible rape.? In other words, if the underlying bill were to be contested in the courts, Congress would be on record as having redefined rape so to exclude all sexual assaults that do no involve physical force by the rapist.

In addition, the underlying bill barred local tax revenue collected in the District of Columbia from being used for abortions.

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?I do rise in very strong support of this rule as well as the underlying bill, H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act?.as a practicing OB/GYN physician for nearly 30 years, I believe that all life is sacred. The issue of abortion is a very personal issue for me as it is for many people across the country and for many Members of this body. However, that is not why we are considering this legislation on the House floor today. Instead, we are here to answer one simple question: should American tax dollars be used to fund abortions? When an elective choice can decide life and death, should the federal Government be allowed to use tax dollars to pay for that choice??


Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?I've served in three legislatures, and in every one of them were always men in blue suits who knew very little about the life-altering experience of pregnancy and birth who demanded this kind of action.?.Most egregiously, this bill has put a dangerous provision into the committee report that accompanies this bill. Please listen up. You need to know what this says in this report language, which is as important as the bill itself. That report language states that the legislation is intended to prohibit the use of Federal money to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the rape of a child too young to give consent.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 243-177. Voting ?yea? were 231 Republicans and 12 Democrats. 177 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation prohibiting federal funds from being used for abortions or any health care coverage that includes abortion services.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
N N Lost
Roll Call 285
May 03, 2011
(H.R. 1213) Final passage of legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health insurance ?exchanges?--regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health insurance ?exchanges?--regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance. The 2010 health care reform measure?which was signed into law by President Obama and established near-universal health care coverage?the federal government was set to provide federal funding to states to establish health insurance exchanges in 2014. This bill rescinded federal funding for those state-based exchanges.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) urged support for the bill: ?Repealing the fund [for the exchanges] will protect precious taxpayer resources at a time of record red ink. Rampant spending on the Federal credit card is unsustainable and certainly dangerous. And the federal government is now going to be borrowing 42 cents of every dollar for these grants, $58,000 every second. Just think about this. We're facing a $1.6 trillion deficit, and the President's budgets will nearly double the national debt from $14 trillion to $26 trillion?.This bill is about accountability to taxpayers and fiscal responsibility in the Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this bill that will reduce the deficit by $14 billion.?

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) also supported the bill: ?Republicans are not necessarily opposed to the concept of these exchanges?So we're not really having a debate on whether exchanges are good or bad. I can agree?that, in concept, exchanges are good. Now, I could have a debate that if you are going to have exchanges you ought to let the market operate and determine what's offered in the exchanges and not mandate what has to be qualified in order to be a part of the exchange. And we could have a debate on what the premiums are and what the coverage is and whether you allow flexibility or whether you put these Federal mandates on what has to be in the health care plan to be part of the exchange, but that's a different debate. The debate today?is should the Secretary of Health and Human Services have the ability to obligate, without any constraints by the Congress, such sums as necessary to empower and fund these health exchanges. We say `no.??

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) opposed the bill: ?First, the bill will leave people uninsured. This legislation?will result in lower enrollment by an estimated 5 percent to 10 percent below the levels expected under current law between 2014 and 2016. In other words, there would be almost 2 million fewer people enrolled in state exchanges. Second, it will increase the costs to employers as they continue to fight off a sluggish economy. Third, it will increase costs to consumers through increased premiums in the individual [health insurance] market. Fourth, without Federal assistance, fewer states would be able to set up and operate state-run exchanges. Currently, 49 States, the District of Columbia and four territories have gotten beyond the ideological debate that we are having over and over again in this House, and they have responded by asking for funds so they can do the job of setting up a marketplace in which it would be best for families and businesses to choose their health insurance.?

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) also opposed the bill: ?I rise in the strongest opposition to this shortsighted legislation?.the exchanges this bill targets will make a clear impact, making it easier for individuals and small businesses to shop for insurance based on quality and price. They will provide the key structure to ensure the numerous consumer protections in the law are followed, and they will make the health insurance market both more competitive and more transparent. Furthermore, the exchange program gives States flexibility to build the best plan they can to meet the unique needs of their residents?.Many states are poised to move from planning to implementation. However, repeal would stop this development in its tracks.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 238-183. Voting ?yea? were 233 Republicans and 5 Democrats. 183 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health insurance exchanges. President Obama, however, had indicated he would veto the bill if it were to reach his desk.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 284
May 03, 2011
(H.R. 1213) On a motion that would have barred health insurance companies from participating in state-based health insurance ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) if they denied coverage to individuals with cancer or any other pre-existing medical condition.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have barred health insurance companies from participating in state-based health insurance ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) if they denied coverage to individuals with cancer or any other pre-existing medical condition. This amendment was offered to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care exchanges.

Under a major health care reform law signed into law by President Obama in 2010, the federal government was set to provide federal funding to states to establish health insurance exchanges in 2014. The underlying bill rescinded federal funding for those state-based exchanges.

Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?This recommit motion holds special meaning for me because I am a cancer survivor. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer that was most likely caused by my service in the Vietnam War and exposure to Agent Orange. Fortunately, as a career soldier, I had access to affordable, quality public health insurance to help me beat that nasty disease. Many other Americans are not so lucky?.I would submit that probably every one of us in this Chamber have received calls from some of our constituents who have been paying for insurance for years and years, they got a malady, they got cancer, they're in the hospital, they're getting treatment, insurance comes due and they can't renew it because they've got a preexisting condition. That's got to stop. Health insurance exchanges will be a one-stop shop for tens of millions of Americans who purchase individual policies. This market must be open only to the companies that provide affordable insurance to all Americans, young, old, sick and well, male and female. My recommit motion, this final amendment, would require just that. Our role as a government is to protect the well-being of our citizens, not the bottom line of insurance companies, which are doing just fine by the way.?

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) opposed the motion to recommit: ??[The bill] that we've had under discussion all day does nothing about preexisting conditions; therefore, this motion to recommit is irrelevant and unnecessary. Members were brought here to get runaway spending under control. Rather than help us avoid a fiscal crisis, House Democrats have brought forward a motion to recommit that is irrelevant to the points that have been made on the floor of this House today. As has been pointed out?the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [the 2010 health care reform bill] gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services an unlimited appropriation to facilitate enrollment in State health exchanges. We simply do not know how the Secretary of Health and Human Services will spend these dollars?.Given the huge uncertainty regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, two Federal District Courts have struck down the law. State attorney generals have asked for an expedited review of the litigation, but the Obama administration has refused to allow that to happen. In the interim, repealing this fund is the best thing we can do to protect taxpayer resources at a time of record red ink.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 190-233. Voting ?yea? were 189 Democrats and 1 Republican. 232 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have barred health insurance companies from participating in state-based health insurance ?exchanges? if they denied coverage to individuals with cancer or any other pre-existing medical condition.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 283
May 03, 2011
(H.R. 1213) On an amendment that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to submit to Congress a report on delays and reduced in enrollment in health insurance ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) as a result of revoking federal funding that had been provided for those exchanges.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to submit to Congress a report on delays and reduced in enrollment in health insurance ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) as a result of revoking federal funding that had been provided for those exchanges. This amendment was offered to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care exchanges.

Under a major health care reform law signed into law by President Obama in 2010, the federal government was set to provide federal funding to states to establish health insurance exchanges in 2014. The underlying bill revoked federal funding for those state-based exchanges.

Ellison urged support for his amendment: ?I offer an amendment to say, if we're going to do this, if we're going to take away from the American people these exchanges that are going to give them a little bit of relief, let's at least know what we're doing. Let's at least figure out what the effects are going to be on the American people instead of just snatching out of their hands these exchanges that are designed to give them a little bit of relief from the health care insurance companies. Let's find out who is going to be delayed and what potential enrollment reductions are going to exist. Let's figure it out. This is an important and a meritorious amendment, and I think the least the Republican Conference can do is to say, You know what? If we are going to go back to the bad old days, which was before the Affordable Care Act was passed, at least we ought to know what harm we are going to be doing to the American people.?

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) opposed the amendment: ?The amendment would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit a report on the possible delays and potential enrollment reductions in health benefit exchanges. Now, here is a bit of irony. The reason we need this bill is that the authors were either inadvertently providing the Secretary of HHS an unprecedented unlimited tap on the Federal Treasury for these grants or they meant to provide this blank check to the Secretary. Now the amendment would ask the same Secretary to evaluate the impact of taking away their authority to spend unlimited money. I wonder how they're going to rule on that?... it is a conflict of interest to ask the Secretary to report on whether the Secretary believes that unlimited funding and numerous authorities to control the exchanges are a bad or a good thing. I also reject the notion that only an exchange designed and controlled by Washington, D.C., can reduce the number of uninsured.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 180-242. Voting ?yea? were 180 Democrats. All 234 Republicans present and 8 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to submit to Congress a report on delays and reduced in enrollment in health insurance ?exchanges? as a result of revoking federal funding that had been provided for those exchanges.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 282
May 03, 2011
(H.R. 1213) On an amendment that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to submit to Congress a report on the extent to which states were expected to have difficulties establishing health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) without federal funding.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to submit to Congress a report on the extent to which states were expected to have difficulties establishing health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) without federal funding. This amendment was offered to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care exchanges.

Under a major health care reform law signed into law by President Obama in 2010, the federal government was set to provide federal funding to states to establish health insurance exchanges in 2014. The underlying bill rescinded federal funding for those state-based exchanges.

Waters urged support for her amendment: ?The Affordable Care Act [the 2010 health care reform bill] places an emphasis on state-based health reform. The Affordable Care Act allows States to set up their own health benefit exchanges and offers grants to States to assist them in doing so. A total of 49 states, the District of Columbia, and four territories have already applied for these exchange grants. These states and territories are working hard to determine what type of health insurance marketplace will be best for their families and businesses. Without federal funding, some states could have difficulty establishing exchanges in a timely manner. This could lead to poor management of the exchanges, fewer health plans included on the exchanges, and years of delay in getting the exchanges up and running.?
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) opposed the amendment: ?I stand in opposition to the Waters amendment because it does perpetuate the fallacy that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will actually provide affordable health care options?.Washington will literally impose thousands of new requirements on plans that kindly bureaucrats are kind enough to allow poor Americans to buy in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's exchanges. The only way to make these federally controlled health plans affordable is through the massive subsidy contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?.I also reject the premise of this amendment?.The underlying assumption of this amendment is that the Secretary of Health and Human Services should issue a report to judge the benefits of the regulations. Oh, by the way, regulations that her own department writes. Given the politically charged reports being issued by the Department of Health and Human Services since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we shouldn't pay for another taxpayer-financed advertisement for their health care law.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 178-242. Voting ?yea? were 178 Democrats. All 231 Republicans present and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to submit to Congress a report on the extent to which states were expected to have difficulties establishing health care ?exchanges? without federal funding.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 281
May 03, 2011
(H.R. 1213) On an amendment that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to post on its website the amount of funding that would be cut from health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) as a result of eliminating federal funds for those exchanges.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to post on its website the amount of funding that would be cut from state-based health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance) as a result of eliminating federal funds for those exchanges. This amendment was offered to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care exchanges.

Jackson Lee urged support for her amendment: ??I would have to say that I am concerned and not supportive of this legislation and would hope that we would vote against the underlying bill.  But I have an amendment that I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would appreciate, and it's very simple. This amendment will provide the public with important information about mandatory funding to states for health benefit exchanges that will no longer be available for the public and small businesses to use in order to obtain competitive health coverage for their necessary health care, post the moneys that are rescinded, and let the public judge for themselves: good health care or not.?

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) opposed the amendment: ??The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [the 2010 health care reform bill] provided the Secretary with an unlimited amount of money with virtually limitless discretion to spend on establishing exchanges or what activities could facilitate enrollment in what are known as qualified health plans. Giving the Secretary a blank check to spend is an abdication of our responsibility here in the House of Representatives. This blank check also makes it impossible to implement the Jackson Lee amendment. There is no dollar figure for how much the Secretary can spend on this program. It is simply an unknown. The Secretary could decide tomorrow to spend another $100 million or another $100 billion?. Congress and, for that matter, the general public won't know that until the money is spent.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 177-239. Voting ?yea? were 173 Democrats and 4 Republicans. 228 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Health and Human Services Department to post on its website the amount of funding that would be cut from health care ?exchanges? as a result of eliminating federal funds for those exchanges.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 280
May 03, 2011
(H.R. 1213, H.R. 1214) Legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance), as well as a separate bill repealing a provision of the same health care law that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two separate bills?both of which repealed provisions of a major health care reform law that President Obama signed into law in 2010. The first bill repealed a provision of the health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance). The second bill repealed a provision that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers.

Rep. Thomas Reed (R-NY) urged support for the resolution and both underlying bills: ?Quite simply, our country is broke, and we cannot continue to spend money like we have in the past. Our spending crisis is clear. Slush funds and unlimited tabs on the Treasury must be the first to go, particularly when they are being used to fund government-centered takeover of our Nation's health care system that does not improve care, does not lower costs and, simply, we cannot afford. The American people sent a clear message last November: ObamaCare [the 2010 health care reform law] is not the answer; stop spending money that our country doesn't have, money we are borrowing and spending on the backs of our children and grandchildren who will be left footing the bill.?

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) opposed the resolution and the underlying bills: ?The exchanges create a market, ladies and gentlemen. They create a market. It is a market-driven program in which competition occurs, competition between the insurance companies who have to offer quality and price. Have you got a problem with competition? Apparently so. You want to do away with the exchanges. Apparently what you really want to do is to hand the entire game over to the insurance companies, removing all of the controls, removing all of the necessity for them to compete, and apparently create some sort of an association plan so the public can be ripped off.?

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) criticized the Republicans for attempting to cut funding for school health centers: ?These school-based health care centers offer a wide range of services, from wellness checks to mental health services for our young people, which is care they wouldn't receive otherwise--or maybe they would in expensive emergency room visits in a crisis. Studies show the link between affordable health care for our students and their education success, so I would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Let's create jobs instead of dismantling a health care system.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 237-185. Voting ?yea? were 233 Republicans and 4 Democrats. 185 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care ?exchanges,? as well as a separate bill repealing a provision of the same health care law that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 279
May 03, 2011
(H.R. 1213, H.R. 1214) Legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance), as well as a separate bill repealing a provision of the same health care law that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two separate bills?both of which repealed provisions of a major health care reform law that President Obama signed into law in 2010. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. The first bill repealed a provision of the health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care ?exchanges? (regulated marketplaces in which the uninsured could purchase subsidized health insurance). The second bill repealed a provision that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers.

Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) supported the resolution and the underlying bills: ?The exchanges mandated by this affordable health care law are the first step for Washington bureaucrats in really getting more control of our health care system. Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely for consumer choice because I believe consumer-driven health care is the only way to keep costs down. I think, if we don't do that, you will never get the costs going in the right direction. Instead, this creates a top-down mandate for the type of insurance that will be made available in these exchanges. Remember, when you're looking at this Affordable Health Care Act [the 2010 health care reform law], the government--not you, the patient, as an individual, as a person, and not the doctor--decides what is an adequate health care plan. So these exchanges are basically just an excuse for unelected Washington bureaucrats to really make our health care decisions for us.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ??This new marketplace has historically been an idea that has had strong bipartisan support: to have competitive health care exchanges; to keep in tact America's employment-based system while expanding access to tens of millions of people, including small businesses and people who are self-employed. Truly, the exchanges represent an opportunity for a more competitive and a more transparent marketplace that empowers consumers to make the choice between private insurers?.School-based health care clinics serve students whose access to health care is limited; and frequently, the scope of services is determined by school officials in partnership with parents and community-based health care initiatives. Services are designed to identify problems early, provide continuity of care, and improve academic participation. These programs save money by providing access to preventive care that frequently alludes many of the families affected.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 234-185. All 231 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted ?yea.? 185 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care reform law that provided federal funds to states for health care ?exchanges,? as well as a separate bill repealing a provision of the same health care law that provided federal funding for school-based health care centers.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 277
Apr 15, 2011
(H. Con. Res. 34) Final passage of a budget resolution setting the parameters for all federal government spending, cutting $5.8 trillion from federal programs over 10 years, and converting the Medicare program for the elderly into a private health insurance voucher system

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of the House budget resolution for fiscal year 2012. The annual budget resolution is essentially a blueprint for all federal government spending. Budget resolutions do not have the force of law, but rather set the parameters for all future congressional actions relating to the federal budget. For example, all government spending bills must abide by the funding limits established by the budget resolution in order to comply with House and Senate rules. (?Emergency spending,? such as disaster relief or war funding, is exempted from this requirement.)

In addition, the 2012 budget resolution cut $770 billion from Medicaid?the health insurance program for the poor that is funded jointly by the federal government and states. In order to generate $770 billion in savings, the Republican budget resolution converted Medicaid into a ?block grant,? in which states would simply receive a lump sum of money from the federal government to do as they see fit. If Medicaid were converted into a block grant, states would have far more flexibility in setting eligibility requirements for the program. For example, the federal government guaranteed Medicaid coverage to children, pregnant women, and parents with dependent children who met certain income requirements. Under a block grant system, states could elect not to insure those populations, or set the threshold for eligibility much higher. Thus, if Medicaid became a block grant, many Americans could lose their Medicaid coverage.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the sponsor of the Republican budget resolution, urged support for the measure: ?The spending spree is over. We cannot keep spending money we don't have. The American people deserve the truth. They deserve an honest, fact-based conversation about this budget. We have got to get on to the days of no more budget gimmicks, timing shifts, accounting tricks. And we've got to get on to fixing our country's fiscal problems while we still can and while they're still within our control?.It [the Republican budget resolution] brings the government's spending as a share of our economy back down to where it historically has been, contrary to where the President is taking it?.So we have a choice of two futures, Mr. Chairman. Which future do you want your children to have? One, where the debt gets so large, it crushes the economy and it gives them a diminished future, a stagnant economy; or, two, this budget, using CBO [Congressional Budget Office] numbers, that literally not only gets us on the way to balancing the budget but pays off our debt, gets our debt manageable, preempts and prevents a debt crisis, and fixes this so we can preserve this great legacy of giving the next generation a higher standard of living.?

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) also supported the measure: ?This budget represents a valiant effort to effect real change in the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars. This plan couples tangible spending cuts with the entitlement reform necessary to get our budget back into balance starting now and continuing into the long term. This Republican majority understands that we must end the skyrocketing budgets of the last several years, and this budget reiterates our commitment to smart but limited government spending.?

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) opposed the budget resolution: ?We all know that to govern is to choose, and the choices made in the Republican budget are wrong for America. It is not bold to give tax giveaways to the oil companies and executive board rooms while slashing investments in our kids' classrooms, in scientific research, and in critical infrastructure for this country. It is not courageous to provide additional tax breaks for millionaires while ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors with the cost of the rising health care. It is not visionary to reward corporations that ship American jobs instead of products overseas while we terminate health care for tens of millions of Americans here at home. It is not brave to give Governors a blank check of federal taxpayer money and a license to cut support for seniors and nursing homes, individuals with disabilities, and low-income kids on Medicaid. And it's not fair to give yet another tax break to the very wealthy and ask middle-income Americans to pay for it. Yet, if you read the Republican budget, those are the choices they make.?

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) also opposed the Republican budget measure: ?This budget is just not my cup of tea?.This budget does not share the sacrifice. It focuses the pain on the young, on the very old, on those who are trying to climb up the economic ladder, or just barely prevent themselves from slipping backward?.Our budget should be balanced, but not unfairly on the backs of those least able to bear it, like our elderly in nursing homes. It's troubling enough that this Republican budget demands even more tax cuts for those at the top and our largest corporations. But what's truly outrageous is that they seek balance by cutting the opportunity for our young people to get all the education they are willing to work for.?

[The annual budget resolution is essentially a blueprint for all federal government spending. Budget resolutions do not have the force of law, but rather set the parameters for all future congressional actions relating to the federal budget. For example, all government spending bills must abide by the funding limits established by the budget resolution in order to comply with House and Senate rules. (?Emergency spending,? such as disaster relief or war funding, is exempted from this requirement.)]


The House passed this budget resolution by a vote of 235-193. Voting ?yea? were 235 Republicans. All 189 Democrats present and 4 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed a budget resolution setting the parameters for all federal government spending, cutting $5.8 trillion from federal programs over 10 years, converting Medicaid into a block grant, and converting the Medicare program for the elderly into a private health insurance voucher system, instead of a guaranteed, government-run program.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 276
Apr 15, 2011
(H. Con. Res. 34) On an amendment sponsored by House Democrats that would have allowed income tax cuts for the wealthy enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire, cut Defense Department spending by $89 billion over 10 years, cut agricultural subsidies by $20 billion over 10 years, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a Democratic amendment that would have allowed income tax cuts for the wealthy enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire, cut Defense Department spending by $89 billion over 10 years, cut agricultural subsidies by $20 billion over 10 years, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly. This amendment was offered to a Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 2012.

This amendment?known as a ?substitute amendment?--essentially replaced all of the underlying budget resolution with an alternative budget proposal. Like similar amendments offered by the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, this amendment preserved Medicare as a government-run health care program. By contrast, the underlying Republican budget resolution converted the Medicare program into a private health insurance voucher system for those who were currently 55 or younger. Instead of receiving health care through traditional Medicare, which is essentially a single payer health insurance program for the elderly, seniors would receive a subsidy from the federal government to purchase health insurance in the private market. Unlike the Republican budget plan, this amendment would have preserved Medicare as a single payer system.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) urged support for this amendment: ??Our top priority in this Congress should be to support a robust economic recovery and put America back to work?.It reduces the deficit in a steady, predictable way without slashing important investments in our kids' education and strategic national investments, without ending the Medicare guarantee, and without putting seniors, disabled individuals and kids at risk who rely on Medicare?We believe America's greatness is rooted not only in a collection of individuals acting alone but from our capacity to work together for the common good. We believe that is a patriotic vision of America.?

Van Hollen also argued: ?We do not see the government as an enemy but as the imperfect instrument by which we can accomplish together as a people what no individual or single corporation can do alone?.We also believe we can do that while making cuts, and we make sensible, targeted cuts. But we do it in a smart way, not with a meat ax that threatens the fragile recovery. We also agree?that security spending should be part of this debate. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated, and I quote, that the most significant threat to our national security is our national debt. There is growing bipartisan consensus that those security agencies must themselves be part of our effort to reduce our debt and strengthen our country.?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) opposed the Democratic budget amendment: ??We just have a different definition of `fiscal responsibility,' I suppose. This [Democratic] budget, relative to the mark, to the base budget we're talking about [the underlying Republican budget resolution], increases spending by $4.5 trillion, raises taxes by $2 trillion, and it adds $2.4 trillion to the deficit compared to the base bill we're talking about here?.Secretary Gates has warned us that such [Defense Department] cuts would leave the military unable to meet its current missions. And using his words: `Setting indiscriminate targets to scrimp on defense is math, not strategy.' I think it's very important that we recognize our priorities. Number one, national defense is the primary responsibility of the federal government. When our war fighters tell us this doesn't allow them to have the tools to keep them safe, the equipment they need to prosecute their jobs, I think that's not responsible. When our economy is struggling to get out of a very deep recession, over $2 trillion in tax increases I just don't think is responsible.?

[The annual budget resolution is essentially a blueprint for all federal government spending. Budget resolutions do not have the force of law, but rather set the parameters for all future congressional actions relating to the federal budget. For example, all government spending bills must abide by the funding limits established by the budget resolution in order to comply with House and Senate rules. (?Emergency spending,? such as disaster relief or war funding, is exempted from this requirement.)]

The House rejected this Democratic budget amendment by a vote of 166-259. Voting ?yea? were 166 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. All 236 Republicans present and 23 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed income tax cuts for the wealthy enacted in 2001 and 2003 for wealthy taxpayers to expire, cut Defense Department spending by $89 billion over 10 years, cut agricultural subsidies by $20 billion over 10 years, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 274
Apr 15, 2011
(H. Con. Res. 34) On an amendment sponsored by the Congressional Progressive Caucus that would have allowed tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly. The amendment also would have ended tax subsidies for oil and gas companies and power plants, implemented a new government-run health insurance program to compete with private insurers, and increased funding for clean energy, affordable housing, and medical research programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment sponsored by the Congressional Progressive Caucus that would have allowed tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly. The amendment also would have ended tax subsidies for oil and gas companies and power plants, implemented a new government-run health insurance program to compete with private insurers, and increased funding for clean energy, affordable housing, and medical research programs. This amendment was offered to a Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 2012.

This amendment?known as a ?substitute amendment?--essentially replaced all of the underlying budget resolution with an alternative budget proposal. Like a similar amendment offered by the Congressional Black Caucus, this amendment preserved Medicare as a government-run health care program. The underlying Republican budget resolution converted the Medicare program into a private health insurance voucher system for those who were currently 55 or younger. Under the Republican plan, instead of receiving health care through traditional Medicare--which is essentially a single payer health insurance program for the elderly--seniors would receive a subsidy from the federal government to purchase health insurance in the private market. By contrast, this amendment would have preserved Medicare as a single payer system.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) urged support for this amendment, calling it a ?people?s budget?:  ?The people's budget does not tell the American people what they want to hear; it gives the American people what they want: Fairness, protection of our social net for Americans in retirement and at the beginning of their lives, jobs, an immediate infusion of job creation to put people back to work, investments in education?.It does not balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, those who aspire to be in the middle class, and those that are vulnerable in our society. It reverses a practice and it taxes those corporations and the very, very 2 percent rich in this country so they pay their just sacrifice to keeping this country healthy and turning our country around?.I urge approval of this budget. It is a document that represents the very best of what the people need, and it represents a departure from a practice that has brought us to the brink of a deep recession, to a practice that has brought us to joblessness across this country and to a practice that has given the privileged all they want and transferred that responsibility to working Americans in this country.

Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) opposed the amendment: ?This budget, if enacted, would end this country as we know it. This budget increases spending? by $13 trillion over 10 years. It takes $16 trillion more from the American people over 10 years through the biggest tax increase this country has ever seen. It increases our debt $3.5 trillion over 10 years. This isn't the people's budget. This country was founded on equal opportunity for everyone, not equal outcome. History is littered with countries and nations that have failed because they tried for equal outcome. This country remains the greatest Nation the world has ever seen because we pride ourselves and enforce equal opportunity.?

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) also opposed the amendment: ?I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak against the Progressive Caucus budget because it is a budget that, once again, will spend too much money?.one of the things that we have heard from the American people is this: they are tired of the federal government spending taxpayer money for programs they don't want and spending money that they don't have. And it is time for us to put this fiscal house in order?.They have spoken loudly and clearly. And they have said reduce what you are spending, get your fiscal house in order, begin to focus not on the next 6 weeks or 6 months but the next 60 years, and focus on our children and our grandchildren, making certain that we are not tapping their futures and trading it to the nations that hold our debt.?

[The annual budget resolution is essentially a blueprint for all federal government spending. Budget resolutions do not have the force of law, but rather set the parameters for all future congressional actions relating to the federal budget. For example, all government spending bills must abide by the funding limits established by the budget resolution in order to comply with House and Senate rules. (?Emergency spending,? such as disaster relief or war funding, is exempted from this requirement.)]

The House rejected the Progressive Caucus budget amendment by a vote of 77-347. Voting ?yea? were 77 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. All 239 Republicans present and 108 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly?as well as ended tax subsidies for oil and gas companies and power plants, implemented a new government-run health insurance program to compete with private insurers, and increased funding for clean energy, affordable housing, and medical research programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Medical Research Funding
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 273
Apr 15, 2011
(H. Con. Res. 34) On an amendment sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus that would have allowed income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly. The amendment also would have increased funding for food stamps, job training programs, food safety inspections, community health care centers, and financial aid for low-income college students.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) that would have allowed income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush to expire, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly. The amendment also would have increased funding for food stamps, job training programs, food safety inspections, community health care centers, and financial aid for low-income college students. This amendment was offered to a Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 2012.

This amendment?known as a ?substitute amendment?--essentially replaced all of the underlying budget resolution with an alternative budget proposal. In addition to allowing tax cuts to expire and increasing funding for social programs, the CBC budget preserved Medicare as a government-run health care program. The underlying Republican budget resolution converted the Medicare program into a private health insurance voucher system for those who were currently 55 or younger. Instead of receiving health care through traditional Medicare, which is essentially a single payer health insurance program for the elderly, seniors would receive a subsidy from the federal government to purchase health insurance in the private market. By contrast, this amendment would have preserved Medicare as a single payer system.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) urged support for this amendment: ??The Congressional Black Caucus has a long history of submitting fiscally responsible budget alternatives regardless of who may be sitting in the White House or which party holds the majority in Congress. This year's budget alternative continues this long tradition by putting forth a plan that significantly reduces our deficit over the next decade while increasing economic opportunities and promoting job creation in every corner of our society.? Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver (D-MO) also supported the amendment: ??We believe someone must stand up for the vulnerable population. The vulnerable population is not what we generally like to think; it's not the stereotypical view of a person who doesn't work and is shiftless and is a parasite. The vulnerable population today consists of firefighters, police officers, municipal workers, state workers, factory workers who have been laid off through no fault of their own because of this weak economy. Those men and women have been struggling trying to make it.?

Rep. Todd Young (R-IN) opposed the CBC budget amendment: ?We are imposing all manner of unnecessary sacrifice under this [CBC] substitute on those Americans who are currently working and middle class?.Here in this proposal, we are?contemplating allowing all tax provisions of the 2001 and 2003 deals to expire for all taxpayers. In other words, this is a proposed tax increase on middle class Americans. I don't think that's the right thing to do right now. Let's remind ourselves that we cannot tax our way out of this spending problem. Washington, once again, does not have a tax problem. We are not in this mess because we're not taxing the American people enough. Instead, we are in this mess because we're spending far too much.?

[The annual budget resolution is essentially a blueprint for all federal government spending. Budget resolutions do not have the force of law, but rather set the parameters for all future congressional actions relating to the federal budget. For example, all government spending bills must abide by the funding limits established by the budget resolution in order to comply with House and Senate rules. (?Emergency spending,? such as disaster relief or war funding, is exempted from this requirement.)]


The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 103-303. Voting ?yea? were 103 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. All 228 Republicans present and 75 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire, and preserved Medicare as a guaranteed, government-run health care program for the elderly?as well as increased funding for food stamps, job training programs, food safety inspections, community health care centers, and financial aid for low-income college students.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 271
Apr 14, 2011
(H. Con. Res. 36) Passage of legislation that would effectively eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides a wide array of health services for women, including breast cancer screenings, pap smears, and abortions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation that would effectively eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides a wide array of health services for women, including breast cancer screenings, pap smears, and abortions.

Technically, this vote was on an ?enrollment correction resolution.? Such resolutions are generally used for making technical changes to previously passed legislation. In this case, the enrollment correction added legislative language defunding Planned Parenthood to a recently passed government-funding bill. During negotiations on the government-funding bill, Senate Democrats agreed to hold an up-or-down vote on cutting all federal funds from Planned Parenthood. Specifically, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed to bring up this enrollment correction resolution for an up-or-down vote after it had passed the House.

Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-MI) supported this resolution: ?This resolution would deny funding to Planned Parenthood. It's morally wrong to have taxpayer dollars from my constituents in Mississippi, or from any other State, go towards organizations that provide abortions. Since 1977 Planned Parenthood has assisted in aborting the lives of over 5 million children?.This is an organization that has protected those who prey on our children and has protected those who rape our granddaughters?.They put quick and secret abortions ahead of the welfare of victimized young girls. And it has to stop. Those who oppose this resolution are enabling them.?

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) opposed the resolution: ?This is an attempt to turn back the clock on women's health and basic rights?.With this resolution, the majority aims to exclude one specific health care provider, Planned Parenthood, from all Federal resources. This will needlessly put lives in danger. Planned Parenthood carries out millions of lifesaving preventative and primary care services every year. They deliver immunizations, routine gynecological exams, nearly 1 million screenings for cervical cancer, 830,000 breast exams, and nearly 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections like HIV every single year. If this resolution passes, all of these services would be lost.?

The House passed this resolution by a vote of 241-185. Voting ?yea? were 231 Republicans and 10 Democrats. 178 Democrats and 7 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed a resolution that would effectively eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides a wide array of health services for women, including breast cancer screenings, pap smears, and abortions. The Senate, however, rejected this resolution by a vote of 42-58. Thus, the resolution eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood was not enacted, and Planned Parenthood?s federal funding remained intact for the remainder of the fiscal year.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
FAMILY PLANNING Availability of Contraceptives
N N Lost
Roll Call 270
Apr 14, 2011
(H. Con. Res. 35) Passage of legislation that would effectively defund the landmark 2010 health care reform law that expanded health insurance coverage to 31 million previously uninsured Americans, and prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on  passage of legislation that would effectively defund the landmark 2010 health care reform law that expanded health insurance coverage to 31 million previously uninsured Americans, and prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. The health care law also imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance. Employers with more than 50 workers were required to provide health insurance for their employees. The measure added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, and subsidized the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people. In addition, the health care law imposed a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals. 

Technically, this vote was on an ?enrollment correction resolution.? Such resolutions are generally used for making technical changes to previously passed legislation. In this case, the enrollment correction added legislative language defunding the health care reform law to a recently passed government-funding bill. During negotiations on the government-funding bill, Senate Democrats agreed to hold an up-or-down vote on repealing the health care law. Specifically, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed to bring up this enrollment correction resolution for an up-or-down vote after it had passed the House.

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) opposed the measure: ?I rise in strong opposition to the resolution. The House should be debating legislation to create jobs, not procedural tricks to repeal health reform and increase our deficit. Under this resolution, pregnant women and cancer survivors could lose coverage when they most need it. Young adults would lose coverage on their parents' plans. Seniors would pay higher drug costs. Businesses and families would not receive tax credits for affordable coverage; and accountability for large insurers to spend at least 85 percent of premiums on health benefits would end. Vote against this resolution in order to preserve vital consumer protections in health reform, reduce costs, and decrease the deficit.?

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) supported this legislation, arguing it would freeze the implementation of the health care law until the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional or a new president was elected: ?ObamaCare [the 2010 health care law] has been rejected by the American people. It sent 87 freshmen Republicans here [in the 2010 midterm elections] to Congress to repeal it. Every Republican in not only the House of Representatives but in the United States Senate has voted to repeal ObamaCare?.It [the enrollment correction resolution] puts a freeze on it so the courts can decide, so the will of the people can be reflected not just in the House of Representatives, but eventually in the United States Senate. And also, let's bring a President that will sign this repeal, this unconstitutional taking of American liberty that is known as ObamaCare.?

The House passed this resolution by a vote of 240-185. All 237 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted ?yea.? 185 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed a resolution that would effectively defund the landmark 2010 health care reform law that expanded health insurance coverage to 31 million previously uninsured Americans, and prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. The Senate, however, rejected the measure by a vote of 47-53. Thus, this legislation repealing the health care reform law was not enacted, and the landmark 2010 health care reform law remained intact.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
N N Lost
Roll Call 269
Apr 14, 2011
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

N N Lost
Roll Call 268
Apr 14, 2011
(H.R. 1473) Final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid.

The bill?known as a ?continuing resolution,? or ?CR??represented an agreement on federal government spending negotiated between President Obama, Senate Democrats, and House Republicans. House Republicans had initially demanded more than $60 billion in spending cuts, as well as a number of ?policy riders??prohibitions on government funding for certain policies. For example, the House Republican leadership had initially insisted on banning federal funding for Planned Parenthood?which provides a wide array of health services for women, including breast cancer screenings, pap smears, and abortions. Democrats refused to agree to this provision, and the Planned Parenthood funding prohibition was not included in the final agreement.

Senate Democrats did agree, however, to hold an up-or-down vote on banning federal funding for the organization at a later date. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) also agreed to hold an up-or-down vote on repealing the landmark 2010 health care reform law that was strongly supported by President Obama.

According to the Associated Press, the Obama administration had managed to preserve funding for many programs through ?budget tricks.? Specifically, the underlying bill eliminated funding that had been allocated for programs in the previous year, but had never been spent. The AP?s Andrew Taylor reported: ?The historic $38 billion in budget cuts resulting from at-times hostile bargaining between Congress and the Obama White House were accomplished in large part by pruning money left over from previous years? Such moves permitted Obama to save favorite programs - Pell grants for poor college students, health research and "Race to the Top" aid for public schools, among others - from Republican knives, according to new details of the legislation released Tuesday morning.?

While the budget agreement also eliminated summer semester Pell Grants for low-income college students, it preserved the full grant ($5,500) for the regular school year despite Republican efforts to reduce the overall award.

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) urged support for the bill: ?This final CR makes nearly $40 billion of real spending cuts compared to fiscal year 2010 levels while funding the government's critical services and programs and supporting our Nation's troops for the rest of this fiscal year. After weeks of hard fought negotiations, all sides were able to come together in this final agreement to find common ground and take steps to help balance our budget.  This legislation is a bold move for Congress, one that points us in the right direction on Federal spending. Never before has any Congress made dramatic cuts such as these that are in this final bill. The near $40 billion reduction in non-defense spending is tens of billions of dollars larger than any other cut in history and is the result of this new Republican majority's commitment to bring about real change in the way Washington spends the people's money.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) also supported the bill, arguing that while it was far from perfect, it was preferable to a government shutdown: ??Politics is the art of compromise, and this continuing resolution is the epitome of compromise. Members on the other side of the aisle dislike many aspects of this deal, as many Members on this side of the aisle dislike other aspects of this deal. The compromise reached by the negotiators produced a bill that was imperfect at best. However, it was the responsible thing to do with a government shutdown looming.?

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) opposed the bill: ? I rise in strong opposition to this continuing resolution. Budgets are moral documents that reflect who we are as a nation. They're not just about dollars and cents. These cuts won't create jobs, foster economic opportunity, or provide pathways out of poverty. Instead, this bill eliminates billions in investments in our workforce, our transportation infrastructure, our small businesses and, most importantly, in our people. It's a bold assault on millions of people who rely on our safety net. These budget cuts and warped priorities should be a moral outrage to every member of this body.?

Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) also opposed the bill: ?To those celebrating the depth and severity of the Republican budget cuts, allow me to highlight a few uncomfortable truths. This legislation won't create jobs. It won't improve America's long-term fiscal outlook. And it certainly won't make life any easier for the working families who have borne the brunt of the worst recession since the 1930s.  My Republican colleagues should acknowledge what mainstream economists have maintained for years: that the anemic 18 percent of the budget we allocate to social programs isn't a threat to our national solvency. We should reject the false choice between repairing our finances and preserving our social safety net. Shrinking the national debt doesn't require starving programs that provide for the poor, protect our planet and empower our young people.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 260-167. Voting ?yea? were 179 Republicans and 81 Democrats. 108 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 59 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid. Following House passage, the Senate also passed the bill, thereby enabling President Obama to sign it into law.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
N N Lost
Roll Call 266
Apr 14, 2011
(H. Con. Res. 34) A budget resolution setting the parameters for all federal government spending, cutting $5.8 trillion from federal programs over 10 years, and converting the Medicare program for the elderly into a private health insurance voucher system ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the budget resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2012.

The annual budget resolution is essentially a blueprint for all federal government spending. Budget resolutions do not have the force of law, but rather set the parameters for all future congressional actions relating to the federal budget. For example, all government spending bills must abide by the funding limits established by the budget resolution in order to comply with House and Senate rules. (?Emergency spending,? such as disaster relief or war funding, is exempted from this requirement.)

In addition, the 2012 budget resolution cut $770 billion from Medicaid?the health insurance program funded jointly by the federal government and states. In order to generate $770 billion in savings, the budget resolution converted Medicaid into a ?block grant,? in which states would simply receive a lump sum of money from the federal government to do as they see fit. If Medicaid were converted into a block grant, states would have far more flexibility in setting eligibility requirements for the program. For example, the federal government guaranteed Medicaid coverage to children, pregnant women, and parents with dependent children who met certain income requirements. Under a block grant system, states could elect not to insure those populations, or set the threshold for eligibility much higher. Thus, if Medicaid became a block grant, many Americans could lose their Medicaid coverage.

Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL) urged support for the resolution and the underlying budget measure: ?We hear a lot about job creators and business owners. Well, I am a small business owner, and I know what this crushing federal debt does to small businesses all across our nation and to job creators as well. It reduces certainty and stability, it scares away private sector investment that leads to growth for our economy, and it crushes the hopes of job creation?.Federal deficits, Madam Speaker, have ballooned over the last 3 years, and this budget blueprint for fiscal year 2012 starts to repair the damage and takes the serious steps to put ourselves on a path to paying off the debt and reducing our deficits.?

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) opposed the resolution and the underlying budget measure: ?The Road to Ruin budget [the underlying budget measure] ends Medicare. This is a program that 46 million seniors and disabled individuals rely on for their health care. Rather than guaranteed benefits, seniors and the disabled will be left with a voucher, or so-called premium support, that by design cannot and will not keep up with rising health care costs. The private market views seniors as a risky and expensive investment. So too the disabled. So too military servicemembers and veterans who have unique health needs earned through their sacrifice in service to America. The question before us today is not whether to reduce the deficit, but how. We have balanced the budget before without ending Medicare. We can do it again without the painful consequences that the Republican plan would initiate, where our seniors would pay 68 cents of every dollar of insurance required as compared to Congress paying 28 cents on every dollar.?

[While the budget resolution pertains to one specific fiscal year (in this, case 2012), they encompass a five or ten year window. In other words, they make assumptions about the effects of budgetary policies during the five or ten year period following a budget resolution?s enactment. This underlying 2012 budget resolution was a 10-year budget plan. Specifically, it cut $5.8 trillion from federal programs over 10 years, and converted the Medicare program for the elderly into a private health insurance voucher system for those who were currently 55 or younger. Instead of receiving health care through traditional Medicare, which is essentially a single payer health insurance program for the elderly, seniors would receive a subsidy from the federal government to purchase health insurance in the private market.]


The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 243-181. All 238 Republicans present and 5 Democrats voted ?yea.? 181 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on a budget resolution setting the parameters for all federal government spending, cutting $5.8 trillion from federal programs over 10 years, converting the Medicare program for the elderly into a private health insurance voucher system.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 265
Apr 14, 2011
(H. Con. Res. 34) A budget resolution setting the parameters for all federal government spending, cutting $5.8 trillion from federal programs over 10 years, and converting the Medicare program for the elderly into a private health insurance voucher system ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the budget resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2012. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

The annual budget resolution is essentially a blueprint for all federal government spending. Budget resolutions do not have the force of law, but rather set the parameters for all future congressional actions relating to the federal budget. For example, all government spending bills must abide by the funding limits established by the budget resolution in order to comply with House and Senate rules. (?Emergency spending,? such as disaster relief or war funding, is exempted from this requirement.)

While the budget resolution pertains to one specific fiscal year (in this, case 2012), they encompass a five or ten year window. In other words, they make assumptions about the effects of budgetary policies during the five or ten year period following a budget resolution?s enactment. This underlying 2012 budget resolution was a 10-year budget plan. Specifically, it cut $5.8 trillion from federal programs over 10 years, and converted the Medicare program for the elderly into a private health insurance voucher system for those who were currently 55 or younger. Instead of receiving health care through traditional Medicare, which is essentially a single payer health insurance program for the elderly, seniors would receive a subsidy from the federal government to purchase health insurance in the private market.

In addition, the 2012 budget resolution cut $770 billion from Medicaid?the health insurance program funded jointly by the federal government and states. In order to generate $770 billion in savings, the budget resolution converted Medicaid into a ?block grant,? in which states would simply receive a lump sum of money from the federal government to do as they see fit. If Medicaid were converted into a block grant, states would have far more flexibility in setting eligibility requirements for the program. For example, the federal government guaranteed Medicaid coverage to children, pregnant women, and parents with dependent children who met certain income requirements. Under a block grant system, states could elect not to insure those populations, or set the threshold for eligibility much higher. Thus, if Medicaid became a block grant, many Americans could lose their Medicaid coverage.

Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) urged support for the resolution and the underlying budget measure: ?Each of us is here today because those who came before us made amazing sacrifices for the next generation--us--keeping alive the American Dream. In the last century alone, our parents and grandparents have won two world wars, overcome the Great Depression, defeated communism, and created the most prosperous and vibrant society in the history of mankind. Today it is our turn. It is our turn to take a bold and necessary step to ensure that we pass on to our children this great blessing called America, and even a stronger America than the one we received from our parents?.Our plan creates jobs, real jobs, 1 million new jobs in America in the first year alone. It stimulates our economy, increasing our GDP [gross domestic product] by $1.5 trillion in the next 10 years. It protects and strengthens Social Security and Medicare.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) opposed the resolution and the underlying budget plan: ?It would eliminate Medicare as we know it, forcing seniors to pay thousands of dollars more every year for their health care. It would bring back the doughnut hole, allow insurance companies to once again discriminate based upon preexisting conditions, and kick young people off their parents' insurance plans. It would slash needed investments in education, infrastructure, medical research, environmental protection, and hunger programs. And it would still result in deficits as far as the eye can see?.In short, I believe this budget would represent the largest redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the wealthy in American history?.Over the last several years, working families have been struggling, struggling to find a job, struggling to pay their mortgages, to pay the utility bills and their health care bills, struggling to put food on the table and put their kids through college. To them, the Republicans would say, `Tough luck.'?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 238-183. All 236 Republicans present and 2 Democrats voted ?yea.? 183 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2012.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 264
Apr 13, 2011
(H.R. 1217) Final passage of legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which invested $15 billion in preventive health care initiatives such as immunizations, school health centers, primary care physician training programs, and anti-obesity measures

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which invested $15 billion in preventive health care initiatives.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund was established in 2010 under the landmark health care reform law that was strongly supported and signed into law by President Obama. The Fund authorized the Health and Human Services secretary to allocate funding to states for a wide variety of preventive health care programs, such as immunizations, school health centers, primary care physician training programs, and anti-obesity measures. Most Democrats strongly supported the Fund, arguing it would lower health care costs by expanding access to preventive care. Republicans derided the program as a ?slush fund? for the HHS secretary.

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) urged support for the bill: ? This should concern every Member that we have created a slush fund from which the Secretary can spend without any congressional oversight or approval. No one here can tell us how this funding will be used next year or 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 years from now. We can't predict how the money will be spent--and worse, we can't even influence it. I would suggest to my colleagues that, if you wanted more funding to go towards smoking cessation or to any other program, the health care law should have contained an explicit authorization, because you are not guaranteed that a dime of the money in this fund will go to your particular activity.  By eliminating this fund, we are not cutting any specific program or activity. I am not against prevention and wellness. This is not what this is about. This is about reclaiming our oversight role of how federal tax dollars should be used.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) also supported the bill: ?This fund, called the Prevention and Public Health Fund, is almost $18 billion, which accounts for the next 8 fiscal years, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services gets to spend this money on any program that he or she deems worthy. What the money will be used for and how it will be used are, essentially, unknowns. Neither this Congress nor subsequent Congresses have any earthly idea. It is yet, once again, an abdication of our authority here in the United States Congress. It is an abdication of power in deference to the executive branch.?

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) opposed the bill: ?For many years, Republicans have joined with Democrats in supporting programs to prevent disease, to promote health and, in turn, to cut health care costs. But today, the House will vote to end funding for the first and only Federal program with dedicated, ongoing resources designed to make us a healthier Nation. Every State in the Union is already benefiting from the resources made available from the fund to fight chronic and costly conditions, such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes. Repealing the prevention fund is a blow against seniors. In States like California, Michigan, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, and Massachusetts, they are using these funds to train personal home care aides who assist the elderly with Alzheimer's disease and other disabling conditions.?

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) also opposed the bill: ?Preventable causes of death such as tobacco smoking, poor diet, physical inactivity, and the misuse of alcohol have been estimated to be responsible for 900,000 deaths annually, nearly 40 percent of total yearly mortality in the United States. Further, 7 in 10 deaths in America are from chronic diseases. And by 2020, the U.S. may spend $685 billion a year on these chronic diseases. This fund works to bring down these numbers and to help Americans live longer, healthier lives. Preventive care is fiscally responsible. One example that would be impacted by this misguided legislation is vaccines. Estimates indicate that we save up to $400 for every illness averted by vaccination. And that does not even take into account the costs of further transmission in the case of a serious public health epidemic.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 236-183. All 232 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted ?yea.? 183 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation that invested $15 billion in preventive health care initiatives such as immunizations, school health centers, primary care physician training programs, and anti-obesity measures. Since the Senate had not acted on legislation to eliminate the Fund, however, the program continued to operate.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
N N Lost
Roll Call 263
Apr 13, 2011
(H.R. 1217) On a motion that would have allowed a preventive health care program to continue exclusively for senior citizens

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have allowed the Prevention and Public Health Fund to continue serving senior citizens. This motion was offered to legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund entirely. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.

Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-IA) urged support for this motion to recommit: ??While I oppose the underlying bill, I am offering this final amendment on a topic that I know is important to all of us--our nation's seniors. Our seniors have worked hard all their lives. Many of them have lived through some of the most trying times in American history, including the Great Depression and two world wars?.When I talk to seniors in my district, I hear far too often that many of them are struggling. This is unacceptable. No senior should retire into poverty or have difficulty paying their medical bills?.I am determined to fight for our seniors and to make sure that we keep our promises to them. That is why this final amendment will ensure that the repeal of the Prevention and Public Health Fund will not apply to prevention, wellness, and public health activities for individuals 65 years of age or older.?

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) opposed the motion to recommit: ?Members were brought here to get runaway spending under control; but rather than help us avoid a fiscal crisis, House Democrats have brought forward an MTR [motion to recommit] that guts the underlying bill and continues the runaway spending that the American people have rejected?.Rampant spending on the federal credit card cannot continue. The federal government will be borrowing 42 cents of every Federal dollar spent from this fund. We are facing a $1.6 trillion deficit?.This endless spending is fiscally irresponsible and morally bankrupt. Spending today is debt that our children and grandchildren will pay tomorrow.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 189-234. All 189 Democrats present voted ?yea.? All 234 Republicans present voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have allowed a preventive health care program to continue exclusively for senior citizens.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 262
Apr 13, 2011
(H.R. 1217) On an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office, which undertakes investigations and studies for Congress, to conduct a study on the impact of a preventive health care program on states and local communities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) that would have required the Government Accountability Office, which undertakes investigations and studies for Congress, to conduct a study on the impact of the Prevention and Public Health Fund on states and local communities. 

The Prevention and Public Health Fund was established in 2010 under the landmark health care reform law that was strongly supported and signed into law by President Obama. The Fund authorized the Health and Human Services secretary to allocate funding to states for a wide variety of preventive health care programs, such as immunizations, school health centers, primary care physician training programs, and anti-obesity measures. Most Democrats strongly supported the Fund, arguing it would lower health care costs by expanding access to preventive care. Republicans derided the program as a ?slush fund? for the HHS secretary. This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

This was the second of two amendments calling for GAO studies relating to the Prevention and Public Health Fund. The first amendment required a study on the impact of the Fund on preventing chronic diseases and promoting public health. This amendment required a similar study of the impact of the Fund on states and local communities.

Castor urged support for her amendment: ??My amendment requires a Government Accountability Office study within 90 days of enactment of this bill to examine the economic impact Prevention and Public Health grants have on States and local communities. Now, I can tell you we don't really need a study to understand how important prevention is and how important it is to empower our hometowns, local governments, nonprofits, whoever can come together on a local level and make these decisions about encouraging healthier lifestyles. The beauty of the Public Health and Prevention initiative is it's not Washington dictating all across the country a cookie-cutter approach, one size fits all. Instead, we empower our neighbors to make these decisions on what works best for them. I would say that what works best in my hometown back in Tampa probably would not work quite as well in Fargo or in Missouri.

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) opposed the amendment: ??The Castor amendment directs the Government Accountability Office to make assumptions on the economic impacts of providing prevention, wellness, and public health activities under?[ the Prevention and Public Health Fund]. However?[the Fund] gives the Secretary of HHS complete discretion to spend this slush fund with little limitation. The amendment asks the GAO to determine the economic impact of spending when no one except the Secretary knows how those dollars will be spent. What will GAO base their assumptions on? Does placing signage for bike paths produce economic activity or does advocating higher soda taxes benefit the economy?... Members and the GAO cannot determine the economic impact of the fund because the secretary controls how it is to be spent.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 188-238. Voting ?yea? were 187 Democrats and 1 Republican. 235 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on the impact of a preventive health care program on states and local communities.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 261
Apr 13, 2011
(H.R. 1217) On an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office, which undertakes investigations and studies for Congress, to conduct a study on the impact of a preventive health care program on preventing chronic diseases and promoting public health

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) that would have required the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which undertakes investigations and studies for Congress, to conduct a study on the impact of the Prevention and Public Health Fund on ?preventing chronic diseases and promoting public health.? 

The Prevention and Public Health Fund was established in 2010 under the landmark health care reform law that was strongly supported and signed into law by President Obama. The Fund authorized the Health and Human Services secretary to allocate funding to states for a wide variety of preventive health care programs, such as immunizations, school health centers, primary care physician training programs, and anti-obesity measures. Most Democrats strongly supported the Fund, arguing it would lower health care costs by expanding access to preventive care. Republicans derided the program as a ?slush fund? for the HHS secretary. This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

Castor urged support for her amendment: ??My amendment requires a government accountability study?to study the impact the Prevention and Public Health initiative has on preventing chronic diseases and promoting public health?.prevention works. It's smart. It saves the taxpayers money. It saves families money. And it saves lives. The Prevention and Public Health initiative empowers communities all across this great nation to focus on prevention and wellness and what works for them when it comes to reducing cancer cases, reducing heart disease, reducing strokes back in our own hometowns?.We all know our neighbors, friends, families, folks we go to church with, folks we see in the grocery store that suffer from these diseases. In a lot of these cases, if they had gotten early detection or if we had worked harder on prevention, they wouldn't have fallen into that trap of the disease and all that it brings for families and communities.?

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) opposed the amendment: ??The amendment before us directs the GAO to pontificate on the effectiveness of unspecified prevention, wellness, and public health activities financed by funds under?.[the Prevention and Public Health Fund] As we have pointed out, section 4002 gives the Secretary of HHS complete discretion to spend the slush fund with little limitation?.How can we ask the GAO to determine the effectiveness of spending dollars when we simply don't know how those dollars will be spent? Is GAO supposed to assume that funds will be used to train doctors or build jungle gyms? Will their report make the assumption that the money will be used to advocate for soda tax increases in states or build signs that direct people to bike paths? All of these activities can be funded through this slush fund.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 187-237. Voting ?yea? were 186 Democrats and 1 Republican. 236 Republicans and 2 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on the impact of a preventive health care program on preventing chronic diseases and promoting public health.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 260
Apr 13, 2011
(H.R. 1473) Legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid.

The underlying bill?known as a ?continuing resolution,? or ?CR??represented an agreement on federal government spending negotiated between President Obama, Senate Democrats (who held a majority), and House Republicans (who were the majority party in that chamber). House Republicans had initially demanded more than $60 billion in spending cuts, as well as a number of ?policy riders??prohibitions on government funding for certain policies. For example, the House Republican leadership had initially insisted on banning federal funding for Planned Parenthood?which provides a wide array of health services for women, including breast cancer screenings, pap smears, and abortions. Democrats refused to agree to this provision, and the Planned Parenthood funding prohibition was not included in the final agreement.

Senate Democrats did agree, however, to hold an up-or-down vote on banning federal funding for the organization at a later date. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) also agreed to hold an up-or-down vote on repealing the landmark 2010 health care reform law that was strongly supported by President Obama. Specifically, this resolution allowed the House to bring up the CR, as well as two separate bills eliminating federal funding for Planned Parenthood and the 2010 health care reform law. As part of the budget agreement, the Senate would vote on all three measures.

According to the Associated Press, the Obama administration had managed to preserve funding for many programs through ?budget tricks.? Specifically, the underlying bill eliminated funding that had been allocated for programs in the previous year, but had never been spent. The AP?s Andrew Taylor reported: ?The historic $38 billion in budget cuts resulting from at-times hostile bargaining between Congress and the Obama White House were accomplished in large part by pruning money left over from previous years? Such moves permitted Obama to save favorite programs - Pell grants for poor college students, health research and "Race to the Top" aid for public schools, among others - from Republican knives, according to new details of the legislation released Tuesday morning.?

While the budget agreement also eliminated summer semester Pell Grants for low-income college students, it preserved the full grant ($5,500) for the regular school year despite Republican efforts to reduce the overall award.


Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?We all profess that we want to cut back on the deficit for the year and for the ensuing years. The deficit this year, $1.4 trillion in just 1 year, the largest in history, adding to a debt that exceeds all of our fears of some $14.2 or $14.3 trillion. We all say, let's cut back on spending. Here is your chance. Here is your opportunity. If you profess to be a fiscally responsible member of this House, you have a chance, yea, an obligation, to vote for this bill and support it. It's historic. We've never been here before. We've reached a pinnacle and a great opportunity for us to show to the rest of the country that we're serious about controlling the free-spending nature of this body. This is your chance. Don't miss it.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) criticized the resolution and the underlying bill: ?What we're doing in this continuing resolution is increasing the favorite government spending of the majority party, running up the deficit, continuing big tax cuts for special interests while slashing the effort to educate our children, ensure access to health care, keep our air and water clean?We can do better, we must do better. To save America from bankruptcy, we must do better than sound and fury signifying nothing. We need to work together to make the cuts we need to make, to increase the revenues we need to increase, and to examine our entitlement programs to put our nation on proper fiscal footing for the next generation and remove the mounting burden of debt that faces the next generation of Americans.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 241-179. All 236 Republicans present and 5 Democrats voted ?yea.? 179 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
N N Lost
Roll Call 259
Apr 13, 2011
(H.R. 1473) Legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

The underlying bill?known as a ?continuing resolution? represented an agreement on federal government spending negotiated between President Obama, Senate Democrats (who held a majority), and House Republicans (who were the majority party in that chamber). House Republicans had initially demanded more than $60 billion in spending cuts, as well as a number of ?policy riders??prohibitions on government funding for certain policies. For example, the House Republican leadership had initially insisted on banning federal funding for Planned Parenthood?which provides a wide array of health services for women, including breast cancer screenings, pap smears, and abortions. Democrats refused to agree to this provision, and the Planned Parenthood funding prohibition was not included in the final agreement. Senate Democrats did agree, however, to hold an up-or-down vote on banning federal funding for the organization. While the budget agreement also eliminated summer semester Pell Grants for low-income college students, it preserved the full annual grant ($5,500) for the regular school year despite Republican efforts to reduce the overall award.

According to the Associated Press, the Obama administration had managed to preserve funding for many programs through ?budget tricks.? Specifically, the underlying bill eliminated funding that had been allocated for programs but had never been spent. The AP?s Andrew Taylor reported: ?The historic $38 billion in budget cuts resulting from at-times hostile bargaining between Congress and the Obama White House were accomplished in large part by pruning money left over from previous years? Such moves permitted Obama to save favorite programs - Pell grants for poor college students, health research and "Race to the Top" aid for public schools, among others - from Republican knives, according to new details of the legislation released Tuesday morning.?
 
Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?We will halt the practice of reckless and unchecked growth in federal spending? we will reverse the course that we have been on. This final continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011 imposes the single largest cut in non-defense spending in our nation's history?.this is not the end of our work to restore discipline and accountability of the federal budget, far from it. After fighting so hard to get to this point, it's important to point out that the truly difficult work still lies ahead for us. This resolution is also not the perfect measure we were all working for. Many of us fought hard to have even greater cuts and more significant reforms. But today's action is so critical because it is the turning point; it is the turning point.. It is that profoundly important first step. The American people have said enough is enough, and this Congress is finally responding.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) criticized the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Under this bill, critical services that many Americans rely on to educate our children, to keep our streets safe, to improve public health, to keep our water and air clean would face tens of billions of dollars worth of real and difficult cuts. Times are tough. We know we have to cut spending?.But Republicans didn't go after their favorite areas of Big Government spending.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 242-183. All 237 Republicans present and 5 Democrats voted ?yea.? 183 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies through September 2011, and cutting $39 billion from federal programs, including financial aid for low-income college students attending summer semesters, funding for high-speed rail travel, and foreign aid.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
N N Lost
Roll Call 258
Apr 13, 2011
(H.R. 1217) Legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which invested $15 billion in preventive health care initiatives such as immunizations, school health centers, primary care physician training programs, and anti-obesity measures ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which invested $15 billion in preventive health care initiatives.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund was established in 2010 under the landmark health care reform law that was strongly supported and signed into law by President Obama. The Fund authorized the Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary to allocate funding to states for a wide variety of preventive health care programs, such as immunizations, school health centers, primary care physician training programs, and anti-obesity measures. Most Democrats strongly supported the Fund, arguing it would lower health care costs by expanding access to preventive care.
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill, arguing that the Prevention and Public Health Fund lacked accountability: ?Republicans are rejecting this slush fund by considering this bill which would repeal the fund and take back any money that has not already been spent this year?.My colleagues across the aisle will argue that this money is being used to train primary care physicians, to prevent obesity, and to encourage healthy lifestyles. What they won't tell you is that they have absolutely no idea how the money is being used, because they abdicated the authority of Congress to an unelected bureaucrat [the secretary of Health and Human Services].?

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ??We spend more than $2 trillion annually on health care, more than any other nation on Earth. Yet tens of millions of Americans still suffer from preventable and chronic diseases. In fact, approximately 75 percent of the Nation's health care expenditure is spent on treating chronic conditions. These conditions account for seven of 10 deaths in America. For too long, the health delivery system in our country has been focused on only treating people after they get sick, not before?. This bill before us will have a devastating effect on the future health of America, both in terms of our physical health and for our fiscal responsibility. In order to truly improve both our health and our health care in this country, we must focus on prevention.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 237-180. All 233 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted ?yea.? 180 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which invested $15 billion in preventive health care initiatives such as immunizations, school health centers, primary care physician training programs, and anti-obesity measures.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
HEALTH CARE Preventing Obesity
N N Lost
Roll Call 257
Apr 13, 2011
(H.R. 1217) Legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which invested $15 billion over ten years in preventive health care initiatives such as immunizations, school health centers, primary care physician training programs, and anti-obesity measures ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which invested $15 billion over ten years in preventive health care initiatives. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund was established in 2010 under the landmark health care reform law that was strongly supported and signed into law by President Obama. The Fund authorized the Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary to allocate funding to states for a wide variety of preventive health care programs, such as immunizations, school health centers, primary care physician training programs, and anti-obesity measures. Most Democrats strongly supported the Fund, arguing it would lower health care costs by expanding access to preventive care. Republicans derided the program as a ?slush fund? for the HHS secretary.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Pitt County, in my home state of North Carolina, received funding from this fund to fix prices at convenience stores so that healthy foods would be less expensive and, therefore, supposedly more attractive to the consumer. In addition, the Pitt County Health Department now plans to use some of this money to put up signs indicating the location of public parks, bike lanes, and alternate transportation. Although I am certainly not opposed to parks or healthy eating habits, it seems quite clear that the founders of this country did not intend the federal Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, DC, to use taxpayer money to subsidize granola bars or purchase signs for bike lanes or parks. The federal government has no business paying for local and community initiatives such as these, especially when we are borrowing 43 cents of every dollar the federal government spends to pay for it.?

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The burden of chronic diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and stroke, present a significant public health challenge to all of our communities and our nation as a whole. In my home State of Florida, over 10 million cases of seven chronic diseases--cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, mental disorders, and pulmonary conditions--were reported early on in this decade at the cost of about $17.6 billion in treatment, and resulting in $68.7 billion in lost productivity and economic cost. Simply put, we have a sick care system, not a health care system. Tens of millions of Americans are suffering from health conditions that could possibly be preventable?.The Prevention and Public Health Fund represents an unprecedented investment of $15 billion over 10 years to help prevent disease, detect it early, and manage conditions before they become severe. It aims to transform the focus of our system of care from primarily treating illness to maintaining long-term wellness by leveraging the power of preventive medicine.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 238-182. All 236 Republicans present and 2 Democrats voted ?yea.? 182 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which invested $15 billion over ten years in preventive health care initiatives such as immunizations, school health centers, primary care physician training programs, and anti-obesity measures.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
HEALTH CARE Preventing Obesity
N N Lost
Roll Call 253
Apr 08, 2011
(H.R. 1363) Final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week. When the House voted on this bill, congressional leaders had already reached an agreement with President Obama on a long-term government-funding bill that would last through September 2011 (the end of the federal government?s fiscal year).  However, the long-term funding measure had not yet been written in legislative language. Thus, the House brought up this short-term bill to prevent the federal government from shutting down while the long-term government-funding agreement was written in bill form.

The possibility of a government shutdown was the result of a sharp disagreement between House Republicans and Senate Democrats?as well as President Obama?over spending levels for government programs. Democrats had agreed to enact more than $30 billion in budget cuts, but Republicans had insisted on at least $60 billion. While President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) negotiated a compromise on federal spending, the House brought up this temporary government funding measure.

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY), urged support for the bill:  ?The American people need and deserve to have a functioning government, but they also deserve a government that spends its taxpayer dollars responsibly, a government that won't saddle their children and grandchildren with unsustainable and reckless debt. Our constituents have sent us the message that the standard tax-and-spend culture in Washington is no longer acceptable. It has been the goal of this new Republican majority to keep precious tax dollars where they are needed most, in the hands of businesses and individuals across the Nation so that they can create jobs and grow our economy?.While we continue to work, we must make responsible decisions to fund our troops and their families, keep the lights on in government, and continue to provide the services that Americans depend on every day.

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) also supported the bill: ?I would like to thank the president and the leaders in the House and Senate on both sides for the compromise and for averting a government shutdown. I think there was a major decision made tonight by both parties and by the administration to keep the government open. That's what the American people sent us here to do. They sent us here to work out compromises, to be able to resolve issues and to move forward, and I think this is an example of that. Now, this CR will run for 1 week to April 15. It is basically a clean CR in the sense of there is no ideologically driven language.?

While no members spoke in opposition to the bill, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) released a written statement saying: ?I am relieved that a government shutdown was averted tonight, but I am disappointed with the continued Republican efforts to strip funding for critical programs and services that millions of people depend on.  Republicans want to finance their unpaid-for tax breaks for the wealthy on the backs of our most vulnerable populations and underserved communities.  I cannot support this continuing resolution that will negatively impact millions of our most vulnerable populations: low- and middle-income people, the needy and the poor.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 348-70. Voting ?yea? were 208 Republicans and 140 Democrats. 42 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 28 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week while a long-term government-funding agreement was written in legislative language. Since the Senate had already passed this bill, House passage cleared the measure for President Obama to sign into law.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 252
Apr 08, 2011
(H. J. Res 37) Final passage of legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? regulations prohibit Internet service companies from charging higher fees to online content providers for service that enables their web sites to download more quickly.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. ?Network Neutrality? regulations prohibit Internet service companies from charging higher fees to online content providers for service that enables their websites to download more quickly. For example, Internet service providers such as AT&T and Verizon could offer faster service to web sites that could afford to pay for it. Web sites that could not afford to pay for this service, however, would download more slowly. Thus, network neutrality rules were intended to prevent the evolution of a ?two-tiered? Internet system. Under such a system, content providers with more money would thrive as a result of being able to pay for service that allowed their websites to download quickly. Less affluent web site owners, meanwhile, could see their traffic slow to a crawl.)_
 
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC--which regulates interstate and international communication) had imposed network neutrality rules on Internet service providers in 2010. This legislation would  overturn the FCC?s rule.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) argued that the FCC did not have the regulatory authority to impose network neutrality rules: ?If not challenged, the FCC's power grab would allow it to regulate any interstate communication service on barely more than a whim and without any additional input from Congress. The FCC's claim that it can regulate the Internet?not credible?.The Internet is open and innovative thanks to the government's hands-off approach?How carriers manage their networks should be determined by engineers and entrepreneurs and consumers in the marketplace, not by as few as three unelected commissioners at the FCC.?

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) also supported the bill: ?Once again, we're here to put the brakes on runaway bureaucracy. The FCC has overstepped its authority and is attempting to seize control of one of the Nation's greatest technological success stories. If there is one segment of our economy that continues to fire on all cylinders in the current economic environment, it is the information technology sector and the Internet?.From technological advancements to creative business models, the Internet has remained a thriving, competitive, and innovative marketplace because the government has kept its hand off. Despite this economic and innovation success story, the FCC has decided to fundamentally change the technology landscape by adopting rules regulating the Internet?.the Internet is not broken, and this bill will ensure that the FCC does not break it.?

Rep. Henry Waxman opposed the bill: ?This legislation is a bad bill. This bill would give big phone and cable companies control over what Web sites Americans can visit, what applications they can run, and what devices they can use. The Internet may be the greatest engine in our economy today. American Internet companies lead the world in innovation. They have created over a million jobs. There is one overriding reason the Internet has fostered such innovation and economic growth: It is open. A kid with a brilliant idea can launch his or her own company out of their family garage. The FCC order protects the openness and vitality of the Internet. The resolution we are debating today would end it.?

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) also opposed the bill: ??They [the Republicans] are saying that it's okay for the biggest communications companies to totally control the entire blogosphere?.No competition. No innovation. No benefits to consumers. The biggest companies that the Republicans support were happy with the way things were going because they could charge whatever they wanted to, provide whatever services they wanted to, ignore competition, and ignore consumers simultaneously. That's what this debate is all about. We had to ensure that those behemoths--the oligopolies, the monopolies--were taken from the clutches of the Republicans and put out into the world where they had to compete. So what do we have here today? Another Republican?[bill] which says let's go back to that era where the biggest companies, the monopolies, defy the one lesson that Adam Smith taught us, which is that monopolies and oligopolies are incapable of enjoying anything but the respect of those who are already in the wealthy class while ignoring those who are in the consumer class.?

The House passed this legislation by a vote of 240-179. Voting ?yea? were 234 Republicans and 6 Democrats. 177 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. The Senate, however, was not expected to act on this bill. Thus, the FCC?s network neutrality rules remained intact.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Internet Service Providers
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Equal Access to the Internet for Everyone
N N Lost
Roll Call 251
Apr 08, 2011
(H. J. Res 37) On tabling (killing) a Democratic effort to appeal the Speaker?s ruling that a Democratic motion continuing to fund federal government programs and agencies at current levels for one week violated House rules.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on tabling (killing) a Democratic effort to appeal the Speaker?s ruling  that a Democratic motion continuing to fund federal government programs and agencies at current levels for one week violated House rules. 

The House had been debating legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? regulations prohibit Internet service companies from charging higher fees to online content providers for service that enables their web sites to download more quickly. For example, Internet service providers such as AT&T and Verizon could offer faster service to web sites that could afford to pay for it. Web sites that could not afford to pay for this service, however, would download more slowly. Thus, network neutrality rules were intended to prevent the evolution of a ?two-tiered? Internet system. Under such a system, content providers with more money would thrive as a result of being able to pay for service that allowed their websites to download quickly. Less affluent web site owners, meanwhile, could see their traffic slow to a crawl.)_

When this vote occurred, however, the federal government was just hours away from running out of money and shutting down entirely. The possibility of a government shutdown was the result of a sharp disagreement between House Republicans and Senate Democrats?as well as President Obama?over spending levels for government programs. Democrats had agreed to enact more than $30 billion in budget cuts, but Republicans had insisted on at least $60 billion. While President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) negotiated a compromise on federal spending, the House brought up this temporary government funding measure.

During debate on the network neutrality bill, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) offered a motion to recommit that would have continued to fund the federal government for one week. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.) Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) raised a procedural objection (known as a ?point of order?) against Hoyer?s motion to recommit, arguing that it violated House rules because it was unrelated, or ?not germane? to the underlying network neutrality bill. The Speaker ruled that Hoyer?s motion violated House rules. Hoyer then appealed Speaker?s ruling. Finally, Walden made a motion to table (kill) Hoyer?s appeal.

Walden argued: ? I am insisting on my?point of order because we are not going to violate the House rules. The motion [to recommit] is not in order because it violates?the Rules of the House. It is not germane to the resolution [underlying legislation] before us.?

Hoyer said: ?This?[motion] speaks directly to keeping the government of the United States operating for the next 7 days, keeping our men and women in the Armed Forces paid for that week, making sure that every other necessary service for government is available to the American people for the next 7 days. And it is the only vehicle that now appears to be viable to accomplish that objective. And as a result?I believe this is not only in order; it is imperative that we pass this motion to recommit. And I would urge the Speaker to find it in order.?

The House tabled (killed) Hoyer?s appeal of the Speaker?s ruling?effectively killing his motion to recommit--by a vote of 235-181. All 235 Republicans present voted ?yea.? All 181 Democrats present voted ?nay.? As a result, the House effectively blocked a final vote on a Democratic motion that would have continued to fund federal government programs and agencies at current levels for one week, and the network neutrality bill remained unchanged.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 250
Apr 08, 2011
(H. J. Res 37) Legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? regulations prohibit Internet service companies from charging higher fees to online content providers for service that enables their web sites to download more quickly.)? On a procedural vote allowing the House to bring up the bill for debate

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on whether to bring up legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. This vote was on a ?question of consideration??literally whether or not to ?consider? the resolution. 

?Network Neutrality? regulations prohibit Internet service companies from charging higher fees to online content providers for service that enables their websites to download more quickly. For example, Internet service providers such as AT&T and Verizon could offer faster service to web sites that could afford to pay for it. Web sites that could not afford to pay for this service, however, would download more slowly. Thus, network neutrality rules were intended to prevent the evolution of a ?two-tiered? Internet system. Under such a system, content providers with more money would thrive as a result of being able to pay for service that allowed their websites to download quickly. Less affluent web site owners, meanwhile, could see their traffic slow to a crawl.

There was no debate on the question of consideration. However, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), who demanded the vote on this question of consideration, had given a speech on the House floor earlier in the day in which he argued that the House should not have debated a network neutrality bill given that the federal government was just hours away from running out of money and shutting down entirely. The possibility of a government shutdown was the result of a sharp disagreement between House Republicans and Senate Democrats?as well as President Obama?over spending levels for government programs. Democrats had agreed to enact more than $30 billion in budget cuts, but Republicans had insisted on at least $60 billion. While President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) negotiated a compromise on federal spending, the House brought up this temporary government funding measure.

In addition, House Republicans wanted to eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood in the government-funding bill. Planned Parenthood clinics provide a wide array of women?s health services, including breast cancer screenings. They also, however, perform abortions. On this basis, Republicans sought to ban federal funding for the organization entirely. Most Democrats?including President Obama?strongly opposed such a ban.

During his speech (which occurred during morning ?one minutes speeches,? in which members are permitted to speak on any topic for up to one minute), McGovern said: ?We're bringing a net neutrality bill to the floor which has nothing to do with anything, and we should be spending our time talking about instead how we should save the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people that are in the balance if this government shuts down, how we should save the social safety net, because it's gone if this government shuts down?.We need to keep this government going. We need to get a deal. Take this net neutrality bill off the floor today.?

The House voted to bring up the network neutrality bill (in other words, in favor of the ?question of consideration?) by a vote of 238-174. All 234 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted ?yea.? 174 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House brought up a bill overturning network neutrality rules.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Internet Service Providers
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Equal Access to the Internet for Everyone
N N Lost
Roll Call 249
Apr 07, 2011
(H.R. 910) Final passage of legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.  
 
Shortly after President Obama was sworn into office in 2009, the EPA defined greenhouse gases as a pollutant that endangered public health, thus laying the groundwork to regulate those gases under existing clean air laws. The underlying bill would have prohibited the EPA from carrying out such regulation.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) urged support for the bill: ?EPA regulations will hit our manufacturing sector hard, with direct limits on factory emissions, indirect costs from the higher prices to power their facilities?.this bill is also about energy prices for working families. Power plants will be forced to comply with strict new emission caps. You will have to purchase expensive new equipment to retrofit their facilities. We all know the costs have nowhere to go except on families' and businesses' monthly utility bills. And it is about gas prices?. When it costs more to make gasoline, it costs more to buy gasoline. And with prices already at $4 a gallon across much of the country, the last thing that our families need is government policies designed to make the price at the pump even higher. I am from Michigan. I know what a struggling economy, indeed, looks like. And I think that it is a travesty that this government is deliberately imposing policies that are going to harm job creators and working families.?

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) also supported the bill: ?Now, what this really gets down to is about coal, because coal in America produces 52 percent of our electricity. In China, coal produces about 80 percent of their electricity. Electricity is produced at the lowest rate with coal. And that is necessary if America is going to be competitive in the global marketplace. That's why today you see China expanding its coal marketing and coal utilities to produce electricity. That's why in China you see so many jobs being produced because they produce at a very low cost. This legislation will stop EPA from driving up electricity costs in America. It will make it less likely that we are going to continue to lose jobs to China if we stop EPA?.So if we want America to be competitive, to create jobs, to compete with China, we must stop this out-of-control EPA.?

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) opposed the bill: ?Its [the underlying bill?s] premise is that climate change is a hoax and carbon pollution does not endanger health and welfare. But climate change is real. It is caused by pollution, and it is a serious threat to our health and welfare. We need to confront these realities, not put our heads in the sands.  American families count on the Environmental Protection Agency to keep our air and water clean. But this bill has politicians overruling the experts at the Environmental Protection Agency, and it exempts our biggest polluters from regulation. If?[the underlying bill] is enacted, the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to control dangerous carbon pollution will be gutted. That's why health experts like the American Lung Association are opposed to this legislation. They know it is a polluters' protection act. It is anti-science, anti-environment, and anti-health?.We need an energy policy based on science, not science fiction. With oil at $100 per barrel and rising, the Middle East in turmoil and a nuclear crisis in Japan, we urgently need clean energy policies.?

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) also opposed the bill: ?In the last 40 years, hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers have found that global warming is caused by humans, is becoming worse, and poses a dire threat to our public health, national security and economic vitality. This bill makes Congress the final arbiter of science. That is a perilous path?to go down, and it repudiates 100 years of bipartisan efforts to craft public health legislation according to science. Not since the Scopes trial [in which a public school teacher in Tennessee was put on trial for teaching the theory of evolution] has a division of government waged such an outlandish assault on science. With H.R. 910, Republicans, sadly, have aligned themselves with that school board in Tennessee and with the Pope who excommunicated Galileo.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 255-172. All 236 Republicans present and 19 Democrats voted ?yea.? 172 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
N N Lost
Roll Call 248
Apr 07, 2011
(H.R. 910) On a motion that would have authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to enforce regulations protecting vulnerable children (such as those with asthma) and seniors from air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to enforce regulations protecting vulnerable children (such as those with asthma) and seniors from air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation that prohibited the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) urged support for a motion to recommit: ?...I am gravely concerned that H.R. 910 [the underlying bill] will threaten the health and safety of our most vulnerable Americans. There's a clear connection between air pollution and respiratory diseases, and the motion I'm offering makes sure that our children can lead healthy lives. Asthma is an especially serious threat to America's children. This problem is national in scope, but my home state is uniquely affected. I'm honored to represent part of California's San Joaquin Valley, but, unfortunately, the air quality is a persistent challenge in our communities. In fact, as many as one in five children in the valley have been diagnosed with asthma. My own son and daughter developed the condition when they moved to an area of California's Central Valley with hot temperatures and poor air quality. I know from personal experience how vitally important it is to make sure our kids have fresh, healthy air.?

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) opposed the motion to recommit: ?I would remind my colleagues, this is a procedural vote. H.R. 910 [the underlying bill] does not impact asthma?.If you care about jobs, you are going to vote `yes' on the bill. If you care about not increasing gas prices beyond $4, where they are in much of the country today, you will vote for the bill, which means you ought to vote `no' on the motion to recommit and `yes' on final passage.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 175-251. Voting ?yea? were 175 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. All 237 Republicans present and 14 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to enforce regulations protecting vulnerable children (such as those with asthma) and seniors from air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
HEALTH CARE Preventing Disease/Keeping People Healthy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 247
Apr 07, 2011
(H.R. 1363) Final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans as well as clean water programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans as well as clean water programs. While the underlying bill continued federal funding for most programs and government agencies for one week, it funded the Defense Department for six months (through the end of the federal government?s fiscal year).

This vote took place the day before the federal government was set to run out money?and shut down entirely. The possibility of a government shutdown was the result of a sharp disagreement between House Republicans and Senate Democrats?as well as President Obama?over spending levels for government programs. Democrats had agreed to enact more than $30 billion in budget cuts, but Republicans had insisted on at least $60 billion. While President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) negotiated a compromise on federal spending, the House brought up this temporary government funding measure.

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) urged support for the bill: ?I ask my colleagues?to support this bill so that we can avoid a government shutdown and provide the necessary time to finally complete negotiations on a final funding agreement for the rest of the 2011 fiscal year. This bill funds government operations for 1 week while reducing spending by $12 billion?.this bill supports our troops and our national security by providing funding for our national defense for the remainder of this fiscal year. Our troops and their families deserve to have the financial security we promised them while we continue to work towards a final budget agreement?.As I have said many times before? short-term measures like this are not the preferable way to fund the government. So while no one wants to fund the government in 1- or 2-week bursts, this?is what we must do to prevent a government shutdown and allow time to pass a smart and thoughtful bill for the rest of the year.?

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) criticized the bill: ??My Republican friends bring to the floor today a transparent political ploy that's an insult to our men and women in uniform and their families. It says that the Republican majority is willing to put up the funding to arm and equip our troops fighting overseas for the remainder of the year, but they won't find a way to fund the rest of the Federal programs that assist their spouses, children, and parents who are making significant sacrifices keeping the home front together while their loved ones give all that they have to keep all of us safe and free?.This is no peace of mind for a soldier fighting in the field to defend our freedoms and interests if his or her spouse or parents are being furloughed at home or their children are being denied essential services.?

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) also criticized the bill: ?Why is this? piece of legislation on the floor? Because you think you can hold the government ransom for an additional $12 billion [in spending cuts]?.you're banking on the fact that you know we don't want to shut down government. What's the proof in the pudding? We did not shut it down when we had disagreements with [former President] George Bush because we believed that reasonable people elected by a diverse community in America who had differences of opinion were expected by our public to come together, reason together, and act productively together....  And you have no expectation that?[this bill] will?be signed by the president, but you do it to pretend you want to keep government in operations?.Ladies and gentlemen on my side of the aisle, we ought to reject this specious political act which pretends that we want to keep the government open.

The House passed this bill by a vote of 247-181. Voting ?yea? were 232 Republicans and 15 Democrats. 175 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 6 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans and clean water programs. The Senate, however, was not expected to act on the measure.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
ENVIRONMENT Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 246
Apr 07, 2011
(H.R. 1363) On a motion to recommit that would have guaranteed that all military personnel would be paid through September 30, 2011, even in the event that the federal government shut down.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have guaranteed that all military personnel would be paid through September 30, 2011, even in the event that the federal government shut down. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans as well as clean water programs.

This vote took place the day before the federal government was set to run out money?and shut down entirely. The possibility of a government shutdown was the result of a sharp disagreement between House Republicans and Senate Democrats?as well as President Obama?over spending levels for government programs. Democrats had agreed to enact more than $30 billion in budget cuts, but Republicans had insisted on at least $60 billion. While President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) negotiated a compromise on federal spending, the House brought up this temporary government funding measure.

Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?There is no group who deserves our support more than the members of the armed services. As a veteran myself, I recognize the implications of failing to pay those members of the armed services who have given their time, their energy, their blood and, in many cases, their lives in support of our freedom, the freedom that allows us to be here today and to have this heated debate over the direction of our country. When I look around at what will happen if we fail to pass this motion, we know that the President has indicated he will veto the current underlying legislation, which means in effect we will be unable to pay our military men and women. The economic consequences to the communities in which our military men and women reside--in my case Fort Drum, as well as many active Reserve units in my district--would be horrific. They will not buy gasoline, they will not buy groceries, they will not buy clothes. There are tremendous economic consequences to the actions that we have failed to take.

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) opposed this motion to recommit: ??This procedural motion is nothing more than a dilatory tactic which comes at a time when we can least afford those types of things. Now is the time to act, not partake in political games. Our debate should be not about procedure. It should be about doing our job. It should be about funding our troops, about keeping our government running, and saving the taxpayer money?.This motion is purely a political gesture and should be defeated. I think all members should know?this [underlying] bill is not a political tactic. The real fact is that if you vote against this bill, you are voting against the troops who are engaged in three wars.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 191-236. All 190 Democrats present and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 236 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have guaranteed that all military personnel would be paid through September 30, 2011, even in the event that the federal government shut down.


WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 245
Apr 07, 2011
(H.R. 1363) On tabling (killing) a Democratic effort to appeal the Speaker?s ruling that a Democratic motion continuing to fund federal government programs and agencies at current levels for one week violated House rules.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on tabling (killing) a Democratic effort to appeal the Speaker?s ruling  that a Democratic motion continuing to fund federal government programs and agencies at current levels for one week violated House rules.

The House had been debating legislation that continued to fund federal programs and agencies for one week but also cut $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low-income Americans as well as clean water programs. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) offered a motion to recommit that would have continued to fund the federal government for one week?but did not cut $12 billion from domestic programs. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.) Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) raised a procedural objection (known as a ?point of order?) against Hoyer?s motion to recommit, arguing that it violated House rules by increasing spending levels in a government-funding bill. The Speaker ruled that Hoyer?s motion violated House rules. Hoyer then appealed Speaker?s ruling. Finally, Rogers made a motion to table (kill) Hoyer?s appeal.

Rogers argued that Hoyer?s motion ?proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill.? Hoyer urged the Speaker to rule in his favor and find that his motion to recommit was in compliance with House rules, saying: ?I urge the Speaker to find this motion to recommit consistent with the rules...?

The House tabled (killed) Hoyer?s appeal of the Speaker?s ruling by a vote of 236-187. All 236 Republicans present voted ?yea.? All 187 Democrats present voted ?nay.? As a result, the House tabled (killed) a Democratic effort to appeal the Speaker?s ruling that a Democratic motion continuing to fund federal government programs and agencies at current levels for one week violated House rules.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Use & Abuse of Internal Congressional Procedures
N N Lost
Roll Call 243
Apr 07, 2011
(H.R. 1363) Legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans and clean water programs ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans and clean water programs. While the underlying bill continued federal funding for most programs and government agencies for one week, it funded the Defense Department for six months (through the end of the federal government?s fiscal year).

This vote took place the day before the federal government was set to run out money?and shut down entirely. The possibility of a government shutdown was the result of a sharp disagreement between House Republicans and Senate Democrats?as well as President Obama?over spending levels for government programs. Democrats had agreed to enact more than $30 billion in budget cuts, but Republicans had insisted on at least $60 billion. While President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) negotiated a compromise on federal spending, the House brought up this temporary government funding measure.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) praised the spending cuts in the underlying bill: ?Do we really need to continue all the appropriations for LIHEAP, the funding for helping people pay their heating bills, when we are in April this year? This is money that goes until the end of September. I hardly think that we're going to have people freezing to death in this country between now and September 30.  Do we need to be looking after seniors and children? Obviously, we do. Republicans are not heartless people. But we have to look after them in a responsible way. Cutting spending is the way to be responsible to them?.  Cutting spending is about ending wasteful spending, making the government leaner and more efficient, showing respect to hardworking taxpayers, and making the tough choices today that save our children and grandchildren from even tougher choices tomorrow. For hardworking Americans, this isn't about politics. It's about their life and putting our economy and our nation first.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) criticized the underlying bill?s spending cuts to programs that primarily served the poor and the elderly: ??This bill continues the misguided priorities that we have seen from the Republican leadership of the House for the last several months. It cuts vital domestic programs that families, communities, and States rely on during these difficult economic times?.Most egregiously of all, it cuts $390 million from the LIHEAP [Low-Income Heating Energy Assistance Program] contingency fund. That's fuel assistance for poor people, mostly elderly, who need it as fuel prices continue to rise?. Every Member of this House believes that making sure our troops get their paychecks is a top priority. The men and women who serve this country in uniform deserve our support. But?so do the seniors of this country. So do the children of this country. So do the poor and the hungry of this country. So do the people who can't afford hot-shot lobbyists and multimillion dollar ad campaigns. We are supposed to represent them too.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 228-189. All 228 Republicans present voted ?yea.? All 189 Democrats present voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans and clean water programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 242
Apr 07, 2011
(H.R. 1363) Legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans and clean water programs ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans and clean water programs.  If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. While the underlying bill continued federal funding for most programs and government agencies for one week, it funded the Defense Department for six months (through the end of the federal government?s fiscal year).

This vote took place the day before the federal government was set to run out money?and shut down entirely. The possibility of a government shutdown was the result of a sharp disagreement between House Republicans and Senate Democrats?as well as President Obama?over spending levels for government programs. Democrats had agreed to enact more than $30 billion in budget cuts, but Republicans had insisted on at least $60 billion. While President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) negotiated a compromise on federal spending, the House brought up this temporary government funding measure.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued that the bill would prevent a government shutdown, cut spending on social programs, and ensure that those serving in the military received paychecks: ??We are seeing a stunning lack of leadership on behalf of Washington Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Reid and President Obama, who have refused to do the work that Americans sent them here to do. They have exhibited willful disregard for our troops and their families, who are uncertain about their paychecks with a government shutdown looming. The bill we will debate and pass funds the Department of Defense for the remainder of the year, while cutting another $12 billion in wasteful Washington spending?.After all of these gestures of good faith made by House Republicans, the time has now come for the hapless liberal Democrat elites in the Senate and the White House to make a decision. It's time to decide between acting responsibly, abandoning favored political alliances, or continuing their failed big government policies as a solution to all earthly problems.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Now, I know that many of my friends on the other [Republican] side of the aisle would like to accept the billions and billions of dollars in cuts that the Democrats have offered and declare a victory. Unfortunately, their Republican Party has been hijacked by people who relish a shutdown of the federal government, people who refuse to take `yes' for an answer. They are more interested in making a point than in making law. And unless and until the Republican leadership in this House is willing to stand up to that radical element and stop moving the goalposts, we will not be able to move forward. My friends on the other side of the aisle talk a good game about wanting to come up with a compromise. Unfortunately, this bill before us today does nothing to achieve that goal. In fact, it is a step backwards. This bill?isn't going anywhere. The Senate leadership and the White House have already made it very clear that yet another short-term continuing resolution [government spending bill] is not acceptable.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 238-185. All 236 Republicans present and 2 Democrats voted ?yea.? 185 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for one week and cutting $12 billion from a number of domestic programs, including home heating assistance for low income Americans and clean water programs.  


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 241
Apr 06, 2011
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions but would have exempted farms and small businesses from those regulations

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions but would have exempted farms and small businesses from those regulations. This amendment was offered to legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Kind urged support for his amendment: ?I represent a rural district in western Wisconsin that has approximately 180,000 rural electric co-op members that are concerned about possible new EPA regulations and their impact on them. I share their concerns, and I agree that we have to approach this issue reasonably. Still, the approach under H.R. 910 [the underlying bill] isn't the right one. There is a middle ground that can be found?This amendment would permanently protect farms, small businesses and small- and medium-sized stationary sources from greenhouse gas regulation??

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) opposed the amendment: ?There is a button that was very popular in my district--and still is--which reads, `Who elected the EPA?' The answer is no one; but we know who elects us. The people of the United States elect us, and they elect us to make the laws?.The amendment should be defeated. The [underlying] bill should be passed?.this amendment, contrary to its patron's assertions, does not shield small businesses or farms, because it does not block the avalanche of additional greenhouse gas rules that come under various clean air programs. The EPA's greenhouse gas regulations will drive up the prices of gasoline, electricity, food, goods and services; and the cost of these regulations will be passed on to everyone, including to small businesses.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 160-264. Voting ?yea? were 159 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 1 Republican. 238 Republicans and 26 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions but would have exempted farms and small businesses from those regulations.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 240
Apr 06, 2011
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study determining if regulating greenhouse gas emissions would harm U.S. efforts to remain economically competitive in the world

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study determining if regulating greenhouse gas emissions would harm U.S. efforts to remain economically competitive in the world. This amendment was offered to legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Doyle urged support for his amendment: ??All we're asking for is to put some good data behind this. Let's study it. Let's have the EPA take a look at this. Let's see what the effects are on our energy-intensive industries, because this is an issue we're going to have to deal with eventually, and we want to have good data behind it. Let's not have all the stories be anecdotal. Let's have the agency study this, and let's work together to find solutions to protect our industries while we clean up our environment for our kids and our grandkids.?

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) opposed the amendment: ?There is no longer any question about whether the EPA's climate change regulations would actually hurt international competitiveness and affect American companies. We already know they would. We already know that. I talked to a factory in my district that said when cap-and-trade was going to be passed, or this de facto cap-and-trade that's being looked at, if that passes, that will definitely result in them leaving. There's no benefit. It's a higher cost of doing business. It makes us uncompetitive in the free world, especially in areas affected where we have an ability to trade with other countries.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 173-250. Voting ?yea? were 172 Democrats and 1 Republican. 236 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study determining if regulating greenhouse gas emissions would harm U.S. efforts to remain economically competitive in the world.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 239
Apr 06, 2011
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator and Secretary of Defense determined that climate change jeopardized national security

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator and Secretary of Defense determined that climate change jeopardized national security. This amendment was offered to legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Rush urged support for his amendment: ? Just recently, a study by the National Academy of Science, conducted at the request of the U.S. Navy, concluded that climate change will pose a major challenge for the United States Navy in the emerging Arctic frontier. One of the most serious threat analyses was done by a dozen of the country's most respected retired generals and admirals?In this study?these retired generals and admirals concluded that climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security and that the national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies. The report goes on to say that climate change, national security, and energy independence all pose a related set of challenges for our military; and these threats should not be ignored or pushed down the road for future action.?
  
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) opposed the amendment: ?I want clean water, and I want clean air. I don't want the EPA shutting down factories that produce and actually produced the largest middle class in the history of the world. Why we would attack that and label that as a national security interest defies even the greatest of imaginations?? Rogers also said: ?When you shut down production of oil and natural gas into the United States, we have to import more because we are still driving more.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 165-260. Voting ?yea? were 165 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. All 239 Republicans present and 21 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator and Secretary of Defense determined that climate change jeopardized national security.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 238
Apr 06, 2011
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator determined that such regulation could reduce the demand for oil.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator determined that such regulation could reduce the demand for oil. This amendment was offered to legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Markey urged support for his amendment: ?My amendment is quite simple. It just says that nothing, nothing that the Republicans are proposing today should put a limitation on the ability of the EPA to reduce the demand for importing oil ? which should be the number one objective in our country. You know, we only have 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, and we consume 25 percent on a daily basis?.So the only way in which we can solve the problem is if we reduce consumption by increasing the efficiency of the vehicles which we drive, of the boats which we use, of the planes that we ride in, of the other sources that consume the oil that we use in our country?. this amendment goes right to the heart of the national security of our country, right to the heart of our economic independence, as well as reducing greenhouse gases. The national security of our country is at stake in this amendment.?

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) opposed the amendment: ?If we allow EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, we're going to skyrocket the cost of electricity which is going to make us less competitive in the global marketplace; we're going to lose more jobs to China and more jobs to India because those two countries are burning more coal because coal produces the lowest-cost electricity. And that's why we are opposed to this amendment?? Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) argued: ?I rise in opposition to my good friend, Mr. Markey's, amendment. He must think EPA stands for `Energy Punishment Agency' as opposed to `Environmental Protection Agency.' EPA's role is not to regulate the oil and gas industry. It's not to set an oil import fee. It's not to set quotas. It's to protect the environment.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 156-266. Voting ?yea? were 156 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. All 238 Republicans present and 28 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator determined that such regulation could reduce the demand for oil.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 237
Apr 06, 2011
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to continue regulating greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator determined that such emissions posed a danger to public health.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to continue regulating greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator determined that such emissions posed a danger to public health. This amendment was offered to legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Polis urged support for his amendment: ?It [the amendment] allows the Environmental Protection Agency to continue protecting the American people from the greatest public health and environmental challenge in global history, global climate change. The overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that greenhouse gases and carbon pollution, if left unchecked, pose a significant threat to public health. This is not a scientific conclusion that anybody in the investigative community desires or wants. It is an unfortunate reality. I simply want the administrator to have the ability to temporarily unlock the handcuffs on the bill if there is a significant threat to the public health.?

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) argued: ??This amendment would, in short, be an avenue for the EPA to move forward with back-door global warming regulations regardless of any relevant facts and circumventing the will of Congress and the public. EPA should not be authorized to move forward with back-door global warming regulations. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) added: ??I do want to underscore that greenhouse gases do not have a health impact. But in the odd event that someone were sprayed in the face with a greenhouse gas such as methane, the emergency powers exist?[for the EPA] to respond to the imminent and substantial endangerment of public health.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 168-238. Voting ?yea? were 167 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 1 Republican. 238 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have permitted the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to continue regulating greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA administrator determined that such emissions posed a danger to public health.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 236
Apr 06, 2011
Number:236 (H.R. 910) On an amendment stating that ?Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.?

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) stating that ?Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.? This amendment was offered to legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions at the federal level.

Waxman urged support for his amendment: ?The U.S. Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness. This amendment is a step out of that wilderness. It says we accept the scientific findings of EPA--and the best scientists in our country and around the world--that climate change is a serious threat to our health and welfare. And it recognizes that while we have the power to change the laws of our nation, we cannot rewrite the laws of nature. It may be difficult for us to agree on a solution to climate change, but at least we should be able to agree that it is a real problem and one we need to address.?

Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL) opposed the amendment: ?This amendment would have Congress adopt intentionally vague language on human involvement and the risks associated with climate change without defining the size and scope of human behavior and the risk to the environment?. I believe that we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil and expand research and development of clean energy sources and ensure that future generations of Americans have a clean and healthy environment. But I do not believe in the notion that the Waxman amendment puts forward that states that Congress shall only accept the scientific findings of the EPA. We should encourage open, transparent scientific studies, not limit our scientific findings to one government agency.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 184-240. Voting ?yea? were 183 Democrats and 1 Republican. 237 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment stating that ?Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.?


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 235
Apr 06, 2011
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to provide assistance to states that had chosen to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to provide assistance to states that had chosen to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment was offered to legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions at the federal level.

Murphy urged support for his amendment: ??This amendment is fairly simple. While the underlying bill, though, I think very wrongly prevents the EPA from going forward on regulating greenhouse gases, my amendment affirms that state-run greenhouse gas programs will not be affected by the underlying legislation.  My amendment simply clarifies that language, by keeping in practice the longstanding tradition whereby the EPA will be able to continue providing technical assistance for states like mine who have taken action on their own to combat climate change?. I propose this amendment as a way of simply allowing States to move forward with what I think have been very beneficial carbon reduction regimes in the absence of federal control.?

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) opposed the amendment: ?The amendment by the gentleman from Connecticut proposes to create a loophole to continue to allow the EPA to get their nose back under that tent to regulate greenhouse gases.? Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) said: ? I oppose the Murphy amendment because it guts what we're trying to do in H.R. 910 [the underlying bill], which is to once again put America back on a course that says we're going to have safe air, we're going to have clean drinking water, but we're going to do it in a way where the private sector can create jobs, we can grow our economy, and we will not have to have the unemployment rate that we have struggled through for the last 2 1/2 years.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 182-240. Voting ?yea? were 177 Democrats and 5 Republicans. 233 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to provide assistance to states that had chosen to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 234
Apr 06, 2011
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment also would have required the EPA?prior to issuing new regulations relating to greenhouse gases?to hold a 30 day ?public comment period? in which industries affected by such regulation (such as oil and gas) could raise concerns with EPA officials.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The underlying bill banned the EPA from regulating such gases. This amendment would have eliminated that prohibition, and instead required the EPA to hold a 30 day ?public comment period? in which industries affected by greenhouse gas regulations (such as oil and gas) could raise concerns with EPA officials. The amendment required that this public comment period be held prior to implementing new regulations relating to greenhouse gases. In addition, the amendment would have required the EPA to conduct a study on the ?adverse environmental effects of delaying implementation? of such regulations.

Jackson Lee urged support for her amendment: ??This amendment requires that before finalizing emissions regulations on greenhouse gas producers, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must provide the producer with adequate notice of at least 30 days. This provision would also allow for industry input, encouraging collaboration between the EPA and energy providers during the regulation process?.By mandating industry engagement during the rule making process We will ensure that the proposed regulations do not negatively impact industry jobs and domestic energy?.As the Representative for Houston, the nation's energy capital, I am committed to finding a balance that will support continued growth in the energy industry while protecting the environment.?

Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) opposed the amendment: ??My colleague's amendment? doesn't change the reason why we're here. The reason why we're here is saying, EPA, stop. If it's a good enough policy, it can pass the legislative body [Congress]?.why is it a good policy to let unelected bureaucrats in the Environmental Protection Agency move on a process to destroy jobs? Let's be held accountable. If we want to do that, let's cast our votes. What we're casting our votes today for is to keep the cost of power low and save jobs, create jobs and grow jobs. If you want job creation, we support the underlying bill. We do not support any amendment that puts off telling the EPA to stop and desist and do no more.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 157-266. Voting ?yea? were 157 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. All 239 Republicans present and 27 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions?and also would have required the EPA hold a 30 day ?public comment period? in which industries affected by greenhouse gas regulations could raise concerns with EPA officials.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 233
Apr 06, 2011
(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment would also have required the EPA to conduct a study on the long-term effects of banning regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The underlying bill banned the EPA from regulating such gases. This amendment would have eliminated that prohibition, and instead required the EPA to conduct a study the long-term effects of banning regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Jackson Lee urged support for her amendment: ?I cannot envision any American living in a polluted area wanting to support a permanent ban on the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gases?.As a Houstonian the affects of H.R. 910 [the underlying bill] are of particular concern to me. A study conducted by the American Lung Association ranked Houston as the 7th most ozone-polluted city in the country. Children, teens, senior citizens, and people with lung diseases like asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and others are particularly vulnerable to poor air quality and are at risk for developing irreversible lung damage?.My amendment requires the EPA to carefully study this issue and to determine the long term impact on health, the industry and the environment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support a reasonable, fair and measured response to addressing regulation of greenhouse gases.?

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) opposed the amendment: ?If we accept the gentlelady from Houston's [Jackson Lee?s] amendment, you do really gut this bill, which, if you are opposed to it, that's probably a good outcome. But if you are supportive of it, it's not a good outcome. We don't need to do a study. CO2 is not a pollutant under the definitions of the Clean Air Act. It's not harmful to health?As I speak, I create CO2, and so you need CO 2 for life. Manmade CO2 does not significantly contribute to climate change. We do have climate change, as we always have and always will. But to say that CO2 emissions made by man somehow are causing all these catastrophic changes is simply not true. What the bill before us does is say we protect the Clean Air Act, we want to enforce the Clean Air Act, but we want it to be in force for the criteria pollutants that it was intended for, and we do not believe that CO2 is one of the pollutants that it was intended to regulate. So we don't need a study, and I would oppose my good friend from Houston's amendment and encourage all members to also oppose it.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 161-259. Voting ?yea? were 161 Democrats?including a majority of progressives. All 238 Republicans present and 21 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. ?and would have required the EPA to conduct a study on the long-term effects of banning regulation of greenhouse gas emissions).


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 231
Apr 06, 2011
(H.R. 910) Legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.  
 
Shortly after President Obama was sworn into office in 2009, the EPA defined greenhouse gases as a pollutant that endangered public health, thus laying the groundwork to regulate those gases under existing clean air laws. The underlying bill would have prohibited the EPA from carrying out such regulation.

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ??The EPA is on a mission to destroy American industry. Their damaging plan to regulate the so-called carbon emissions will cost every household in America at least $1,600 per year. These unnecessary regulations will strangle the economy by driving up the cost of energy. Gasoline is $4 a gallon, will soon be $5 a gallon. It will put more Americans out of work, especially in the energy industry?. in my opinion, when regulators, especially those at the EPA, go to work every day, they go down the street here to one of these marble palaces, they get in a big room with a big oak table, they drink their lattes, and they sit around and say, `Who can we regulate today?' because that's what regulators do. Regulators regulate. And they figure out new ways to regulate the entire United States, all on the so-called premise of protecting us from ourselves.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Repealing the EPA's authority to limit pollution would have devastating consequences. It would increase the number of children and adults who suffer from asthma. It would increase the number of individuals with emphysema, lung cancer, bronchitis, and many other respiratory diseases driving up health care costs for all Americans significantly?America's science and environmental policy should be driven by science and science alone. The EPA should be allowed to move forward. And I urge my colleagues to reject the rule and the underlying bill.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 250-172. All 238 Republicans present and 12 Democrats voted ?yea.? 172 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 230
Apr 06, 2011
(H.R. 910) Legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.  If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. 
 
Shortly after President Obama was sworn into office in 2009, the EPA defined greenhouse gases as a pollutant that endangered public health, thus laying the groundwork to regulate those gases under existing clean air laws. The underlying bill would have prohibited the EPA from carrying out such regulation.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?H.R. 910 [the underlying bill] prohibits the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act?In short, the underlying bill clarifies that the Clean Air Act is not a vehicle for regulatory taxing. The decision about whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases should be made by Congress and only by Congress, not the regulatory body of a President who wishes to place his overriding answers on unelected bureaucrats to fulfill this role.?
 
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Despite indisputable scientific evidence, the Republicans are seeking to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting Americans' health and safety from what the scientific consensus agrees is the worst environmental threat in the world's history: global climate change. It's akin to telling Homeland Security to stop protecting the homeland. It denies scientific proof and logic. Even the Supreme Court stated that the EPA has a responsibility to act to keep the public safe. We're witnessing nothing less today than a full assault on four decades of progress in protecting Americans from environmental dangers.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 266-158. All 238 Republicans present and 28 Democrats voted ?yea.? 158 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 227
Apr 05, 2011
(H. J. Res. 37) Legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? refers to a regulation prohibiting Internet service companies from giving preferential treatment to online content providers that pay more for faster service.) ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? refers to a regulation prohibiting Internet service companies from giving preferential treatment to online content providers that pay more for faster service.) 
 
Supporters of network neutrality argued that allowing major high-speed Internet companies such as Verizon and AT&T to charge Web site owners higher fees for faster service would lead to an essentially ?two-tiered? system. In other words, content providers with more money would thrive as a result of being able to pay for faster service. Less affluent web site owners, meanwhile, could see their traffic slow to a crawl as a result of slower, cheaper service.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC--which regulates interstate and international communication) had imposed network neutrality rules on Internet service providers in 2010. The underlying legislation would have overturned the FCC?s rule.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?if you like the Internet that you have, we are saying we want you to keep it. Mr. Speaker, there has been no market failure. Over 80 percent of all Americans are pleased with the Internet service that they have. What they do not want to see is the Obama administration step in front of these Internet service providers and say, We the government are here to change your Internet. We are here to take control of your Internet. That is exactly what net neutrality would do. Net neutrality is the federal government stepping in and saying, We're going to come first. We're going to assign priority and value to content?As I said, there has been no market failure, and there is no need for this government overreach.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ??The absence of a net neutrality regime would be the government deliberately conveying value as gatekeepers to the broadband providers and allowing them to decide, based on religious or ideological or economic--or whatever criteria that they want--what kind of Internet they intend to serve up to their users. I would like to add that? this open Internet rule [which the underlying legislation overturned] will add the very certainty to investors and companies that we need and predictability in our marketplace that allows companies to continue to grow and invest in job growth?.I believe strongly in Internet, in Internet as an achievement for mankind, in Internet that net neutrality will help preserve for our generation and the next.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 241-178. All 236 Republicans present and 5 Democrats voted ?yea.? 178 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Telecommunications Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 226
Apr 05, 2011
(H. J. Res. 37) Legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? refers to a regulation prohibiting Internet service companies from giving preferential treatment to online content providers that pay more for faster service.) ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? refers to a regulation prohibiting Internet service companies from giving preferential treatment to online content providers that pay more for faster service.)  If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

Supporters of network neutrality argued that allowing major high-speed Internet companies such as Verizon and AT&T to charge Web site owners higher fees for faster service would lead to an essentially ?two-tiered? system. In other words, content providers with more money would thrive as a result of being able to pay for faster service. Less affluent web site owners, meanwhile, could see their traffic slow to a crawl as a result of slower, cheaper service.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC--which regulates interstate and international communication) had imposed network neutrality rules on Internet service providers in 2010. The underlying legislation would have overturned the FCC?s rule.

Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ??The underlying bill?disapproves of the December 21 FCC rule concerning net neutrality on the basis that Congress did not authorize the FCC to regulate in this area?.This bill today is about congressional prerogative: Will we or will we not stand up to an executive branch that does not have the authority to regulate?...Until Congress acts to delegate that responsibility [authorize the FCC to issue such a regulation], the Internet should continue as the Internet has grown and always continued as an area free of government interference, as an opportunity for entrepreneurs and investors and students and the elderly to be out there using the Internet as they see fit, free from the hand of government regulation.?

[If the underlying bill ?disapproving? of the FCC policy were to be enacted, it would overturn network neutrality rules. As a result, internet service companies would have been able to provide superior service to companies who could afford to pay for it (thus creating a two-tiered internet system).]

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) opposed the resolution and the underlying legislation: ??The majority brings to the floor legislation that will harm the open Internet. I can speak to this with some degree of authority. Before I came to Congress, I created over 300 jobs myself through founding several Internet-related companies, including ProFlowers.com and BlueMountain.com?.When I was starting a flower company, ProFlowers.com, back in the late 1990s, we offered a supply-chain solution. We brought fresher flowers to people at a better price by disintermediating the supply chain and allowing consumers to buy flowers directly from growers. Now, we were up against several legacy companies, companies such as FTD, that had a different distribution model that we believed and argued in the marketplace was a less efficient distribution model. Now, had there not been a de facto net neutrality at that point, it would be very difficult for a new company to break in, because you would have had the incumbent leaders in the marketplace buying the access through the broadband connections??

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 241-175. All 238 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted ?yea.? 175 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation overturning federal ?network neutrality? rules.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Telecommunications Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 224
Apr 01, 2011
(H.R. 1255) Final passage of legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill by April 6, 2011) funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law.

In February, the House of Representatives passed legislation funding the federal government through September 2011 and cutting $61 billion from federal programs. The Democratic-controlled Senate had rejected that legislation. In addition, President Obama had threatened to veto it. In response, the Republican-controlled House drafted a bill?known as H.R. 1255?that would ?deem? the House government-funding bill to have been enacted if the Senate failed to pass a government funding measure. In addition, H.R. 1255 barred members of Congress from receiving paychecks during a government shutdown.

Democrats argued that legislation in which the House ?deemed? a bill that had never passed the Senate to be the law of the land was blatantly unconstitutional. Republicans contended that, since the underlying bill (H.R. 1255) would have to be passed by the Senate in order for the government-funding bill (H.R. 1) to become law, the H.R. 1255 was constitutional. The Washington Post?s Felicia Sonmez explained:

? If the Senate were to pass H.R. 1255 (and if the president were to sign it), the Senate would be determining its own rules for how H.R. 1 would become law (i.e., by the Senate not passing its own funding bill by April 6). So, that would be in accordance with the Constitution, the House Republicans? argument goes.

In order for H.R. 1255 -- the measure stating that H.R. 1 can become law through only a vote of the House -- to become law, H.R. 1255 would have to pass both the House and the Senate and be signed by the president.

Nothing will happen if H.R. 1255 is only taken up by the House and not the Senate.

What it all boils down to is that the provision calling for H.R. 1 to become the ?law of the land? (as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) termed it Wednesday) is moot unless the new measure is approved by both the Senate and the president ? an unlikely prospect.


Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) urged support for the bill: ?America averages now trillion-dollar deficits. We borrow nearly 40 cents of every dollar we spend. Given the fiscal cloud that hangs over our country, it is reckless to assume we can live pain-free forever. Sooner or later, something has to give.? We made clear that only by putting federal spending on a sustainable trajectory could we create the conditions necessary for growth and job creation?.we passed H.R. 1 to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year and save taxpayers $61 billion relative to current spending?.we've practically begged President Obama and Senate Democrats to get serious and come to the table with a legitimate proposal. But we got nothing in return. No legislation. No credible plan to cut spending?.Today, we are bringing a bill to the floor that makes clear that continued inaction on the part of the Senate Democratic majority is simply unacceptable.

Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) also supported this bill: ?I've worked tirelessly with my colleagues to pass a continuing resolution [government funding bill] that saves taxpayers money and keeps the government running, while the other body, as we continue to hear, has done nothing but complain. Are they blind? Are they deaf? Do they not see, do they not hear what the rest of the people in this country see and here in terms of this country's financial crisis, in terms of this country's debt, in terms of what we're doing to our children and grandchildren by continuing to do nothing?...we've waited 41 days for them to send us a funding bill, and we've got nothing. At least the members who will be voting for this bill, who will be voting in favor of this bill, are showing leadership, are showing the American people that we care about the future of this country and that we do care about jobs.?

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) opposed the bill: ??Once again, instead of working to create jobs, grow the economy, reduce the deficit and strengthen the middle class, the majority is spending its time engaged in ideological lawlessness disrespectful of the U.S. Constitution, and all because of their political base and to benefit their political base?.The House cannot simply close their eyes, pretend that the Senate and the President have passed and signed the bill into law. It does not work that way. When a bill actually passes the Senate, the Senate has actually passed the bill. And when the President picks up a pen and puts his name on it, and not a second before, that bill has been signed into law. No amount of magical thinking can change these simple facts.?

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) mocked the Republican supporters of this bill, and read from a children?s book (entitled ?House Mouse, Senate Mouse?) explaining how a bill becomes a law: ?I brought you this, `House Mouse, Senate Mouse,' which is sold in the gift shop to teach children how to understand the Constitution, and permit me to read:`It's the floor of each Chamber of the Senate and House where each Senator and each Congress mouse gets to vote on the bill, and if enough do, if enough do, this president signs it if he likes to.'  Well, the Senate mice haven't passed this [bill] yet. Perhaps if these were the rules that the Republicans had to follow--it's a much thinner book and it rhymes--maybe you'd get it right, but this is not the Constitution.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 221-202. Voting ?yea? were 221 Republicans. All 187 Democrats present and 15 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Use & Abuse of Internal Congressional Procedures
N N Lost
Roll Call 223
Apr 01, 2011
(H.R. 1255) On a motion that would have prohibited members of Congress from being paid retroactively following a federal government shutdown.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have prohibited members of Congress from being paid retroactively following a federal government shutdown. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law.

The underlying bill, however, only barred members of Congress from being paid during a government shutdown. That bill would not have altered member?s annual salaries because they would still have been compensated retroactively once the government commenced normal operations. This motion to recommit, however, would have barred members of Congress from receiving any compensation whatsoever for the work period spanning the government shutdown.

Republicans argued that the Democratic motion was unconstitutional because the 27th amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from altering members? pay in the middle of a congressional session. Under the 27th amendment, no laws ?varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.? The Obama administration had released a statement concurring with this position?that the Democratic motion was unconstitutional.

Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN) urged support for this motion to recommit: ??If we don't get our work done--and I will do everything in my power to ensure we do not shut this government down--the repercussions are catastrophic for Americans, and not just macroeconomically. Our seniors aren't going to get their checks. We're going to see medical care slowed down to our veterans. We're going to hear from and we have heard from our military commanders that it stresses the readiness of this nation. Our federal workers and even the hardworking staff here will not receive a paycheck.?

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) opposed the motion to recommit: ??They come to the floor and give us something which the White House says in its email to me is `patently unconstitutional,' not may be unconstitutional, not perhaps unconstitutional, not arguably unconstitutional, but `patently unconstitutional.'? Now, I may have disagreements with the president, but I have no evidence whatsoever that the president is waiting with bated breath over at the White House for us to send something to him so that he can do an unconstitutional act. Perhaps the gentleman believes that is the position he wants to put the President in. And even though I have great disagreement with this president, frankly, I don't think that is an appropriate thing to do.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 188-237. Voting ?yea? were 187 Democrats and 1 Republican. 236 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have prohibited members of Congress from being paid retroactively following a federal government shutdown.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 222
Apr 01, 2011
(H.R. 1255) Legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the underlying bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill (by April 6, 2011) funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law.

In February, the House of Representatives passed legislation funding the federal government through September 2011 and cutting $61 billion from federal programs. The Democratic-controlled Senate had rejected that legislation. In addition, President Obama had threatened to veto it. In response, the Republican-controlled House drafted a bill?known as H.R. 1255?that would ?deem? the House government-funding bill to have been enacted if the Senate failed to pass a government funding measure. In addition, H.R. 1255 barred members of Congress from receiving paychecks during a government shutdown.

Democrats argued that legislation in which the House ?deemed? a bill that had never passed the Senate to be the law of the land was blatantly unconstitutional. Republicans contended that, since the underlying bill (H.R. 1255) would have to be passed by the Senate in order for the government-funding bill (H.R. 1) to become law, the H.R. 1255 was constitutional. The Washington Post?s Felicia Sonmez explained:

? If the Senate were to pass H.R. 1255 (and if the president were to sign it), the Senate would be determining its own rules for how H.R. 1 would become law (i.e., by the Senate not passing its own funding bill by April 6). So, that would be in accordance with the Constitution, the House Republicans? argument goes.

In order for H.R. 1255 -- the measure stating that H.R. 1 can become law through only a vote of the House -- to become law, H.R. 1255 would have to pass both the House and the Senate and be signed by the president.

Nothing will happen if H.R. 1255 is only taken up by the House and not the Senate.

What it all boils down to is that the provision calling for H.R. 1 to become the ?law of the land? (as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) termed it Wednesday) is moot unless the new measure is approved by both the Senate and the president ? an unlikely prospect.


Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?We have a crisis on our hands: unsustainable deficits as far as the eye can see, a national debt nearing statutory limitation, and overreaching government bureaucracy intruding into the lives and businesses of every sector of society, people struggling to find work so they can pursue the American Dream. And? they've [the American public] elected this Congress to face our nation's toughest issues head-on, and that's what House Republicans have been doing [in passing this bill].?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) argued: ?I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and in favor of the underlying legislation so that we will be able to take an unpleasant situation, ensure that the government doesn't shut down a week from today, and ensure that we can get back to the work that we're supposed to be doing this year??

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?This bill would not only have no practical effect, it's not even remotely constitutional. If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to put out a press release or issue a series of talking points, hey, it's a free country. But to waste the time of the House on something this ridiculous is an insult to the American people. We should be talking about jobs and the economy, not debating silliness that is supposed to appeal to the GOP's right-wing base?.what this bill says is that if the Senate hasn't passed a continuing resolution by April 6, then H.R. 1 would be deemed as passed by the Senate, signed by the President, and enacted into law. You have got to be kidding me?If this is the new standard that the Republicans are going to use, I have a few ideas of my own. I would like to introduce a bill that says that the House deems the Red Sox to have won the 2011 World Series. It wouldn't mean anything. It wouldn't be constitutional. But it sure would be popular in Massachusetts.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 229-187. Voting ?yea? were 229 Republicans. All 186 Democrats present and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Use & Abuse of Internal Congressional Procedures
N N Lost
Roll Call 221
Apr 01, 2011
(H.R. 1255) Legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the underlying bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill (by April 6, 2011) funding the federal government for the remainder of its fiscal year, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law.  If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

In February, the House of Representatives passed legislation funding the federal government through September 2011 and cutting $61 billion from federal programs. The Democratic-controlled Senate had rejected that legislation. In addition, President Obama had threatened to veto it. In response, the Republican-controlled House drafted a bill?known as H.R. 1255?that would ?deem? the House government-funding bill to have been enacted if the Senate failed to pass a government funding measure. In addition, H.R. 1255 barred members of Congress from receiving paychecks during a government shutdown.

Democrats argued that legislation in which the House ?deemed? a bill that had never passed the Senate to be the law of the land was blatantly unconstitutional. Republicans contended that, since the underlying bill (H.R. 1255) would have to be passed by the Senate in order for the government-funding bill (H.R. 1) to become law, the H.R. 1255 was constitutional. The Washington Post?s Felicia Sonmez explained:

? If the Senate were to pass H.R. 1255 (and if the president were to sign it), the Senate would be determining its own rules for how H.R. 1 would become law (i.e., by the Senate not passing its own funding bill by April 6). So, that would be in accordance with the Constitution, the House Republicans? argument goes.

In order for H.R. 1255 -- the measure stating that H.R. 1 can become law through only a vote of the House -- to become law, H.R. 1255 would have to pass both the House and the Senate and be signed by the president.

Nothing will happen if H.R. 1255 is only taken up by the House and not the Senate.

What it all boils down to is that the provision calling for H.R. 1 to become the ?law of the land? (as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) termed it Wednesday) is moot unless the new measure is approved by both the Senate and the president ? an unlikely prospect.


Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The only two things the underlying legislation does, it forces the government to stay open with funding levels, those funding levels provided in H.R. 1 if the Senate passes this bill, and it insists that no work in Congress receives no pay. Forty days we have waited on the Senate to act?but they have passed nothing?If you want to talk about jobs, if you want to talk about certainty, you have to bring a proposal to the table.?

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Despite the urgent and dire issues facing our constituents, here we are, the U.S. House of Representatives, considering legislation that has no chance of becoming law. Today's legislation would `deem' a bill that the Senate has already voted down as passed by that very Senate. It would take a remarkable mind to even come up with such an idea?.The Republican majority claims this bill is a solution to a government shutdown. I hope that discussions regarding the solution to a government shutdown are taking place in offices between Senate and House members and representatives of the [Obama] administration as we speak? The majority claims this bill is a solution, as I said. If this is their only solution, America is in big trouble.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 230-187. All 230 Republicans present voted ?yea.? All 187 Democrats present voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law.  


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Use & Abuse of Internal Congressional Procedures
N N Lost
Roll Call 220
Apr 01, 2011
(H.R. 658) Final passage of legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) Specifically, the bill reinstated rule requiring that workers who did not vote at all in union elections would be counted as having voting against unionizing. The unionization rule reinstated by the bill had been in place for more than 70 years until the Obama administration overturned the policy in 2009.

The bill also cut $2 billion in federal funding for making improvements at U.S. airports. Overall, the bill cut $4 billion in federal funding for FAA operations?reducing total FAA funding to 2008 levels.

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) urged support for the bill: ?Now, the first thing you will hear from the other [Democratic] side is, Oh, the Republicans are cutting and slashing important FAA programs and safety and security and everything under the sun will be at risk. I can tell you that that's not the case. I can tell you that you can do more with less, and we can prioritize. In fact, in this bill, to make certain that safety is our primary concern--and it must be our primary concern--we have put specific provisions in here that if there are cuts or reductions--and heaven knows the FAA and the Department of Transportation certainly can have reductions in bureaucratic staffing. My dad used to say when he was alive, `Son, it's not how much you spend; it's how you spend it.' And it's just like that with personnel.?

Mica also argued: ??You will hear them moan and groan about some labor provision that someone described that we're taking away democratic rights and all of this for union members. It couldn't be further from the truth. We have had 70-some years of rules organizing for labor where we've always had a majority of those who were affected have to vote in a union. Now they [Democrats] want to change it to whoever shows up.?

Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI) also supported the bill: ?The bill funds the FAA at the fiscal year 2008 funding levels and will save $4 billion compared to the current levels. These funding levels recognize the state of the Federal budget, but should not affect vital safety functions?.Given current economic times, there is a need to put our limited resources where they are most needed and use them efficiently. Although we cannot do all that we may have wanted to, when facing budget cuts, difficult decisions have to be made. We have worked to preserve the ability of the FAA to conduct its safety functions--its most important mission and our number one priority.?

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) opposed the bill: ?The FAA is primarily a safety agency, and virtually all of its activities are safety related...now is not the time to arbitrarily cut almost $4 billion from the FAA programs and argue that the agency can do more with less on safety. A long-term FAA reauthorization bill must move the aviation system into the 21st century, create jobs, strengthen our economy, and provide the resources necessary to enhance safety. This legislation, unfortunately, does not meet those goals. It will require significant changes before it can be enacted into law, and therefore I cannot support it.?

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) criticized the bill?s anti-unionization provision, calling it ?a labor provision that was thrown in rather gratuitously that says that anyone who chooses not to vote in an election will be counted as a `no.'? He argued: ?The interesting thing is, if we had that same standard for elections to the United States House of Representatives, not one single member now sitting would have won their election because it's not just the people who are registered to vote. It's anybody who is eligible to vote. And if they don't vote or don't register to vote, they count as a `no.' I mean, some people might be happy, there would be no House of Representatives. But at least the sitting members would not be here. They want to apply that standard to representation for labor unions.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 223-196. Voting ?yea? were 221 Republicans and 2 Democrats. 185 Democrats and 11 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Lost
Roll Call 219
Apr 01, 2011
(H.R. 658) On a motion that would have deployed federal air marshals on all high-risk passenger airplane flights.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have deployed federal air marshals on all high-risk passenger airplane flights. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.)

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?This final amendment to the FAA reauthorization would ensure that Federal air marshals are deployed on all high-risk flights for U.S. airlines. For the last 20 years, our greatest threats from al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have systematically targeted our passenger airlines. The fact that only a percentage of the highest risk passenger flights on U.S. airlines have a Federal air marshal shows the amount of work that we still need to do.?

Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN) opposed the motion to recommit: ??This is basically a procedural tactic, and I am very opposed to this. I am a federal flight deck officer. I have served as a federal flight deck officer flying for the airlines, and if this was truly an important issue--this has been an open [amendment] process--this would have been brought out way before this time. Furthermore, the Secretary of Transportation has no authority over U.S. air marshals.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 184-235. Voting ?yea? were 184 Democrats. All 234 Republicans present and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have deployed federal air marshals on all high-risk passenger airplane flights.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 218
Apr 01, 2011
(H.R. 658) On an amendment requiring the Federal Aviation Administration to publish cost and benefit studies on the effects of its regulations on each segment of the aviation industry. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) requiring the Federal Aviation Administration to publish cost and benefit studies on the effects of its regulations on each segment of the aviation industry. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the FAA, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. The amendment did not define the different ?segments? of the aviation administration, but left that definition to the discretion of the FAA administrator.

Shuster urged support for his amendment: ? The amendment is an effort to improve rulemaking at the FAA by requiring the agency to meet fundamental rulemaking principles. Directing the FAA to meet these standards will ensure that regulations protect the critical importance of aviation safety while also considering issues of economic competitiveness?.before proposing or issuing a regulation, the FAA Administrator must analyze the different industry segments and tailor any regulations to the characteristics of separate segments. The definition of industry segments is left to the administrator.?

Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL) opposed the amendment: ??We strongly oppose the amendment. We believe that it will add additional red tape [to the regulatory process]?What this will do is drag it out even further and have a negative effect on those pending regulations as well as the existing ones.? Costello also said: ??Forcing the FAA to tailor regulations for each industry's segment, could seriously undermine efforts to achieve one level of safety in aviation and delay important safety improvements.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 215-209. Voting ?yea? were 209 Republicans and 6 Democrats. 184 Democrats and 25 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment requiring the Federal Aviation Administration to publish cost and benefit studies on the effects of its regulations on each segment of the aviation industry.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 217
Apr 01, 2011
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have preserved the ability of FAA employees to form a union

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) that would have preserved the ability of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees to form a union. Specifically, the underlying bill re-imposed a rule requiring that workers who did not vote at all in union elections would be counted as having voting against unionizing. This amendment would have removed that provision from the bill. The unionization rule reinstated by the underlying bill had been in place for more than 70 years until the Obama administration overturned the policy in 2009.

LaTourette urged support for his amendment: ??The president said he won't sign this bill unless this amendment is adopted. The Senate has declared this [anti-union provision] a nonstarter; and so if we want to give fancy speeches, and for those just tuning in around the country, welcome to whack the union night because this will be a fourth, fifth anti-union vote that has nothing to do with the aviation system.?

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) also supported the amendment: ??It's very clear that the other body [the Senate] would not accept this amendment if the bill goes over to them with this in it. It's clear that the president of the United States would not accept this bill with the current language because he has already said he will veto it if it comes to his desk in this way?.It's not about unions. It's not about increasing union representation. It's about fairness. It's about what's right for the American worker. That's all we're talking about in this particular amendment.?

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) opposed the amendment: ?What's proposed [in the amendment] as fairness is really probably the height of unfairness. We've had 75 years of rule and law in which to organize. In the transportation sector, you had to have a majority of all of the individuals that worked there, all the people that would be potential members, and a majority of those folks would have to vote in the union, and I have no problem with union representation.?

LaTourette responded that the unionization policy reinstated by the bill was unjust, regardless of how long it had been in place: ?You know, when the Constitution was framed, who could vote in this country? White guys who owned land. And if you asked them 75 years later, they may have said, Man, I can't believe they changed that. It's unbelievable. Or how about women? Another 100 years, women couldn't vote in this country. If you asked some guys today, they may say, The country really got screwed up when you gave women the right to vote. That is a non sequitur. It's a false argument, and the best proof is right here in this House of Representatives.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 206-220. All 190 Democrats present and 16 Republicans voted ?yea.? 220 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have preserved the ability of FAA employees to form a union.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 216
Apr 01, 2011
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have prohibited public works projects funded by a Federal Aviation Administration bill from complying with the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that all public works projects pay the prevailing wage to workers. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) that would have prohibited public works projects funded by a Federal Aviation Administration bill from complying with the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that all public works projects pay the prevailing wage to workers. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) Specifically, Sessions? amendment would have prohibited the FAA bill?s funds from being used to enforce the Davis-Bacon Act.

Sessions urged support for his amendment: ?My amendment would prevent any funding within the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011 to be used to administer or enforce the Davis-Bacon wage rate requirements with respect to any project or program in the underlying text or any amendment adopted today. Since the Davis-Bacon Act was signed into law in 1931, labor rates for government contracts have been inflated significantly, affecting the cost of administrative expenditures for those awarded projects. Unfortunately, the Davis-Bacon requirement has inadvertently caused the government to pass higher costs on to American taxpayers, often costing 5 to 38 percent more than the project would have cost in the private sector, according to the Associated Builders and Contractors?.I say enough is enough. We must reevaluate and look at what we are doing that costs more money for the government and, ultimately, the taxpayers. We must stop passing this financial burden on the backs of hardworking American taxpayers.?

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) opposed the amendment: ?I think it's worth noting that the gentleman from Texas [Rep. Sessions] just noted the trouble that people have had complying with Davis-Bacon over the years. It has been around since 1931 when two Republicans by the names of Davis and Bacon instituted the Davis-Bacon law. Study after study has shown that, despite the opponents' claims, the Davis-Bacon Act has had little or no effect on the total cost of federally assisted construction projects. In fact, there is a study that shows that the high-wage States actually attract more productive, effective, highly skilled, and safe workers, making the cost per mile of highway construction actually cheaper in high-wage states than in low-wage states.  It's important to note as well that here we are in an economic recovery, and these Republican continued attacks on our workers of this country at a time when we are slowly, however slowly, pulling out of a recession and entering a recovery do not make any sense at all.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 183-238. Voting ?yea? were 183 Republicans. All 187 Democrats present and 51 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited public works projects funded by a Federal Aviation Administration bill from complying with the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that all public works projects pay the prevailing wage to workers.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 215
Apr 01, 2011
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have allowed airports to implement mandatory nighttime curfews (which would have banned most air traffic between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) that would have allowed airports to implement mandatory nighttime curfews (which would have banned most air traffic between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) Under the amendment, only airports which had at least a partial curfew in place prior to 1990 would be permitted to impose a curfew.

A 1990 law had required airports to receive permission from the FAA to impose curfews. Bob Hope Airport in Burbank, CA?which had a curfew in place prior to 1990?had unsuccessfully applied for such a permit at the urging of Burbank areas residents who complained about the noise generated by nighttime air travel.

Schiff urged support for the amendment: ?Opponents of the amendment contend there's already an established process to consider a community's request for a curfew. However, the process was designed to be so difficult that in the decades since it was established by the FAA, only one airport in the nation has successfully completed an application--Bob Hope Airport--and then it was summarily turned down. After spending $7 million and 9 years of effort, the FAA rejected Bob Hope's request, erroneously contending that the small number of flights impacted by the curfew would impose too great a strain on the country's aviation system and too great a cost on users. In reality, the FAA approached this process in reverse, beginning with the conclusion it wished to reach and working backwards to try and justify its result.?

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) opposed the amendment: ?Prior to 1990?we didn't have a regulation for a standard airport noise control... Congress enacted a law. And they did this because we get into the situation that any airport could impose various flight restrictions. And what you do is start closing down a national system because, again, you have no consistent regulation. And we set up a procedure in that law. Now, it is true that Bob Hope had applied, spent money, and then was denied?.And Bob Hope can go back and apply. If we open this up and we start taking airport by airport and granting certain levels of activity in time, we start destroying a national aviation system.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 178-243. Voting ?yea? were 170 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 8 Republicans. 225 Republicans and 18 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed airports to implement mandatory nighttime curfews (which would have banned most air traffic between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.).


ENVIRONMENT Noise Pollution
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 214
Apr 01, 2011
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have authorized Doña Ana County in New Mexico to enter into a land transfer agreement allowing the county to build an alternative access road to its airport

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) that would have authorized Doña Ana County in New Mexico to enter into a land transfer agreement allowing the county to build an alternative access road to its airport. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.)

Under the agreement, Doña Ana County would be permitted to transfer land to a private company that sought to develop the area surrounding the airport. In return, the company (Verde Corporate Realty Services) would transfer land to the county for the construction of a new access road to the airport. Doña Ana needed federal permission to engage in this transaction because the county?s land had been given by the federal government to the Doña Ana specifically for the development of an airport. Current law required that such land be automatically returned to the federal government in the event that the county chose not to use the land for airport development purposes. (Current law did not allow for such land to be transferred to a private company.)

Pearce urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment is at the request of the local county, Dona Ana County, in New Mexico. They have land which alternates with a private investor. They are simply asking that 7.35 acres be given to them and they would in turn give up 8.41 acres to this private company?.This land swap is by the mutual agreement of all parties concerned. The FAA has no objections to the transaction.?

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) opposed the amendment, and argued that the land transfer amounted to a congressional earmark?provisions tucked into legislation that benefit a particular interest, organization or locale. The rules of the House of Representatives banned such provisions from being included in House-passed legislation. Thus, Rahall argued that the amendment violated House rules.  He contended: ?First I want to read through the rules of the House and what I understand is a congressional earmark?.[The rules state that] a congressional earmark is defined as a provision included at the request of a member authorizing or recommending spending authority for an entity or targeted to a specific locality or congressional district. The amendment before us qualifies as a congressional earmark. The gentleman from New Mexico specifically is requesting the provision.?

Pearce countered that his amendment did not amount to an earmark because it did not provide for a transfer of monetary value to the county or the private company involved in the land transfer: ? Since there is no money actually changing hands, there is not any value changing hands, it appears that the rule that the gentleman refers to is not invoked.? Pearce also argued: ?There's no loss to the county--no loss or no gain to the county. There are 7 acres that are in triangular shapes up against the county. They're not able to do anything with the airport on that side. They're simply asking that these triangular shapes be exchanged out so that there is a strip of land that they can develop. There is no difference in value to either the county or to the company.?

Rahall responded: ?I raise these questions? because what looks like an earmark, walks like an earmark, smells like an earmark, must be an earmark.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 207-215. Voting ?yea? were 196 Republicans and 11 Democrats. 177 Democrats and 38 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have authorized Doña Ana County in New Mexico to enter into a land transfer agreement allowing the county to build an alternative access road to its airport.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 213
Apr 01, 2011
(H.R. 1255) Legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law ? On a procedural vote allowing House leaders to bring up the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the underlying bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on whether to bring up a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law. This vote was on a ?question of consideration??literally whether or not to ?consider? the resolution.

In March, the House of Representatives passed legislation funding the federal government through September 2011 and cutting $61 billion from federal programs. The Democratic-controlled Senate had rejected that legislation. In addition, President Obama had threatened to veto it. In response, the Republican-controlled House drafted a bill?known as H.R. 1255?that would ?deem? the House government-funding bill to have been enacted if the Senate failed to pass a government funding measure. In addition, H.R. 1255 barred members of Congress from getting paid during a government shutdown. This vote was on whether to bring up a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to H.R. 1255.

This question of consideration was used by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives to dispose of a parliamentary objection raised by Democrats against the resolution. Democrats argued that the government funding measure passed by the House would harm the economy. They also argued that to ?deem? it enacted in the absence of Senate action was blatantly unconstitutional.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) argued: ?Let's be clear. The underlying bill?implies that the Senate has passed a bill which has already failed there. It assumes or deems that the president has signed a bill which he threatened to veto. April Fool's, America. [This vote took place on April 1, 2011.] There is no Senate or Office of the Presidency today under the Republican majority bill.?

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) said: ?Apparently, the new Republican leadership and their majority believe that they can take control of the parliamentary system. Unfortunately for them, we still have a bicameral legislature, including a United States Senate and a Constitution that requires the president of the United States to sign legislation.?

Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) contended: ?This bill does two things, the underlying legislation does two things: It both gives the Senate an opportunity to come out from under its paralyzing inaction and pass H.R. 1 [the House-passed government-funding measure]; and, it says that if the Senate does not, if the Senate fails to act--we are not asking the Senate to do exactly what we want them to do. We are asking them to act. If they fail to act, that Congress will not get paid. Congress will not get paid. My colleagues on the left won't get paid, my colleagues on the right won't get paid, and my colleagues in the Senate won't get paid.?

The House voted to bring up the resolution (in favor of the ?question of consideration?) by a vote of 219-172. All 219 Republicans present voted ?yea.? All 172 Democrats present voted ?nay.? As a result, the House brought up a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation which provided that if the Senate failed to pass a bill funding the federal government through September 2011, a House-passed government funding bill would be ?deemed? current law.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Use & Abuse of Internal Congressional Procedures
N N Lost
Roll Call 212
Mar 31, 2011
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have prohibited Federal Aviation Administration employees from using time spent at work for union-related activities. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) that would have prohibited Federal Aviation Administration employees from using time spent at work for union-related activities. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions.

Gingrey urged support for his amendment: ?I rise today to offer an amendment?that will increase efficiency in the FAA and uphold the integrity of taxpayer dollars?.This amendment prohibits Federal employees of the FAA from using official taxpayer-sponsored time on these [union] activities. By offering this amendment, I intend to limit Federal activity during normal business hours to the people's work and not for constantly bargaining with one's employer, arbitrating grievances, or organizing and carrying out internal union activities. Labor organizations must participate in these actions outside of official time and without the use of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.?

Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL) opposed the amendment: ?The amendment unfairly singles out the FAA unionized employees from all other federal employees. Under federal law, an employee representing a union has a right to receive `official time' to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement and participate in impasse proceedings. In addition, the law permits an agency and a union to negotiate the availability of official time as long as the time is `reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest.'?the purpose of the official time is to give federal employees the opportunity to represent their colleagues on issues ranging from discrimination to managerial misconduct and to resolve disputes in a cooperative fashion at the lowest level rather than resorting to the costly litigation. The cost of arbitrating one case is estimated to be at least $10,000, and that does not include the salary and expenses for the time spent by the two attorneys the FAA uses on every case.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 195-227. Voting ?yea? were 192 Republicans and 3 Democrats. 186 Democrats and 41 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited Federal Aviation Administration employees from using time spent at work for union-related activities.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Won
Roll Call 211
Mar 31, 2011
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have required ticket agents and all other sellers of airplane tickets to disclose the cost of checking baggage. The amendment would also have required that passengers receive refunds for lost baggage that had been checked on a flight.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) that would have required ticket agents and all other sellers of airplane tickets to disclose the cost of checking baggage. Under the amendment, airlines would also have been required to disclose such fees to aggregators (such as Orbitz or Expedia) with which they had a contract. The amendment would also have required that passengers receive refunds for lost baggage that had been checked on a flight. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.)

Capuano urged support for his amendment: ?Very simply, it [the amendment] requires any airline charging a baggage fee to tell us what it is so that when you want to go online and get a hundred dollar ticket, you know it's going to cost you $120 for the baggage or whatever?.The second thing it does is it simply says, if you collect a baggage fee and you lose that bag, that you have to refund the baggage fee. Very simple?.Everybody who travels, everybody who flies knows that these two issues have become problems.?

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) opposed the amendment: ?I strongly favor the disclosure of fees by airlines. I think that fees ought to be refunded when bags arrive late, damaged, or just lost. As drafted, the amendment goes far beyond that and allows?some unfairness to contractual agreements, first of all, with global distribution systems and ticket agents. This requirement tips the scales in favor of global distribution systems and their business relationships with airlines, and global distribution systems are not charitable organizations. They're owned by private equity firms, hedge funds, and exist to make money in the travel industry, and we would tip the balance in this requirement for them.?

Capuano responded: ?I respectfully disagree. There is nothing in this proposal, as drafted at the moment, that would require anyone to disclose any information to anyone they are not already giving information to. If an airline is already doing work with Orbitz or Expedia or KAYAK or any of those, they're already giving them all of the information.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 187-235. Voting ?yea? were 175 Democrats and 12 Republicans. 221 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required ticket agents and all other sellers of airplane tickets to disclose the cost of checking baggage.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Aviation Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 210
Mar 31, 2011
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have established a special rule-making committee within the Federal Aviation Administration to recommend regulations ensuring that aircrafts are properly equipped with technology that maintains pilot visibility when ?dense, continuous smoke is present in the cockpit of the aircraft.? (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) that would have established a special rule-making committee within the Federal Aviation Administration to recommend regulations ensuring that aircrafts are properly equipped with technology that maintains pilot visibility when ?dense, continuous smoke is present in the cockpit of the aircraft.? (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions.

Hirono urged support for her amendment: ?The basic idea of this amendment is to ensure the safety of the traveling public and those whose job it is to get them safely to their destinations, and my amendment has to do with smoke in the cockpit?. the FAA's Information for Operators Bulletin released October 6, 2010? noted that they receive over 900 reports a year of smoke or fumes in the cabin or cockpit. An average of 900 incidents in 365 days does not seem to me to be a rare occurrence. I believe that our national response to this issue has been inadequate. We need a comprehensive, up-to-date analysis of the issue and real-action next steps to protect our pilots and passengers. Therefore, I believe that my amendment is reasonable, logical, does not cost money, and it takes us toward resolving this issue.?

Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI) opposed the amendment: ?We have checked with the people we as citizens pay at the FAA to develop expertise in this area, and they advise us that current safety standards are sufficient to meet the risk posed by cockpit smoke. According to our contacts, the FAA additionally believes that the existing?standards for cockpit ventilation effectively eliminate the unsafe conditions associated with smoke in the flight deck. Their current regulations require manufacturers to demonstrate that continuously generated cockpit smoke can be evacuated within 3 minutes to levels such that the residual smoke does not distract the flight crew or interfere with flight operations.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 174-241. Voting ?yea? were 172 Democrats and 2 Republicans. 228 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have established a special rule-making committee within the Federal Aviation Administration to recommend regulations ensuring that aircrafts are properly equipped with technology that maintains pilot visibility when ?dense, continuous smoke is present in the cockpit of the aircraft.?


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Aviation Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 209
Mar 31, 2011
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have required mechanics working as federally contracted employees at aircraft repair stations to undergo criminal background checks

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) that would have required mechanics working as federally contracted employees at aircraft repair stations to undergo criminal background checks. This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.)

The Transportation Workers Union had been highly critical of the use of aircraft repair stations outside the United States, and strongly supported the background check requirement called for in DeFazio?s amendment. Airlines, however, which rely on outsourcing services for such repairs, had opposed such a regulation.

DeFazio urged support for his amendment: ?Now, the current law requires that people who repair aircraft at airports undergo criminal background checks that are quite extensive because there's a concern that they have access to airplanes, that we want to know who they are, we want to be sure they don't have a criminal background, and they can be denied employment for a large range of former felonies or problems, let alone any affiliation with terrorist groups. Not so at domestic contract repair stations or foreign contract repair stations. The employees there undergo no criminal background checks, or only criminal background checks at the discretion of the employer. They can be certified to do the most critical de-check work, overhauls on airplanes.?

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) opposed the amendment: ?FAA is not a security agency. It's an aviation agency. And?we have a jurisdictional question here. We can't put in provisions that require TSA [the Transportation Security Administration] to do certain things, but that is their responsibility?.TSA is in the process of promulgating a rule to address repair station security. But it, appropriately, is in their realm, not FAA. And we do get into trouble in trying to carry out some of these missions when we go to agencies that really this is not their responsibility, their charter under Congress. Again, I think the gentleman's intent is good, but it's misapplied. So with that, I have to oppose the amendment as crafted.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 161-263. Voting ?yea? were 155 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 6 Republicans. 229 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required mechanics working as federally contracted employees at aircraft repair stations to undergo criminal background checks.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Airport Security Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 208
Mar 31, 2011
(H.R. 658) On an amendment that would have required the Federal Aviation Administration to study alternatives to its New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace redesign. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) that would have required the Federal Aviation Administration to study alternatives to its New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace redesign. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions.

The FAA?s proposed redesign of the airspace described above had redirected flights over the homes of constituents of Reps. Garrett, Eliot Engel (D-NY), Robert Andrews (D-NJ), and Jim Himes (D-CT). Garrett offered an amendment on behalf of those members to direct the FAA to consider an alternative redesign. The amendment also would have delayed implementation of FAA?s redesign until the study was complete.

Garrett argued: ??The FAA's New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace redesign plan would redirect thousands of flights per year over the houses of many of my constituents?In looking at this, we realize this has a very real and negative impact on the region, including a possible decrease in home values.?

Engel argued the proposed redesign could increase pollution in his district: ?This plan will only save minutes on flight time, but it will disrupt the lives of thousands of residents in my district who live under the new flight path. As my constituents noted to me, the noise and air pollution in the area will increase. It's unknown how this increase in air pollution will affect the disproportionate rate of childhood asthma in my district.?

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) opposed the amendment: ?Now, this does put in place another study of the airspace redesign, and, unfortunately, it delays the implementation of airspace redesign in the Northeast corridor, in that New York airspace, until that's complete. So that is why I have to oppose this?.more than 70 percent of the chronically delayed flights around the United States start in the New York airspace. That means when New York goes down, the whole country starts going down.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 120-303. 98 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 22 Republicans voted ?yea.? 213 Republicans and 90 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Federal Aviation Administration to study alternatives to its New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace redesign.


ENVIRONMENT Noise Pollution
N Y Lost
Roll Call 207
Mar 31, 2011
(H.R.658) On an amendment blocking new federal regulation of lithium battery shipments. The amendment contained also contained a completely separate provision shielding airlines and airports from negligence lawsuits relating to their safety management systems.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Mica (R-FL) blocking new federal regulation of lithium battery shipments. The amendment contained also contained a completely separate provision shielding airlines and airports from negligence lawsuits relating to their safety management systems.This amendment was offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions.

In 2010, the Transportation Department had proposed stricter regulations for shipments of lithium batteries, which can catch fire during a flight. Those new regulations would have required shipments of lithium batteries by manufacturers to be subject to the same packaging and storage rules as hazardous materials.

Mica urged support for his amendment: ?Safety reporting is so important and is done on a voluntary basis, and it's so important that the people who collect this data are not held liable. They're collecting the data that benefits us to make this safe. This has worked. It's kept us safe.?

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) opposed the amendment: ??The amendment would basically create a liability shield for airlines and airports that are negligent and cause airplane crashes?.It would deprive passengers and their families of the right to seek compensation for damage caused by airline crashes. The right to go to court and seek compensation for damage caused by the negligence of another person, including an airline or airport, is an intrinsic part of our law. This amendment would take that right away, and I cannot support it.

Mica also spoke in favor of his amendment?s lithium battery provision: ?This is a pacemaker. This keeps your heart going. This has a lithium battery. Laptops have lithium batteries. Almost everything has lithium batteries. Leave it to the DOT [Department of Transportation] to try to put in place rules that would create stopping granny and grandpa and others that need this pacemaker from getting it. If we didn't have this provision in here, it would be a $1.1 billion impact on industry. We'd reroute the shipment of this stuff through other countries to avoid paying and going through the onerous regulations that our government would create.?

Rahall spoke in opposition to the lithium battery provision: ?My last concern is about a provision in the amendment dealing with lithium batteries. The transport of lithium batteries without appropriate safety checks has been proven to present hazards that could bring down an airplane.?


The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 251-168. All 235 Republicans present and 16 Democrats voted ?yea.? 168 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment blocking new federal safety regulation of lithium battery shipments as well as shielding airlines and airports from negligence lawsuits relating to their safety management systems.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 206
Mar 31, 2011
(H.R. 872) Final passage of legislation eliminating a federal requirement that farms apply for a permit in order to use pesticides that have been approved for use by the federal government

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation eliminating a federal requirement that farms apply for a permit in order to use pesticides that have been approved for use by the federal government. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) urged support for the bill: ??It is imperative that we act in a timely manner?to ensure that our small businesses, farmers, communities, counties, and state and federal agencies will not be burdened with a? permit requirement that offers no environmental or health benefits. It is important to note that pesticides play an important role in protecting our nation's food supply, public health, natural resources, infrastructure, and green spaces. They are used not only to protect crops from destructive pests, but also to manage mosquitoes and other disease-carrying pests, invasive weeds, and animals that can choke our waterways, impede our power generation, and damage our forests and recreational areas.?

Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) opposed the bill: ?I find myself in an awkward position here today being asked to urgently vote on a bill where there is no real sense of urgency and where questions of its potential impact on human health and the environment far outweigh the answers.  I am also concerned that? we are neglecting a rational analysis of the best way to protect human health and the environment from the potential adverse effects of pesticides?.As states and the U.S. Geological Survey have told us, pesticides are frequently detected in streams and groundwater throughout the Nation, and literally thousands of streams and bays and lakes are currently impaired or threatened by pesticides. In the state of California alone, pesticides are listed as the number one source of water quality impairment in the state.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass this bill by a vote of 292-130. All 235 Republicans present and 57 Democrats voted ?yea.? 130 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation eliminating a federal requirement that farms apply for a permit in order to use pesticides that have been approved for use by the federal government.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Lost
Roll Call 205
Mar 31, 2011
(H.R. 658) Legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions) ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions. (The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over all civil aviation in the United States.) Specifically, the bill imposed a new rule requiring that workers who did not vote at all in union elections would be counted as having voting against unionizing. The underlying bill also cut $2 billion in federal funding for making improvements at U.S. airports. Overall, the bill cut $4 billion in federal funding for FAA operations?reducing total FAA funding to 2008 levels.

Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?I support tightening our belt and rolling back funding to 2008 levels to save taxpayers $4 billion over the next several years?. I rise to support this rule [resolution] and the underlying legislation. The committees of jurisdiction have worked to provide us a long-term reauthorization that can streamline the modernization of our aviation system while ending the practice of short-term fixes when it comes to funding this crucial service.?
 
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?H.R. 658 [the underlying bill] cuts almost $2 billion from the Airport Improvement Program, which provides grants to airports for constructing and improving runways and terminals. This provision alone will cost us 70,000 jobs?H.R. 658's reduced funding levels will result in the layoffs of hundreds of safety inspectors, engineers and support personnel.?

McGovern also criticized the bill?s ant-union provision: ?This bill would reverse a?[federal] rule that allows a majority of those voting in aviation and rail union elections to decide the outcome. Instead, tea party extremists want to count workers who chose not to vote as automatic `noes' against the union. I wonder if my friends on the other side of the aisle would be willing to use that same standard in congressional elections? I wonder if they would agree that every registered voter who didn't vote, for whatever reason, last November would automatically be counted as a `no' vote against them? I doubt it, because in the 2010 midterm elections, 40.9 percent of eligible voters cast ballots nationwide.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 249-171. All 235 Republicans present and 14 Democrats voted ?yea.? 171 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing annual funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, and limiting the ability of federal aviation and railroad workers to form unions.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 204
Mar 30, 2011
(H.R. 417) Final passage of legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009. (This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009.  This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition. The measure had been enacted under Republican control of Congress during President George W. Bush?s administration in 2003. In 2009, the Democratic-controlled congress discontinued federal funding for the program. This vote took place in 2011, after Republicans had regained control of the House of Representatives.

Republicans generally supported school vouchers, contending that they provided low-income children with the opportunity to attend high-quality schools that they otherwise could not have afforded. Democrats generally opposed vouchers, arguing that using taxpayer funds for private schools drained money from the public school system.

In addition to funding school vouchers, the bill also provided federal funds for D.C. public schools and charter schools. (Charter schools are publicly funded and do not charge tuition?but are not subject to all of the rules and regulations that govern traditional public schools.) Specifically, the measure provided $60 million per year for D.C. schools through 2016. Of the $60 million annual total, the bill provided $20 million for traditional public schools, $20 million for charter schools, and $20 million for school vouchers.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) urged support for the bill: ?It reauthorizes and makes improvements in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program [the D.C. school voucher program], which was created by Congress in 2003 to provide eligible low-income District parents with an opportunity to send their children to a private school of their choice. But it does more. It also provides an equal amount of money for chartered public schools, which are greater in the District of Columbia perhaps than anywhere else in the nation, and an equal amount for improving the public school system in the District of Columbia?.this Act [bill] gives twice as much money to the two categories of public schools--conventional schools and chartered public schools--than it does to the scholarship program. However, the scholarship program is a focus of this bill, and it's a focus because this program has proven to be successful. In fact, 74 percent of all District residents, when polled, favor the continuation of this [voucher] program??

Rep. John Kline (R-MN) also supported this bill: ?This innovative program works and serves as a real alternative for parents who want to give their children the educational opportunities they never had. Yet, despite this proof, the administration and some in Congress are determined to destroy this groundbreaking program. Without the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, thousands of parents will be denied an opportunity to make decisions about their children's education. Equally troubling, thousands of children will be denied the opportunity to achieve their full potential, leaving them unequipped to succeed in a 21st century workforce. We must put children first and stop a vocal minority from taking vital opportunities away from thousands of D.C. families.?

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) opposed the measure: ?Let me be very clear: public funds should support public education. But this bill, which would authorize $300 million to support education in the District of Columbia, includes an authorization for the expenditure of $100 million over 5 years to enable a tiny fraction of D.C. students to attend private schools?.the D.C. voucher program has not resulted in better student achievement. The Institute for Education Sciences evaluated this program and found that in 2010, there was no overall statistically significant impact on student achievement in reading or math. By comparison, reading and math test scores did improve among students enrolled in the District's public schools and its public charter schools from 2007 to 2010.?

Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) also opposed the bill: ?I rise today in strong opposition to this bill to expand the failed private school voucher program in Washington, D.C. In this time of budget strife and cutbacks for public school districts all across the country, this is the wrong time to take federal money away from public schools and give it to private schools?.multiple congressionally mandated Department of Education studies have concluded that the program has not improved these students' academic achievement in reading or math. Further, the studies found the voucher program to have had no effect on student satisfaction, engagement, motivation, or students' feelings of security. The studies found no significant impact on students' career aspirations, participation in extracurricular activities, homework completion, reading for fun, or tardiness.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 225-195. Voting ?yea? were 224 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 186 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools
N N Lost
Roll Call 203
Mar 30, 2011
(H.R. 471) On a motion that would have eliminated funding for a school voucher program in the District of Columbia. (This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have eliminated funding for a school voucher program in the District of Columbia. (This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition.) A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009.

Republicans generally supported school vouchers, contending that they provided low-income children with the opportunity to attend high-quality schools that they otherwise could not have afforded. Democrats generally opposed vouchers, arguing that using taxpayer funds for private schools drained money from the public school system.

Specifically, this motion to recommit would have cut funding in the underlying bill from $300 million over five years to $150 million. The motion then required all of the remaining $150 million to be spent on traditional D.C. public schools, charter schools, and special education for children with learning, physical, or emotional disabilities. (Charter schools are publicly funded and do not charge tuition?but are not subject to all of the rules and regulations that govern traditional public schools.)

(In addition to funding school vouchers, the underlying bill also provided federal funds for D.C. public schools and charter schools. Specifically, the measure provided $60 million per year for D.C. schools through 2016. Of the $60 million annual total, the bill provided $20 million for traditional public schools, $20 million for charter schools, and $20 million for school vouchers.)

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?Voting for this motion will save $150 million over 5 years. So the question for my Republican colleagues is will you be true to your promises to address the deficit, or will you put these promises aside to support a pet project that advances a narrow ideological agenda? Second, instead of spending money on a miniscule fraction of students who would receive a voucher, this amendment would target scarce federal resources to areas where they would do the most good: D.C. public schools, charter schools, and special education?As we have discussed, students participating in the existing D.C. voucher program have shown no statistically significant improvement in reading or math skills. By contrast, students in the D.C. public schools and charter schools have shown significant gains over the last few years.?

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) opposed this motion to recommit: ?This?[motion to recommit] in fact, not only denies the children who are in these programs today?but, in fact, it cuts funding for public education. Under this motion to recommit, the funding for public education on a yearly basis would go from $40 million to $20 million. There would be less money in the public school system, in addition to being no money for Opportunity Scholarships [school vouchers]. I oppose the motion to recommit and urge the support of the underlying bill.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 185-238. Voting ?yea? were 185 Democrats. All 235 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have eliminated funding for a school voucher program in the District of Columbia.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 202
Mar 30, 2011
(H.R. 471) On an amendment that would have redirected funding intended for a school voucher program in the District of Columbia to charter schools. (Charter schools are publicly funded and do not charge tuition?but are not subject to all of the rules and regulations that govern traditional public schools.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) that would have redirected funding intended for a school voucher program ($20 million annually) in the District of Columbia to charter schools. (Charter schools are publicly funded and do not charge tuition?but are not subject to all of the rules and regulations that govern traditional public schools.) This amendment was offered to legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009.

The school voucher program reinstated by the underlying bill allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition. The measure had been enacted under Republican control of Congress during President George W. Bush?s administration in 2003. In 2009, the Democratic-controlled congress discontinued federal funding for the program. This vote took place in 2011, after Republicans had regained control of the House of Representatives.

Republicans generally supported school vouchers, contending that they provided low-income children with the opportunity to attend high-quality schools that they otherwise could not have afforded. Democrats generally opposed vouchers, arguing that using taxpayer funds for private schools drained money from the public school system.

Norton urged support for her amendment: ?We [in D.C.] know how to create choices for ourselves, choices that our parents want, choices that our parents create and pay for because they want their own choices, not the choices of the Republicans of the House of Representatives. In a democracy, the choices of a self-governing local jurisdiction trump all other choices, and especially the choices of Members who are not responsible to the people of the District of Columbia, who do not have to stand for election in the District of Columbia but get a free ride, as I do not.?

Norton also argued: ?Commend them [D.C. residents] for the dazzling array of almost 100 public, accountable charter schools they have created. Relieve their long waiting lists, which now contain thousands of students waiting to get into our charter schools. The District of Columbia did not appreciate being an unwilling object of a Republican experiment once. With your cavalier defiance of our choices, we like it much less the second time around.?

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) urged opposition to the amendment, arguing that funding for school vouchers should not be redirected to charter schools: ??The evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt by any reasonable, statistical measurement: the parents want this [school voucher] program; the students want this program; the community wants this program; even some elected officials want this program. They just happen to not be ones we have heard from on the other side of the aisle today. Reading scores are up. Educational attainment is up. Graduation rates are up.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 185-237. Voting ?yea? were 181 Democrats and 4 Republicans. 230 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have redirected funding intended for a school voucher program in the District of Columbia to charter schools.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 200
Mar 30, 2011
(H.R. 471) Legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009. (This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition.) ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition. The measure had been enacted under Republican control of Congress during President George W. Bush?s administration in 2003. In 2009, the Democratic-controlled congress discontinued federal funding for the program. This vote took place in 2011, after Republicans had regained control of the House of Representatives.

Republicans generally supported school vouchers, contending that they provided low-income children with the opportunity to attend high-quality schools that they otherwise could not have afforded. Democrats generally opposed vouchers, arguing that using taxpayer funds for private schools drained money from the public school system.

In addition to funding school vouchers, the underlying bill also provided federal funds for D.C. public schools and charter schools. (Charter schools are publicly funded and do not charge tuition?but are not subject to all of the rules and regulations that govern traditional public schools.) Specifically, the measure provided $60 million per year for D.C. schools through 2016. Of the $60 million annual total, the bill provided $20 million for traditional public schools, $20 million for charter schools, and $20 million for school vouchers.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?In 2003, an Opportunity Scholarship [school voucher program] was instituted, at the insistence of Congress. Again, there was a waiting list of people wanting the opportunity; disadvantaged kids who wanted the opportunity that this scholarship afforded them. In the appropriation bill for 2010, unfortunately, Congress intervened again in a negative way and cut out this Opportunity Scholarship program. There were a lot of upset students and parents who couldn't believe how special interest politics got in the way of their son's or daughter's dreams and was snatched from their very hands. Their opportunity to make what they believe were better educational choices was basically taken away from them.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) argued: ??It's absurd?that we as elected officials from 50 states are executing a right to determine how schools are funded in a jurisdiction that doesn't even have a vote in this body [D.C.]. I'm a representative of part of one State, Colorado, and yet here I am in a position to make school funding decisions on behalf of Washington, D.C., students. We wouldn't do this to Colorado, Ohio, or any other state?.This vote underscores the need for Washington, D.C., to control its own public school system as the state does.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 235-178. All 233 Republicans present and 2 Democrats voted ?yea.? 178 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools
N N Lost
Roll Call 199
Mar 30, 2011
(H.R. 471) Legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009. (This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition.) ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009. If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. This school voucher program allowed low-income students in D.C. to receive subsidies for private school tuition. The measure had been enacted under Republican control of Congress during President George W. Bush?s administration in 2003. In 2009, the Democratic-controlled congress discontinued federal funding for the program. This vote took place in 2011, after Republicans had regained control of the House of Representatives.

Republicans generally supported school vouchers, contending that they provided low-income children with the opportunity to attend high-quality schools that they otherwise could not have afforded. Democrats generally opposed vouchers, arguing that using taxpayer funds for private schools drained money from the public school system.

In addition to funding school vouchers, the underlying bill also provided federal funds for D.C. public schools and charter schools. (Charter schools are publicly funded and do not charge tuition?but are not subject to all of the rules and regulations that govern traditional public schools.) Specifically, the measure provided $60 million per year for D.C. schools through 2016. Of the $60 million annual total, the bill provided $20 million for traditional public schools, $20 million for charter schools, and $20 million for school vouchers.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?This bill is based on that concept of choice, opportunity, and options for people. It deserves our support because it is an opportunity. Call it an education app for Americans living in the District of Columbia. The most needy and deserving can actually have their choice of how they want their education to take place and it is done under the sphere of responsibility given to Congress by the Constitution.?

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Whether it is gun rights, a woman's right to choose or education policy, the District [of Columbia] is not and should not be the dumping grounds for Republicans' ideological whims?.The least they [the Republican majority] could do is allow them [D.C. residents] to control their education system just as every other jurisdiction in this country is able to do. The people of the District of Columbia did not ask for or want this program, nor were they or their elected officials consulted?? Hastings also argued: ?According to legislatively mandated evaluations, the D.C. voucher program failed to show any statistically significant impact on student achievement.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 237-182. All 236 Republicans present and 1 Democrat voted ?yea.? 182 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation reinstituting a school voucher program in the District of Columbia that had been phased out in 2009.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools
N N Lost
Roll Call 198
Mar 29, 2011
(H.R. 839) Final passage of legislation eliminating the Home Assistance Modification Program (HAMP), which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation eliminating the Home Assistance Modification Program (HAMP), which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans.  

Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) urged support for the bill: ?H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act [ the underlying bill], would put an end to the poster child for failed federal foreclosure programs?.To date, the HAMP program has already consumed $840 million of the more than $30 billion?that were set aside for the program. For this extraordinary investment, the administration predicted that 3 to 4 million homeowners would receive help. Sadly, for many American homeowners, the program has been an abysmal failure.?

Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA) also supported the bill: ? I was sent to the nation's capital?to do something about cutting back on wasteful Washington spending, to do something about the $14 trillion national debt. And in pursuing this goal, we have made many difficult decisions about funding government programs. At a time when families and businesses across Pennsylvania are being asked to do more with less, we cannot continue ineffective Federal spending. Like so many programs hatched in Washington, HAMP has been one of those programs that, while well intentioned, has grossly missed its mark. Established in 2009 to assist homeowners seeking to avoid foreclosure, of the $30 billion allocated to the program, only a fraction has been spent.?

Rep. John Carney (D-DE) opposed the bill: ?I rise today to oppose this ill-advised effort to repeal the Home Affordable Modification Program. Instead, we ought to be focusing on how we can move together, Democrats and Republicans, to address the foreclosure crisis and keep families in their homes. The [Republican] claim is that HAMP has hurt more people than it has helped. That is simply a ridiculous charge. Back in my home state of Delaware, the HAMP program has helped 1,600 homeowners, by far the most effective government program. That's 25 percent of the homeowners who filed for foreclosure last year.?

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) also opposed the bill: ?It's very disheartening that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to shut down these distressed homeowners before they have even a chance to qualify for the assistance. The HAMP program was by no means perfect. Everybody agrees on that. Nor was it meant to be permanent. We all agree on that. Instead, it was meant to hold the mortgage service industry accountable and responsive to those that needed the assistance. At a time when our housing market is still very fragile and foreclosures continue to occur in record numbers, instead of terminating these programs, we should be trying to improve them.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 252-170. Voting ?yea? were 234 Republicans and 18 Democrats. 168 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation eliminating the Home Assistance Modification Program (HAMP), which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Lost
Roll Call 197
Mar 29, 2011
(H.R. 893) On a motion that would have enabled people currently serving in the military and families of those who died while serving in the armed forces to benefit from a program which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have enabled people currently serving in the military and families of those who died while serving in the armed forces (known as ?gold star families?) to benefit from the Home Assistance Modification Program (HAMP), which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans.  A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation eliminating HAMP.

Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?Even though the economy is beginning to recover, the housing market is still struggling. HAMP is currently helping 30,000 additional families every month. I would prefer that we keep this effort going for everyone. But if we are not about to, at a minimum we need to preserve this program for active military and gold star families. Regardless of how anyone feels about the underlying legislation and regardless of how anybody feels about the funding for the original legislation, we can all agree that we owe our men and women in uniform a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service and sacrifice. While defending our country, servicemembers should not be afraid that their families will lose the roof over their heads??

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) opposed this motion to recommit: ?The program that my colleague has offered this cynical motion to recommit for is merely a roadblock for us eliminating a failed government program?.I would tell my colleagues that some have been helped in this program. But for every one person that's been helped, there's more than one other person that has actively been harmed. They deplete their savings, they ruin their credit, and their house is taken from them?. I ask my colleagues, do not subject our veterans, with this motion to recommit, to a failed program. We don't want our veterans to come home to a federal program that is actively harming them. And that's what this recommit does.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 185-238. Voting ?yea? were 184 Democrats and 1 Republican. 235 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have enabled people currently serving in the military and families of those who died while serving in the armed forces to benefit from a program which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 196
Mar 29, 2011
(H.R. 839) On an amendment that would have listed the number of home mortgages in each state that were modified by the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). HAMP was a federal initiative that helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) that would have listed the number of home mortgages in each state that were modified by the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). HAMP was a federal initiative that helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating HAMP.

Maloney urged support for her amendment: ??I believe it is important for the public to understand State by State the number of mortgages--the number of families--who are still in their homes because of the HAMP program?.These are real families and real savings. If our friends who have proposed to terminate this program want to talk about savings, they should think about the number of people in these states who have benefited from HAMP and are now saving money every single month. They should also think about the number of seriously delinquent mortgages out there that are on the verge of foreclosure?.The numbers speak for themselves, and I think it is important that we highlight how we have helped families across this country and how many more are not going to be helped or are not being helped by terminating and closing this program.?

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) argued that the figures cited by Maloney?s amendment were inaccurate, and that HAMP had failed in many cases to permanently modify home mortgages: ?The amendment fails to highlight that there are more failed modifications than successful permanent modifications?.I think if you use my colleague's words and figures, it's fair to say that those are grossly inflated and go well beyond what is reasonable, what is serious, and what is agreed upon in the private sector?? McHenry also added: ??What the opposition on the other side of the aisle is doing is saying we should continue failure, we should endorse failure.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 173-249. Voting ?yea? were 172 Democrats and 1 Republican. 234 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have listed the number of home mortgages in each state that were modified by the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 195
Mar 29, 2011
(H.R. 839) On an amendment that would have required the Treasury Department to carry out a study identifying which aspects of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) were successful. HAMP was a federal initiative that helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) that would have required the Treasury Department to carry out a study identifying which aspects of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) were successful. HAMP was a federal initiative that helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating HAMP.

Jackson-Lee urged support for her amendment: ?As we come to the floor of the House, I know that members on both sides of the aisle are committed to knowing the facts. We want to know the facts when we go to town hall meetings when our constituents pose very deliberative questions?. And one of the deliberative aspects of legislation is that you fix it; you don't end it. So I rise today to ask my colleagues to support my amendment, an amendment that I think makes common sense. It is an amendment that thoughtful Members can support. It is an amendment that [says], whether you are Republican or Democrat, you want to know what works.?

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) opposed the amendment: ?This directs the Treasury to conduct a study of HAMP and would be completely counterproductive. The reason why it would be completely counterproductive is over the last 6 months we have seen the Treasury Department engage in a frantic 6-month media campaign for this program. They won't admit it is a failure; although, the rest of the world is largely saying it is a failure. They [the Obama administration] even have offered a veto threat on this legislation.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 182-239. Voting ?yea? were 178 Democrats and 4 Republicans. 233 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Treasury Department to carry out a study identifying which aspects of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) were successful.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 194
Mar 29, 2011
(H.R. 839) On an amendment detailing a number of Republican criticisms of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a federal initiative which Republicans sought to eliminate?and which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. For example, the amendment noted that while the program was intended to help 3 to 4 million homeowners, only 607,600 mortgage modifications had been made thus far.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) that detailed a number of Republican criticisms of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a federal initiative which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans. This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating HAMP.

Specifically, the amendment added a ?findings? section to the underlying bill stating a number of reasons why Republicans sought to eliminate HAMP. For example, the amendment noted that while the program was intended to help 3 to 4 million homeowners, only 607,600 mortgage modifications had been made thus far. The amendment also stated that eliminating HAMP would have saved taxpayers ?approximately? $1.4 billion.

Hanna urged support for his amendment: ??This amendment would add a findings section detailing the flaws of the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP?.In keeping with the spirit of transparency, this amendment would include within the bill the specific reasons why we should end the failed HAMP program.?.Too often, our constituents receive biased or incomplete information on the issues we are discussing in Congress, thus making it difficult for them to make informed assessments of our work. Including additional facts on the intended consequences of legislation is beneficial to the public. That is why I urge support for the Hanna amendment and the underlying bill.?

Democrats opposing this amendment did not speak directly to its specific criticisms. During earlier debate, however, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) did respond specifically to Republican attacks on HAMP: ??This is a program that I'm the first to admit has not lived up to what our hopes were. This program we had hoped would help several million people. Thus far we've only helped about 550,000 people. I fully admit that this program, like all the other foreclosure programs, could use a healthy dose of reconsideration and improvement, and I'm happy to work with that. But to simply repeal all of these programs is to walk away from individual homeowners, walk away from neighborhoods?.Every single State in this nation has homeowners who have been helped [by HAMP]. In Illinois, 29,000 homes have been saved; in North Carolina, 10,000 homes; in my own State, 12,000 homes and counting?.But to simply walk away without offering an alternative means we don't care; this Congress doesn't care if you lose your home, period.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 247-170. Voting ?yea? were 235 Republicans and 12 Democrats. 168 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment detailing a number of Republican criticisms of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a federal initiative which Republicans sought to eliminate?and which helped homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Lost
Roll Call 193
Mar 17, 2011
(H. Con. Res. 28) Final passage of a resolution that would have required the president to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by December 31, 2011

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of a resolution that would have required the president to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by December 31, 2011.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the Democratic sponsor of this resolution, urged members to support it: ?There are those who are saying the war could last at least another 10 years. Are we willing to spend another $1 trillion on a war that doesn't have any exit plan, for which there is no timeframe to get out, no endgame, where we haven't defined our mission? The question is not whether we can afford to leave. The question is, can we afford to stay? And I submit we cannot afford to stay.?

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) also supported the measure: ?I rise in support of the resolution, and again with great respect and concern for those great people who we are sending overseas to defend us. If we don't think they can succeed, it is incumbent upon us to bring them home as soon as possible?.We will not succeed if we are planning to force the Afghan people to accept the centralized government that our State Department has foisted upon them. All we are going to do is lose more people. All we are going to do is have more wounded people and more of our military sent over there??

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) urged opposition to the resolution: ?I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, as it would undermine the efforts of our military and our international partners in Afghanistan and would gravely harm our nation's security.  Insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Three thousand people died on September 11 because we walked away once from Afghanistan, thinking that it didn't matter who controlled that country. We were wrong then. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Completing our mission in Afghanistan is essential to keeping our homeland safe.?

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) also opposed the resolution: ?We may have a legitimate debate about what our presence should be, how we should change it, but the notion that we can simply walk away from this problem?is simply not true. And it is a problem that, believe me, I, as much as anyone in this body, would love to be able to walk away from. It is an enormous challenge?.we can't simply walk away from them and let them fall because of the national security implications that that has for us right here at home, given what the Taliban and al Qaeda would plan. I am all in favor of a more reasonable plan for how we go forward in Afghanistan, but simply heading for the hills and leaving is not a responsible plan. It's not even really a plan for how to deal with the very difficult challenges that we face in that region, and I urge this body to oppose this resolution.?

The House rejected this resolution by a vote of 93-321. Voting ?yea? were 85 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 8 Republicans. 222 Republicans and 99 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected resolution that would have required the president to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by December 31, 2011.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 192
Mar 17, 2011
(H.R. 1076) Final passage of legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR). Republicans had long viewed NPR--which received federal funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?as harboring a liberal bias. After Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives following the 2010 midterm elections, they drafted legislation to cut off all federal funds for the organization.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) urged support for the bill: ?In these challenging economic times, committing the taxpayer to fund and support particular content, including content he or she may never listen to, highlights this absurd anachronism of the past. It is time to move forward and to let National Public Radio spread its wings and support itself. This legislation?prohibits the direct Federal funding of National Public Radio; and more importantly, it ensures that American taxpayers will not be funding through their tax dollars radio programming from NPR or other outlets with which they may not agree.?

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) also supported the bill: ?I'm a strong believer in the free market. I'd like to see NPR rework its business model and begin to compete for all of its income. NPR already receives a huge amount of funding from private individuals and organizations through donations and sponsorships. NPR can and should be entirely supported with private sources.?

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) urged opposition to the bill: ?This bill will cripple National Public Radio, public radio stations, and programming that is vital to over 27 million Americans. We are now voting to deny the public access to one of our nation's most credible sources of news coverage?. There is no reason for this bill. It is vindictive, it is mean-spirited, it is going to hit the smallest stations in rural areas particularly hard. Public radio is indispensable for access to news that's hard to get, especially where broadband service is limited.?

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) also opposed the measure: ?Those who listen to Wisconsin Public Radio know how much there is to love. Wisconsin Public Radio provides over 9 hours each weekday of interactive radio programming, engaging Wisconsin residents and experts from around the world in public policy, culture, arts, and educational discussions. And because Wisconsin is largely a rural state, our citizens rely on over-the-air broadcasting more than almost any other state. This means that Wisconsin audiences significantly rely on public radio.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 228-192. Voting ?yea? were 228 Republicans. All 185 Democrats and 7 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Broadcast Media
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media
N N Lost
Roll Call 191
Mar 17, 2011
(H.R. 1076) On a motion that would have allowed National Public Radio to continue receiving federal funding exclusively for the purpose of broadcasting AMBER alerts, which disseminate information on missing children.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have allowed National Public Radio (NPR) to continue receiving federal funding exclusively for the purpose of broadcasting AMBER alerts, which disseminate information on missing children. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation eliminating federal funding for NPR.

Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) urged support for the motion to recommit: ?NPR is designated as a disseminator of AMBER Alerts via arrangements with the Department of Justice and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The deployment of next-generation emergency alert systems is in progress, and NPR is positioned to play a vital, necessary role with its satellite-based capabilities. Recklessly eliminating funding critical to the effective functioning of the AMBER Alert System would be a tragic mistake. Children of every age, gender and race are vulnerable to child abduction, and when it happens, time is the enemy. Communities must mobilize quickly. The widespread use of the AMBER Alert network is the nation's most powerful tool for bringing abducted children home. AMBER Alerts also serve as deterrents to those who would prey upon our children. AMBER Alert cases demonstrate that some perpetrators release the abducted children after hearing the AMBER Alerts on the radio or seeing them on television.?

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) opposed the motion to recommit: ?I think we all agree that this nation's children, our children and our grandchildren are an incredibly important part of our lives?Now, while we all heartily support the AMBER Alert program, we also know there is nothing in the H.R. 1076 [the underlying bill] that would prohibit the AMBER Alert program?. As I said, as we talked about the bill, it is imperative that we be good stewards of the taxpayers' money, that we get this fiscal house in order. It is time to get NPR out of the taxpayers' pocket. The underlying bill does that. I encourage a `no' vote on the motion to recommit. I encourage an `aye' vote on H.R. 1076.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 184-235. All 184 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 235 Republicans present voted nay. As a result the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have allowed National Public Radio (NPR) to continue receiving federal funding exclusively for the purpose of broadcasting AMBER alerts, which disseminate information on missing children.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 190
Mar 17, 2011
(H.R. 1076) Legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR). Republicans had long viewed NPR--which received federal funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?as harboring a liberal bias. After Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives following the 2010 midterm elections, they drafted legislation to cut off all federal funds for the organization.

Rep. Richard Nugent (R-FL) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?We're not closing down local radio stations. We're actually giving them the ability to liberate themselves from federal dollars. My good friends on the other side of the aisle continue to refuse to prioritize about what's important for America. They continue on a path of just spend, because all programs are inherently good. While you've heard a lot of us like NPR in regard to certain programming, there's others that we do not?.I can't in good conscience support continuing to fund NPR with tax dollars. A large number of Americans fundamentally disagree with the content and mission of NPR. Moreover, this is a program that can be privately funded.?

Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) opposed the resolution: ??Why have a proposal that destroys institutions? Vermont Public Radio is the link between 251 towns, cities, and villages in the state of Vermont. Farmers listen to it in their barns. Parents listen to it on their way to bringing their kids to school. People at work listen to it for the weather reports, and it welds together the political discussion in the state of Vermont which is vibrant, which is varied, which has people with different points of view having a common reference point. Public radio is an institution that allows democracy to thrive.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 236-181. All 235 Republicans present and 1 Democrat voted ?yea.? 181 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Broadcast Media
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media
N N Lost
Roll Call 189
Mar 17, 2011
(H.R. 1076) Legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR). If passed, this particular procedural motion--known as the ?previous question"--effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. Republicans had long viewed NPR--which received federal funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?as harboring a liberal bias. After Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives following the 2010 midterm elections, they drafted legislation to cut off all federal funds for the organization.

Rep. Richard Nugent (R-FL) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Under this bill, NPR will continue to provide its programming. They just can't use taxpayer dollars to subsidize it?.What this bill does do is start weaning NPR off of federal dollars. Local radio stations are still allowed to pay membership dues, and they can still buy NPR programs. They just can't use your and my hard-earned tax dollars to pay for them?.The federal government's addiction to spending has driven us to our current $14 trillion debt. We need to refocus on what our core mission is. We should not be using tax dollars that American citizens worked hard to earn for something that could be paid for privately.?

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?NPR doesn't try to blur the line between opinion, fact, and political agenda. Instead, it takes the time and spends the money to do in-depth reporting across the country and around the globe and to go where no other news organization will go?.We didn't become a global leader by bloviating on 24-hour cable news, and we aren't solving the fundamental issues that face our nation by passing this politically driven legislation to appease the far right. Our nation was built and will be rebuilt by the quiet efforts of millions of Americans across the country who will never make it on cable news and who will never appear on national television. It is these very Americans whom NPR dedicates its resources to finding, to covering, and to sharing the world with. Their stories aren't simple, and their efforts don't sell advertising space, but their stories matter. NPR's work to find the stories that matter is the in-depth intelligent reporting that I fight for today?.We simply must stop this nonsense. It makes us look ridiculous in the eyes of the world.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 223-179. All 232 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?yea.? 179 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation eliminating all federal funding for National Public Radio.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Broadcast Media
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media
N N Lost
Roll Call 188
Mar 16, 2011
(H.R. 861) Final passage of legislation eliminating the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation eliminating the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), which provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes.

Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) urged support for the bill: ??The NSP simply acts as a taxpayer bailout for risky lenders, servicers and real estate speculators who bet on the housing market and now can't sell their properties. It has become an even bigger example of those people who believe that the government is the solution to the problems. Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem.?

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) also supported the measure: ?What does this program do? Does it prevent foreclosures? No. It encourages foreclosures. It allows nonprofits, community organizations, and cities and counties to buy foreclosed properties. In other words, to create a market for foreclosed properties.?

Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) urged opposition to the bill: ?The Neighborhood Stabilization Program will help rehabilitate over 600 properties in New York City alone, but this is not just an issue for New York. This is a national problem. It was created by a decade of overheated mortgage lending and excess on Wall Street. It makes sense that our cities should have a national response. But contrary to common sense, the bill we consider today would abandon our cities and towns and force them to deal with this issue on their own.?

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) also opposed the bill: ?The surrounding communities of homeowners who are trying to stay in their homes are having, first of all, their property values lowered because of the density of abandoned properties in their neighborhoods. This Neighborhood Stabilization Program provides the only opportunity for us to address that crisis. We are trying to put a floor under the housing market in this country--some of us are--and this is one program that allows us to do that.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 242-182. Voting ?yea were 237 Republicans and 5 Democrats. 180 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation eliminating the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), which provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. Since the Senate had not acted on this bill, however, the NSP continued to operate.




AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Lost
Roll Call 187
Mar 16, 2011
(H.R. 861) On a motion that would have allowed the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) to continue operating for the purposes of renovating abandoned properties in rural communities. The NSP provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have allowed the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) to continue operating for the purposes of renovating abandoned properties in rural communities. (The NSP provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes.) A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation eliminating the NSP.

Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) urged support for this motion to recommit: ?Most small towns are lucky to have a single convenience store, and they are even luckier if that convenience store sells gasoline. This is a Main Street in my State of Iowa, and there are far too many of these in communities in my state and in my district. And I guarantee you, there are far too many of these in rural communities in your States. Because while Wall Street and big corporations are doing fine, our rural communities and small towns are facing a real crisis, and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program is making a real difference in rural America?.Wall Street is getting through this crisis; Main Streets are not. And it is time we answer this question: Are we going to stand with Wall Street and Big Oil and corporate CEOs, or are we going to stand up for small towns all across America that need our help now more than ever??

Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) opposed the motion to recommit: ?Now, why would you impose a terrible program on rural America that you don't want on urban America?...Now, rural America, you probably got ripped off in this whole process like everybody else did?Now, taxpayers understand, clearly, it [the NSP] did not prevent one foreclosure in this entire country. Not one person got to keep their home because we spent $6 billion [on the NSP]. In fact, imagine the family who owned the home. Maybe the ma or pa got in trouble with their job. They couldn't quite make the payments. For the last 3 years, they have been unable to repair the plumbing. They couldn't replace the oven that wasn't working. A couple windows were broken out. The house needed painting. And they had to sit there and let their house go back to the lender, to watch some entity, a nonprofit or government agency, buy that home, fix it up, and sell it to somebody else. How would you feel when nobody came to your aid when you were losing your home, but yet your tax dollars were used to buy that home to give it to somebody else??

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 153-272. Voting ?yea? were 153 Democrats?including a majority of progressives. All 238 Republicans present and 34 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have allowed the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to continue operating for the purposes of renovating abandoned properties in rural communities.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N Y Lost
Roll Call 186
Mar 16, 2011
(H.R. 861) On an amendment that would have listed the number of vacant homes in each state that were eligible to be rehabilitated or demolished under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) that would have listed the number of vacant homes in each state that were eligible to be rehabilitated or demolished under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), which provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. This amendment was offered a bill eliminating the NSP.

[For example, the amendment stated: ?There are 52511 homes in Arizona that have been vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.?]

Maloney urged support for her amendment: ?I rise in support of my amendment to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act [the underlying bill] which will quantify the number of vacant homes across the country and add findings to the bill listing these numbers in every State so that it will be transparent exactly what the impact will be in not continuing this program that is needed?.Economists have testified before our committee and other committees that housing is as much as 25 percent of our economy, so it is critical that we do what we can to stabilize housing, not just for the benefit of the families benefiting from the housing, but also for their neighbors, for their localities, for their cities, for their States and for the overall economy.?

Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) opposed the amendment: ??You are talking about the number of homes in each state that have been vacant 90 days or more and could ultimately receive funding under the NSP. Well, the homes are not eligible to receive funding. Entities are eligible to receive funding. Then those entities, whether they be government or private sector, can go buy those homes. The problem is they can buy any home they want to?. It [the NSP] does not restrict the price of the home being bought by the agency or the nonprofit. They can buy virtually any home they want to, and that is one of the flaws in the?[NSP].?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 179-246. Voting ?yea? were 179 Democrats. All 237 Republicans present and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have listed the number of vacant homes in each state that were eligible to be rehabilitated or demolished under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 185
Mar 16, 2011
(H.R. 861) On an amendment that would have required a study to be conducted determining the number of foreclosed and abandoned homes that would not be purchased or rehabilitated in each congressional district as a result of terminating the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). The NSP provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that would have required the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to conduct a study determining the number of foreclosed and abandoned homes that would not be purchased or rehabilitated in each congressional district as a result of terminating the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). The NSP provided state and local governments and non-profit organizations with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating the NSP.

Waters urged support for her amendment: ?My NSP study amendment would provide critical information to members of Congress. If members knew the number of abandoned and foreclosed properties in their district that will not be mitigated because of this rescission of funds, they would be better prepared to help grantees access responsible private market sources of funds that can help community revitalization.?

Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) urged opposition to the amendment: ??[The amendment is]? asking HUD to do a study. That is like the fox guarding the hen house?.they [HUD] strongly support the program and they are strongly encouraging the president to veto this bill, should it get to him. So let's just have the very organization do a study on a program that they said they support and love and, if we are successful in getting the bill passed, would encourage the administration to veto it. That is the biggest conflict of interest I have ever had presented to me to vote on, but it is an easy conflict of interest that I say is a conflict of interest. I would strongly encourage my colleagues to vote `no.'

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 178-249. Voting ?yea? were 177 Democrats and 1 Republican. 238 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required a study to be conducted determining the number of foreclosed and abandoned homes that would not be purchased or rehabilitated in each congressional district as a result of terminating the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 184
Mar 16, 2011
(H.R. 861) On an amendment that would have required the Department of Housing and Urban Development to inform all recipients of funding from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that the program had been terminated. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program provided state and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that would have required the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to inform all recipients of funding from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that the program had been terminated. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program provided state and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. The amendment also instructed HUD to announce that members of Congress could be contacted for assistance in mitigating home foreclosures. This amendment was offered to a bill eliminating the NSP.

Waters urged support for her amendment: ?I think that a simple letter from HUD, sent to states, counties and cities, which would simply notify them of this change, is in order. Moreover, a note to these states, counties and cities saying that their members of Congress are available to assist them in mitigating foreclosed properties can help these grantees find alternative solutions. I've discovered there are any number of members starting to do this kind of thing. They are getting calls from their constituents who are asking for help with loan modifications, and the members are able to, not get involved with the particular problem, but to help guide them and send them to the proper servicers to get their loan modifications. This is similar to that. Simply, our office has been able to say: ?Yes, the program is no longer in existence, but this is what you can do if there is an alternative.??

Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) opposed the amendment: ??The congresswoman's amendment does nothing to help at-risk borrowers, and the notification the congresswoman proposes would apply only to community groups, leaders and speculators currently participating in the program. It is not a serious attempt to address the underlying problem homeowners are facing today. If we are going to have a notification requirement, it makes more sense to have the recipients of these funds to date notify taxpayers how much, in what way they have spent taxpayer dollars and what return taxpayers can expect from their investments. Unfortunately, the answer is: none.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 174-248. Voting ?yea? were 172 Democrats and 2 Republicans. 235 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Department of Housing and Urban Development to inform all recipients of funding from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that the program had been terminated.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 183
Mar 16, 2011
(H.R. 861) On an amendment stating that the Neighborhood Stabilization Program helped local communities hurt by home foreclosures, and supported employment in those communities. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program provided state and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) stating that the Neighborhood Stabilization Program helped local communities hurt by home foreclosures, and supported employment in those communities. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) provided state and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating the NSP.

Ellison urged support for his amendment: ?Instead of working to keep the middle class families in their homes, the Republican plan is to foreclose on the American middle class. The amendment I have right here in front of you describes findings which talk about the positive benefits of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. This program is a good program, and no matter what may happen here today, the record should reflect the benefits of this program. This program was good, and the amendment offers language which sets forth findings, and the findings state the positive impacts of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, including assisting local governments, supporting jobs, and impacting approximately 100,000 properties.?

While Republicans did not speak directly to Ellison?s amendment, Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) outlined Republican criticisms of the NSP during earlier floor debate: ?We need to break down barriers that have delayed recovery in the housing market, including expensive and ineffective government programs like NSP. We need to stop funding programs that don't work with money we don't have. NSP doesn't stabilize neighborhoods. It simply spends billions of taxpayer dollars to allow a few homes, scattered here and there, to be purchased, rehabilitated and resold. Again, upon the sale, the money is never returned to the taxpayer. We are facing a $14.1 trillion national debt. This debt is damaging our economic recovery and is stifling job growth.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 183-244. Voting ?yea? were 183 Democrats. All 239 Republicans present and 5 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment stating that the Neighborhood Stabilization Program helped local communities hurt by home foreclosures, and supported employment in those communities.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 182
Mar 16, 2011
(H.R. 861) On a motion that would have effectively preserved a federal program that provided states and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes by killing legislation that would have eliminated the program.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Description:This was a vote on a motion that would have effectively preserved a federal program that provided states and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes by killing legislation that would have eliminated the program (known as the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, or NSP).

During debate on the bill eliminating the NSP, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) made a motion to ?strike the enacting clause.? By striking the ?enacting clause? from the bill, the motion would have prevented the legislation from being passed even if it received a majority vote. Thus, the motion would have effectively killed the bill.

While House rules do not allow for back-and-forth debate on motions to strike the enacting clause, the sponsor of the motion is permitted to speak on it. Ellison argued: ?This bill is an affront and an insult at a time when Americans have seen over 4 million foreclosures across this nation, devastating whole communities, devastating communities and wiping out city and municipal budgets, so that cities, when they have abandoned properties in their neighborhoods, are left with tearing them down and demolishing them on the nickel of the taxpayer in that city when, in fact, this is a community-wide problem. There's no money in many cities to do the demolition. So what will happen is that an old, burned-out hulk will sit there and sit there as neighbors look on and see the property values in their homes plummet. And what we'll see? is people leaving dogs there. Perhaps the house will be an attractive nuisance. Perhaps some crime will be committed there, drug dealing there, dead animals left there, and neighborhoods will fall deeper and deeper in despair.?

While House rules did not allow for speeches in opposition to this motion, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) had urged support for the underlying bill during earlier floor debate. He argued: ?Congress has appropriated approximately $7 billion?for this program?this doesn't stop or assist folks in getting through foreclosures. It gives money to lenders to fix up the houses to sell, while returning not one cent of the $7 billion back to the American taxpayer. The NSP has done little to resolve the root causes of the increase in foreclosures?.This program represents a costly bailout for lenders, servicers, and real estate speculators who made risky bets on the housing market, all at the expense of the American taxpayer and our debt. While putting billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, we should understand that this is a program, two programs that must be halted.?

The House rejected this motion by a vote of 183-240. Voting ?yea? were 183 Democrats. 236 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion that would have effectively preserved a federal program that provided states and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes by killing legislation that would have eliminated the program.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 181
Mar 16, 2011
(H.R. 861, H.R. 839) Legislation eliminating a federal program that provided states and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes, as well as a separate bill eliminating a program intended to help homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two bills relating to federal policy on home foreclosure. The first bill eliminated a federal program that provided states and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes. The second bill eliminated a program intended to help homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bills: ?Continued government intervention and the questionable use of taxpayer dollars only prolong our current economic crisis and ensure that the housing market will simply continue to struggle. The market needs to find its own footing free of government intervention and manipulation by this government so that we can get on with a full recovery?.Job creation is the most effective foreclosure prevention tool. Job losses rather than unsustainable mortgage terms are now the driving force behind foreclosures and mortgage defaults. Eliminating these programs will not only save taxpayer dollars; it will encourage more responsible government spending by the federal government.

Rep. Jared Polis urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bills: ?At a time when Americans are calling for more jobs to improve the economy, my Republican colleagues want to pass legislation that won't create a single job and that will hurt the middle class by further destabilizing our housing markets?.Rather than improving and building upon or even replacing programs that keep families in their homes, the Republicans have chosen to eliminate these four programs that keep families in their homes, and they have no plan to strengthen the housing market or to help the families who will, quite literally, be left on the street as a result.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 241-180. All 238 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted ?yea.? 180 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation eliminating a federal program that provided states and local governments with funding to redevelop or demolish foreclosed homes, as well as a separate bill eliminating a program intended to help homeowners facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgage loans.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Lost
Roll Call 180
Mar 15, 2011
(H. Con. Res. 30) On a resolution providing for an adjournment of Congress during the week of March 21-March 25, 2011.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution providing for an adjournment of Congress during the week of March 21-March 25, 2011. Such resolutions are known as ?adjournment resolutions,? and are not debatable under House rules. Thus, no members spoke in favor or against the resolution. Generally, the majority party votes in favor of adjournment resolutions, while members of the minority party vote against them. 

Democrats had been sharply criticizing the Republican majority for funding the government through short-term ?continuing resolutions.? These short-term measures prevented the government from shutting down, but Republicans refused to agree to a long-term budget plan until Democrats agreed to enact deep spending cuts to social programs. During ?one minute? speeches (speeches given by members on any topic in the morning before legislative business begins), Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA) said: ??We've just seen 12 straight months of private sector jobs growth and there is a 2-year low in the unemployment rate. Now is the time for us to give our economy another push forward with a smart budget that invests in critical needs and lowers the deficit with intelligent spending cuts. But instead, what are we giving the American people? More uncertainty with another short-term extension. This short-term continuing resolution must stop. The American people need jobs, not misguided plans that undermine the future of our Nation. Unfortunately, the Republican-passed budget would give pink slips to 7,000 American workers. And now, with a continued assault on mortgage relief programs, the Republicans are ready to start handing out foreclosure notices, too. Let's stop this madness. Let's work together on a budget plan that create jobs, reduces the deficit, and keeps our families in their homes. ?

The House agreed to this adjournment resolution by a vote of 232-197. Voting ?yea? were 226 Republicans and 6 Democrats. 184 Democrats and 13 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to a resolution providing for an adjournment of Congress during the week of March 21-March 25, 2011.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 179
Mar 15, 2011
(H. J. Res. 48) Final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for three weeks?and cutting $6 billion in federal expenditures, including funding for state law enforcement programs, the National Park Service, the Census Bureau, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for three weeks. This short-term government funding bill?known as a ?continuing resolution? or ?CR??was intended to keep the federal government operating while negotiators from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, Democratic-controlled Senate, and Obama administration attempted to reach an agreement on a long-term budget measure.

The House had already passed a CR to fund the government through September 2011, the end of the federal government?s fiscal year. That measure, however, cut more than $60 billion from federal programs. The Senate, which was controlled by Democrats, rejected that CR. Thus, the House Republican leadership brought up this CR, which funded the government for three weeks. In addition, it cut $6 billion in federal expenditures?including funding for state law enforcement programs, the National Park Service, the Census Bureau, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) urged support for the CR, arguing it was fiscally responsible and essential to preventing the federal government from shutting down: ?We've made it clear that a government shutdown is not an option, period. We will not allow this to happen on our watch. This bill funds the government for an additional 3 weeks, until April 8, maintaining the critical support the government provides to the American people and allowing for the necessary time to complete negotiations on a final long-term agreement for the remainder of this year. While funding the essential government agencies and programs, this CR makes $6 billion in spending cuts, trimming $2 billion for every week, to continue our efforts to rein in spending and put a dent in our massive and unsustainable deficit.?

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) oppose this CR: ?Once again, the [Republican] majority is reading from a very familiar script that imposes budgetary pain on vulnerable communities that can least endure these budget cuts. For a third consecutive time now, the majority is presenting a temporary spending bill totaling $6 billion in spending cuts?to very meaningful programs. And once again, this CR does nothing to promote job creation. The majority pledged to develop jobs when they regained control of the House, but they continue to renege on their promise. It is important to emphasize that the proposed cuts will hit communities that can least afford these hits. The loss of $185 million in State and local law enforcement assistance ?will further squeeze tight police budgets. With these cuts, communities will be struggling to find funding to support vital police functions.?

The House passed this CR by a vote of 271-158. Voting ?yea? were 186 Republicans and 85 Democrats. 104 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 54 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for three weeks?and cutting $6 billion in federal expenditures, including funding for state law enforcement programs, the National Park Service, the Census Bureau, and the Environmental Protection Agency.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 178
Mar 15, 2011
(H. J. Res. 48) On a motion that would have prohibited a short-term government funding bill from cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have prohibited a short-term government funding from cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for three weeks. Such short-term funding bills are known as ?continuing resolutions,? or ?CRs.?

Rep. Mark Critz (D-PA) urged support for this motion to recommit: ??The folks that I live with and live around and the people of my district have come to rely on Social Security, as it provides for, actually, generations at this point?.   I can understand that the folks who watch this at home are trying to figure out, well, whose side are we on?...if you look at the 12th District of Pennsylvania, I have an elderly population. I am one of the districts that has a lot of senior citizens in it. A lot of people are on Social Security. And if you look at this chart, 77 percent of people say, Leave Social Security alone. Don't touch the retirement age. Don't touch the benefits.?

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) opposed the motion to recommit: ?Nothing in the CR would cut Social Security or Medicare benefits, nor would it privatize Social Security?.This is a procedural motion that is simply a fog screen, trying to hide us from our real task at hand, but I don't think we'll be fooled at that. The debate should not be about procedure or fog screens or things unrelated to the bill. It should be about doing our job?.Instead of picking political fights, they [the American people] want us united in cutting the budget. This motion moves us further away from that goal. It would send us backwards, not forwards. It's a smokescreen??

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 190-239. All 189 Democrats present and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 239 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have prohibited a short-term government funding from cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 177
Mar 15, 2011
(H. J. Res. 48) Legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for three weeks ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for three weeks. This short-term government funding bill?known as a ?continuing resolution? or ?CR??was intended to keep the federal government operating while negotiators from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, Democratic-controlled Senate, and Obama administration attempted to reach an agreement on a long-term budget measure.

The House had already passed a CR to fund the government through September 2011, the end of the federal government?s fiscal year. That measure, however, cut more than $60 billion from federal programs. The Senate, which was controlled by Democrats, rejected that CR. Thus, the House Republican leadership brought up this CR, which funded the government for three weeks and cut $6 billion from federal programs. (This measure cut funding from the National Park Service, the Census Bureau, and the Environmental Protection Agency).

Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying CR: ?Today is about cutting $6 billion out of a budget that our children are not going to have to repay. Today is about keeping the government open for 3 more short weeks to give our friends in the Senate a chance to come to the table.? He also said: ?So I rise today? to support this rule [resolution] that will bring to the floor a continuing resolution that will give the Senate three more weeks to get its house in order to do the business that the American people sent the Senate here to do, to join us in doing the good work that we have done, and to move a bill to the President's desk so that we can get on to the rest of the business that the country has laid before us.?

 Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ??The uncertainty with these 2- or 3-week short-term spending bills is creating a lot of havoc. I think eventually it's going to create havoc on the financial markets. It is already creating havoc within the federal agencies because they don't know whether they are going to be operating from one week to the next. It's not good for the country. It's not good for the economy.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 241-181. All 236 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted ?yea.? 181 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for three weeks.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 174
Mar 11, 2011
(H.R. 836) Final passage of legislation eliminating a federal program which provided a maximum of $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who were at least three months delinquent on their home mortgages as a result of unemployment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation eliminating a federal program which provided a maximum of $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who were at least three months delinquent on their home mortgages as a result of unemployment.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) urged support for the bill: ??The nation is drowning in a sea of red ink. If we want to help job creators create jobs today, we have got to start taking away the uncertainty of this huge national debt. If we want to save our children from bankruptcy tomorrow, we have to start doing something about the national debt. But everybody says essentially: well, not in my backyard. Not with my programs. Not today. Let's do it some other day. Let's kick the can down the road.?

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) also supported the bill: ?Ninety-one percent of Americans are making their mortgage payments not only because it's the right thing to do, but because they know that the sooner the market corrects itself the sooner their homes will begin to appreciate once again. By propping up bad loans and by undermining responsible homeowners, our government's extending the agony and postponing the day when the market stabilizes and home buyers can safely reenter the housing market.?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) opposed the bill: ?We're taking people who are in trouble and facing losing their homes and having more foreclosures, which have negative effects not just on the individual foreclosed, but on the neighborhood, on the city, on the whole economy. So this has a macroeconomic impact, but we are going to come to their assistance.?

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) also urged members to oppose the bill: ?This particular program they [Republicans] want to terminate today is designed to assist homeowners who have experienced a significant reduction in income or are at risk of foreclosure due to loss of a job, involuntary unemployment, underemployment, or a medical condition. This is a group that needs our help. There are 1.2 million households with a mortgage where a head of household or spouse is unemployed.?And this program potentially could have helped those people?.So I oppose terminating the program, and I oppose tossing hardworking Americans out in the street. I oppose this mean-spirited effort to terminate help for unemployed Americans.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 242-177. Voting ?yea? were 234 Republicans and 8 Democrats. 175 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation eliminating a federal program which provided a maximum of $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who were at least three months delinquent on their home mortgages as a result of unemployment.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Lost
Roll Call 173
Mar 11, 2011
(H.R. 836) On a motion that would have enabled veterans and those serving in the military to benefit from a program which provided a maximum of $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who were at least three months delinquent on their home mortgages as a result of unemployment.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have enabled veterans and those serving in the military to benefit from a federal subsidized loan program for homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.

The underlying bill terminated a program which provided a maximum of $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who were at least three months delinquent on their home mortgages as a result of unemployment. This motion to recommit would have allowed the program to continue exclusively for veterans and those currently serving in the military, as opposed to terminating the program for everyone.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) urged support for this motion to recommit: ??In my district, in the community of Woodbridge, Virginia--the foreclosure rate spiked an astounding 414 percent around the Quantico Marine Corps Base. Why is that? Because the unemployment rate for our military heroes who served in Iraq and Afghanistan is 15 percent higher than the national average. We all know how difficult the transition back into civilian life can be, particularly for the disabled as they try to find work?.In a sincere attempt to honor their memories, many of my colleagues post pictures outside their offices of local service members who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Those men and women fought and died protecting our homes. How can we now tell their families that we're not going to fight to protect theirs??

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) opposed this motion to recommit: ?We are talking about our soldiers, our veterans. What do they do? They fight for our freedom, for our national defense. What is the greatest threat to our country now? What is the greatest threat to our national security? It is the debt.?.Let's defend our country. Let's start cutting our debt.?

Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL) argued: ?Veterans have their own program that they can go to and borrow money. They are not being disadvantaged by our doing away with the program that we are talking about today. In fact, if VA [Veterans? Administration] individuals have loans that are guaranteed by the VA and their homes are under water, they can go back to the VA and, in some instances, get those loans refinanced??
 
The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 182-238. All 181 Democrats present and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 238 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have enabled veterans and those serving in the military to benefit from a program which provided a maximum of $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who were at least three months delinquent on their home mortgages as a result of unemployment.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 172
Mar 11, 2011
(H.R. 836) On an amendment that would have required the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to announce on its web site of the termination of a federal program which provided a maximum of $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who were at least three months delinquent on their home mortgages as a result of unemployment. The amendment also required HUD to instruct the public to contact their members of Congress for assistance if they were unable to pay their home mortgages.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that would have required the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to announce on its web site of the termination of a federal program which provided a maximum of $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who were at least three months delinquent on their home mortgages as a result of unemployment. The amendment also required HUD to instruct the public to contact their members of Congress for assistance if they were unable to pay their home mortgages.

This amendment was offered to a bill that eliminated the subsidized loan program for struggling homeowners described above.

Waters urged support for her amendment: ??We need transparency in what we do and in the public policy that we make. We need to be able to communicate better and clearly with our constituents. And so they have been told and started to get involved with this program that would assist unemployed homeowners to be able to stay in their homes. As you know, this program was specifically developed so that it could deal with the high unemployment rates and the fact that people who had been working--some of them all of their lives--are now unemployed or underemployed or have medical conditions that cause them not to be able to pay their bills in the way that they had been paying them in the past. And so now that we are coming along just since this program has started and saying, oh, sorry, the program is eliminated, we need to be able to communicate that, and this is what this amendment would do. American homeowners deserve our assistance and they deserve our help.?

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) argued that since HUD had not yet implemented this program, announcing its termination would only confuse the public: ??It seems ambiguous here to have the federal government go through a process here where we're going to notify homeowners of a program that never was instituted, never was used, that it does not exist anymore. That seems a little wasteful and I think in many ways could be misleading?.the American taxpayers are really kind of tired of?the government out there misrepresenting or creating confusion to homeowners that may be seeking assistance. So I would just say that at this particular time this is not necessary and that we should not put a confusing piece of information out there on the web site.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 185-237. Voting ?yea? were 176 Democrats and 9 Republicans. 228 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required the Department of Housing and Urban Development to announce on its web site of the termination of a federal program which provided a maximum of $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who were at least three months delinquent on their home mortgages as a result of unemployment?and would also have required HUD to instruct the public to contact their members of Congress for assistance if they were unable to pay their home mortgages.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 171
Mar 10, 2011
(H.R. 830) Final passage of legislation eliminating a program enabling homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation eliminating a program enabling homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home.

Rep. Francisco Canseco (R-TX) urged support for the bill: ?This bill is about a failed government program, because the FHA refinance program [the program eliminated by the bill]?has failed to work properly?.The program does not work and it's wasteful?.Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle often think that we are just one government program away from solving our problems. But when you think that way, you end up piling one government program on top of another, wasting the taxpayers' money without even helping our fellow citizens who are struggling in this day and age.?

Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) argued: ?President Ronald Reagan famously said--with tongue in cheek, no doubt--that the closest thing to eternal life on this Earth is a federal government program?. Under the FHA Refinancing Program, the FHA [Federal Housing Administration] is directed?to refinance mortgages that are current but underwater. Its record has been abysmal, with the FHA Commissioner stating during our hearing last month: `As of February 11, 44 loans have been endorsed.'?this bill ends another failed government program. Taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for failure.?

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) argued that while the program had only refinanced 44 mortgages, it had only been operating for four months: ?I do want to also emphasize that this program started in November?.We've had about 4 months to get families on board to be helped by these programs. For much of that 4 months, we have had abject resistance from the ]home loan] servicers. They have been the obstruction in making these programs work. But I am happy to say that in the last 10 days, we have had three major servicers, Allied, GMAC and Wells Fargo, that have finally come forward and said, we're going to work within this program, and we're going to try to help families stay in their homes not out of charity, but because they realize that we need to put a floor under this housing market in order to help sustain the weak economic recovery that we have going forward.?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) opposed the bill: ?I cannot accept the lecture on fiscal responsibility from someone who votes to lavish money in wasteful ways on Afghan cities but begrudges it in American cities; who would send it for Iraqi police officers but not for American police officers? I do believe we need to cut the deficit?.My [Republican] colleagues?have said we cannot put a program out there that will help Americans facing foreclosure--and not simply to help them but to help the cities and to help the whole economy. There is a great consensus among economists that dealing responsibly with foreclosures is the way to deal with this.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 256-171. Voting ?yea? were 238 Republicans and 18 Democrats. 170 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation eliminating a program enabling homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Lost
Roll Call 170
Mar 10, 2011
(H.R. 830) On a motion that would have enabled seniors to continue to benefit from a home loan refinancing program which helped homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have enabled seniors to continue to benefit from a federal home loan refinancing program. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion was offered to legislation eliminating a program enabling homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home. The motion to recommit would have allowed this program to continue exclusively for homeowners who were 62 years of age or older, as opposed to terminating it for everyone (as the underlying bill called for).

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) urged support for the motion to recommit: ?The contributions of the men and women who became known as America's greatest generation should humble us all. As teenagers, ?they confronted unspeakable evil and endured incredible sacrifices during World War II. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, their love of country and commitment to hard work created the world's most vibrant economy?. Today, they are seniors who deserve to live their retirement years with dignity and self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, throughout the financial crisis and this devastating recession, seniors have often gone forgotten?.their homes, often their last standing pillar of equity and economic security, have lost their value through no fault of their own?.What we have the opportunity to do here today is to give our seniors a chance--a chance--to rearrange their deal with their lenders, make their payments, and keep their homes.?

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) opposed this motion to recommit: ?You know, I just came back from my district in Staten Island and Brooklyn, and I visited several senior centers. And I'll tell you, the seniors are nervous, they're worried. You know what their number one fear is? Their number one fear is that their children and grandchildren will not have the opportunities that they had. I heard countless story after story that their children are out of work?.This program is broken, and to think that somehow suddenly--miraculously--it's going to work for seniors is outrageous. And I have to tell you, I cannot, in good conscience, go back to my district, go back to those senior centers, look those seniors in the eye and tell them that I supported another failed program because someone stood up and said, well, it's for seniors. You can label it any way you want, you can put anything you want on this, but at the end of the day it's a failed program.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 185-243. Voting ?yea? were 185 Democrats. All 239 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have enabled seniors to continue to benefit from a home loan refinancing program which helped homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 169
Mar 10, 2011
(H.R. 830) On an amendment requiring the Department of Housing and Urban Development to post on its website a note stating that individuals seeking help with their home mortgages should contact their member of Congress.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) requiring the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to post on its website a note stating that individuals seeking help with their home mortgages should contact their member of Congress. Specifically, the amendment provided that HUD?s statement should read: ?If you owe more on your mortgage than your home is worth, please contact your member of Congress for assistance.'' This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating and FHA program enabling homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home.

Waters urged support for her amendment: ??This amendment that I've worked on with my colleagues on the opposite [Republican] side of the aisle is simply about transparency. It is simply about making ourselves available to the homeowners who are trying to get some help because they are under water. This amendment would simply say that the program is no longer in existence and that you may call us to help you to get to your lender or to get to your servicer in some way?.I would simply like our citizens to know that this program that they may have started to hear about is no longer in existence and that, if they call us, we will agree that we will try and help them, in some modest way, to get to their servicers or to their lenders.?

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), the only Republican to speak on the amendment, said that he personally would support it but also voiced concerns by members of his party that it was inappropriate for citizens to contact members of Congress about their mortgages: ?I know there may be members who say they don't want to be contacted, but I will tell you this: People do call us from time to time, and they say, I'm having trouble with paying my mortgage. I'm facing foreclosure, and I can't get in touch with my lender or my servicer, and I'm not sure who I should talk to.?  He added: ?I do want to caution members that it is not an obligation of Congress or of members of Congress--and I think Ms. Waters would agree--to intervene and to suggest to the lenders that they do anything other than give due consideration.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 278-147. Voting ?yea? were 180 Democrats and 98 Republicans. 138 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment requiring the Department of Housing and Urban Development to post on its website a note instructing those seeking help with their home mortgages to contact their member of Congress.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 168
Mar 10, 2011
(H.R. 830) On an amendment that would have allowed the Federal Housing Administration to facilitate voluntary home loan refinancing agreements between lenders and homeowners.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steven Lynch (D-MA) that would have allowed the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to facilitate voluntary home loan refinancing agreements between lenders and homeowners. This amendment was offered to legislation eliminating and FHA program enabling homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home.

Lynch urged support for his amendment: ?The [underlying] bill provides that anything substantially similar to?[the FHA refinancing program the bill eliminated] would also be prohibited. That creates a problem. That stops the FHA from doing a lot of the other work that both sides agree needs to be done. We are talking about voluntary agreements where the bank and the servicer and the homeowner agree. Basically, that would be stopped by this legislation?. I'm just trying to let the FHA do its job in general.?

Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) opposed the amendment, arguing it would allow the federal government to create a new program that was essentially identical to the one Republicans sought to eliminate: ?I think our concern is that the amendment leaves the door open for the Treasury [Department] and for HUD [the Department of Housing and Urban Development] to at a later date create another substantially similar program to the FHA Refinance Program, again, without the express consent of Congress.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 184-243. Voting ?yea? were 183 Democrats and 1 Republican. 237 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Federal Housing Administration to facilitate voluntary home loan refinancing agreements between lenders and homeowners.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 166
Mar 09, 2011
(H.R. 830) Legislation eliminating a federal home loan refinancing program ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.


This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation eliminating a federal home loan refinancing program. The underlying bill eliminated a federal program enabling homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home.
   
Rep. Rob Bishop urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The program basically tells a lender, ?Don't worry, it's okay. So what if you knowingly encouraged or lent more than you knew the borrower could afford? We'll bail you out of your predicament so you don't have to feel any of the economic consequences of your actions.? The program tells borrowers, ?So what if you took out the maximum loan and got the most expensive house that you could buy even though you knew it was highly unlikely that you would be able to afford those payments in the future. We will bail you out too and insulate you from the consequences of actions as well, and we'll shift all the costs and send the bill, via the FHA, onto the backs of the already overburdened taxpayers.? That's apparently where the buck stops in this program. It stops on the back of already burdened taxpayers and the nation that itself is $14 trillion underwater in a crushing and unprecedented debt.?
   
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The bill we have before us today would be harmful to middle class families who are struggling to stay in their homes. Middle class Americans hurt by this bill are exactly the people we should be protecting in this Congress as we start to build a stronger and more stable economic future for our country. Instead, we saw that this House has raised their taxes with the passage of H.R. 4, and now the Republicans are threatening to remove working families from their homes?.We do all agree that this nation needs to get its fiscal house in order and resolve the housing crisis. But this bill, an outright repeal of the FHA program, is not the right approach. A strong rebound in the housing market is critical to our economic recovery, creating jobs and ensuring that our banks remain stable.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 240-180. All 231 Republicans present and 9 Democrats voted ?yea.? 180 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation eliminating a federal program that enabled homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Lost
Roll Call 165
Mar 09, 2011
(H.R. 830) Legislation eliminating a federal home loan refinancing program ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation eliminating a federal home loan refinancing program.  If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. The underlying bill eliminated a federal program enabling homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?First, in some and perhaps in many cases, this program would subsidize irresponsible lenders and borrowers and insulate them from the consequences of bad choices and, in some cases, intentionally speculative financial choices that were made during the housing boom, thus shifting the economic impact of those bad choices and decisions onto the backs of responsible homeowners and the taxpayers. This is troubling, for this should not be the role of the federal government--to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) ?At a time when housing markets are beginning to show signs of life, signs of recovery, my Republican colleagues want to eliminate programs that keep families in their homes and protect communities from the crippling consequences of foreclosures?..It's critical to preserve the American dream by keeping families in their homes and out of shelters and unemployment lines, and preserving the integrity of neighborhoods that suffer when homes are foreclosed upon. Repealing the FHA refinance program would empower collection agencies and municipal eviction squads rather than empower hardworking American families who are suffering in this difficult economic climate or are victims of lenders that created financial products through the housing crisis that led to reckless lending.?

The House agreed the previous question motion by a vote of 235-186. All 234 Republicans present and 1 Democrat voted ?yea.? 186 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on legislation eliminating a federal program that enabled homeowners to refinance their home mortgages if, as a result of plummeting housing prices, their mortgage debt exceeded the value of their home.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Lost
Roll Call 164
Mar 08, 2011
(H.R. 525) Final passage of legislation making veterinarians eligible for federal loan repayment programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation making veterinarians eligible for federal loan repayment programs. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Specifically, this bill made individuals pursuing veterinary public health degrees eligible for existing loan repayment programs that were already available to professionals in other public health fields. The measure also made institutions offering veterinary public health degrees eligible for federal grant money.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) urged support for the bill: ?Food animal veterinarians have a vital role in our Nation's public health, and experts have informed us that there is, in fact, a shortage. This shortage could negatively affect our Nation's public health, including the safety of our Nation's food. We expect that this legislation will help greatly in solving that problem.?

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) argued: ?Public health veterinarians are our frontline of defense against another outbreak. They inspect our slaughterhouses, prevent a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak from devastating our economy and our agriculture industry, and protect our citizens against the threat of bioterrorism.?

While no members spoke in opposition to this bill, a majority of Republicans voted against it. Calls to Republican offices were not returned as of press time. The Republican Study Committee?a coalition of the most conservative members of the House of Representatives?published a report outlining ?potential conservative concerns.? For example, the report contended that federal programs like those authorized by this bill ?are the types of programs that conservatives should be looking to terminate as opposed to expanding eligibility for veterinarians and related institutions of higher
learning.? This report also argued that the bill expanded the size of the federal government because it ?expands the scope of grant and loan re-payment programs?to statutorily recognize veterinarians.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass this bill by a vote of 280-138. All 185 Democrats present and 95 Republicans voted ?yea.? 138 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation making individuals pursuing veterinary public health degrees eligible for existing loan repayment programs?and making institutions offering veterinary public health degrees eligible for federal grant money.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
ENVIRONMENT Humane Treatment of Animals
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
Close Vote Absent Y Won
Roll Call 162
Mar 03, 2011
(H.R. 4) Final passage of legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise, and cutting subsidies for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation  repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise. This bill also cut subsidies provided by the health care law for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance. The 1099 provision was included in the health care law to help raise tax revenue to pay for an expansion of insurance coverage. It later became widely viewed by members of both parties, however, as overly burdensome for small businesses. 

The 2010 health care law subsidized the purchase of private health insurance by uninsured Americans by providing the uninsured with tax credits and deductions to buy insurance. This Republican-backed bill, however, effectively cut those subsidies by requiring Americans who received them to pay a tax penalty if their income for a given tax year was higher than initially thought. Under the bill, an uninsured person who qualified for a tax credit to obtain health insurance--but then received a pay-raise--would be required to pay a penalty. For example, if an individual earned $44,000 annually, he or she would be eligible under the 2010 health care reform law for tax credits to purchase health insurance. Yet if that person?s salary was raised, he or she would have to repay his or her full credit in the form of a tax penalty ? effectively eliminating any subsidy for heath insurance.

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) urged support for the bill: ?Today the House considers?legislation repealing one of the job-killing tax increases enacted in the Democrats' health care law last year. This legislation provides a pathway to achieving a goal that is shared by Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate alike, and by the Obama administration--repealing the form 1099 reporting requirements enacted last year.?

Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) supported the bill, and rebutted Democratic arguments that cutting subsidies for the purchase of health insurance amounted to a tax increase: ?Getting rid of excess subsidies is not a tax increase. It's simply being responsible with the taxpayers' money?.the American people have told us they want two things: more jobs and less spending. The bill before us advances both of these goals, and it deserves the support of every member of this House.?

Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) opposed the bill: ?I rise in strong opposition to this bill not because I oppose the repealing of the 1099 reporting requirements. I do. I have a record of supporting 1099 repeal and relieving America's small businesses from onerous paperwork and onerous regulations. What I'm opposed to is paying for this small business tax bill by increasing taxes on working middle class Americans. And that is exactly what this legislation will do.?

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) criticized the bill: ?If you have an employee who really shows ability and who may have a fairly menial or mundane job but who does it and does it with pride and does it well and if that employee excels and if the employer rewards him with a bonus?and then decides we're going to give you a little promotion and that you'll get a little more pay or, perhaps, as with so many families around this country, that employee decides `I'll never make it for my family on this. I'm going to moonlight. I'm going to take an extra job,' then?the Republicans today propose a penalty, a tax on success.   At the end of that year, after those law-abiding employees have properly estimated their income from those 12 months earlier, if their pay has gone up a dollar over the level, they'll get a steep penalty. They may have to pay literally thousands of dollars back even though they only got a bonus of a few hundred dollars.?

The House passed this bill by vote of 314-112. All 238 Republicans and 76 Democrats voted ?yea.? 112 Democrats?including majority of progressives?voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise, and effectively cutting subsidies for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 161
Mar 03, 2011
(H.R. 4) On tabling (killing) an effort to appeal a ruling that a Democratic motion violated the rules of the House of Representatives. The Democratic motion would have restored subsidies?which were cut by the underlying bill?for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance, and eliminated tax benefits for oil and gas companies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote a motion to table (kill) an effort to appeal a ruling that a Democratic motion to recommit violated the rules of the House of Representatives. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This Democratic motion to recommit would have restored subsidies (which were cut by the underlying bill) for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance, and eliminated tax benefits for oil and gas companies. (The motion was offered to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise. As stated above, the measure also cut subsidies for the uninsured to purchase health insurance.)

The health insurance subsidies cut by the underlying bill?which Democrats sought to restore in their motion to recommit?were included in a major health care reform law enacted in 2010 that expanded health insurance coverage to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans.

There was no debate on the motion to recommit. Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) argued that the motion violated House rules because restoring health care subsidies would have effectively increased mandatory spending. (?Mandatory spending? refers to funding for government programs that is automatic, and does not have to be approved by Congress on an annual basis. For example, seniors receive Social Security payments simply because they are eligible for the program as a result of their age?and Congress does not need to pass legislation to mail those checks to the program?s beneficiaries. Thus, Social Security is funded by mandatory spending. In the case of this motion to recommit, subsidies for the uninsured to purchase health insurance were funded by mandatory spending. Under House rules?which were written by Republicans at the beginning of the congressional session in 2011?motions to recommit were not permitted to increase mandatory spending.)

While there was no debate on the motion to recommit, members were permitted to speak to Camp?s ?point of order? (procedural objection) that the motion violated the rules of the House. Camp said: ?I make a point of order against the motion because it violates?[House rules], as it has the net effect of increasing mandatory spending??

Levin accused the Republicans of using procedural rules to shut down debate on the Democratic motion: ?This motion would cut taxes, would end oil subsidies, and ensure more Americans have health insurance?. The Republicans should not try to gag us.?

The Speaker ruled in Camp?s favor, and found that the Democratic motion to recommit violated House rules. Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) then appealed the Speaker?s ruling. Camp then made a motion to table (kill) Levin?s appeal.

The House tabled (killed) Levin?s appeal of the Speaker?s ruling by a vote of 243-181. All 238 Republicans present and 5 Democrats voted ?yea.? 181 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House effectively killed a motion to recommit that would have restored subsidies for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance, and eliminated tax benefits for oil and gas companies.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 159
Mar 02, 2011
(H.R. 662) On a motion that would have rescinded all funding for the planning, design, or construction of the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge in Alaska. This motion was offered to legislation extending transportation programs (such as highway safety initiatives, grants for anti-drunk driving measures, and public transportation programs) that were set to expire on March 4, 2011.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have rescinded all funding for the planning, design, or construction of the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge in Alaska. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion was offered to legislation extending transportation programs (such as highway safety initiatives, grants for anti-drunk driving measures, and public transportation programs) that were set to expire on March 4, 2011.

Although funding intended for these bridge projects were eliminated in 2006 (when critics derided them as wasteful -- they became known as ?bridges to nowhere,?), Alaska had used federal funds specifically intended for other purposes to conduct work on these bridges.  The Democratic motion was intended to prevent further funding of those two projects.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) urged support for the motion to recommit: ??Usually when something is killed, it stays dead. But just like in a bad zombie movie, some bad earmarks refuse to die and return to life time and time again as wasteful spending?The Bridge to Nowhere has become synonymous with government waste?.Although Congress has tried to stop these bridges to nowhere by giving Alaska the authority to use its earmarked funds on other transportation projects, Alaska has still used $71 million of federal funds?to continue work on two bridges to nowhere. Sadly, Alaska's earmarked bridges to nowhere, like zombies eating the brains of taxpayers, refuse to die.?

Rep. John Mica (R-FL), the only member to speak in opposition to this motion to recommit, said only: ?Well, congratulations my colleagues. Welcome to the era of smoke and mirrors, and that's exactly what this motion to recommit is; and I urge its defeat. You heard the gentleman [Rep. Polis] describing bridges. He, again, is trying to mislead the entire House on this particular motion to recommit. It is smoke and mirrors. I urge the defeat of the motion to recommit.? National Journal reported on Mica?s response: ?A Mica spokesman said Wednesday night he needed to get more details before responding to Democrats? claims.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 181-246. Voting ?yea? were 181 Democrats. 239 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have rescinded all funding for the planning, design, or construction of the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge in Alaska.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 157
Mar 02, 2011
(H.R. 4) Legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise, and cutting subsidies enabling uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise. This bill also reduced subsidies provided by the health care law for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance. The 1099 provision was included in the health care law to help raise tax revenue to pay for an expansion of insurance coverage. It later became widely viewed by members of both parties, however, as overly burdensome for small businesses.

Rep. Rich Nugent (R-FL) urged support for this resolution and the underlying bill: ?This [1099] requirement forces businesses to report nearly all expenses exceeding $600 to the IRS. This results in a new, onerous burden on small businesses. The requirement means 10 to 20 times more paperwork for small businesses?.Small businesses are the economic backbone, and the 1099 requirement is breaking their back. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will tell you H.R. 4 is a Republican tax increase on middle America. That couldn't be further from the truth. The offset we are using [the provision of the underlying bill which cut subsidies for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance] here today prevents individuals from receiving health care subsidies that they aren't entitled to.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) argued that cutting subsidies for health insurance amounted to a tax increase on middle class Americans: ??Today the Republicans are breaking a promise that they made to the American people, a promise not to raise taxes. The new majority came in promising a growth agenda. Instead, under the guise of giving administrative relief to small businesses--relief that we all agree is necessary and the majority of this body last session voted to provide with a different way of paying for it--the Republicans are now increasing taxes on middle class Americans and punishing workers.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 252-175. All 238 Republicans present and 14 Democrats voted ?yea.? 175 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise, and cutting subsidies enabling uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 156
Mar 02, 2011
(H.R. 4) Legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise, and cutting subsidies enabling uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. This bill also reduced subsidies provided by the health care law for uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance. The 1099 provision was included in the health care law to help raise tax revenue to pay for an expansion of insurance coverage. It later became widely viewed by members of both parties, however, as overly burdensome for small businesses.

Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?If you are looking for a prime example of government regulation which, first, is an unnecessary intrusion on small businesses, second, enlarges government bureaucracy at the expense of taxpayers and entrepreneurs, and, finally, creates a mountain of mind-numbing paperwork which has the net effect of killing jobs, then look no further?.[The 1099 provision] of the health reform bill does all of that by requiring businesses to report every expense that they incur over $600; not just wages to their employees, but even for payments to other businesses and for merchandise. Imagine, if you will, a small business that picks up a couple of dozen doughnuts from Krispy Kreme on a weekly basis. At the end of the year, they must send a 1099 to Krispy Kreme. Think about a small business owner, as I have been for the last 14 years, who buys stamps from the post office, and now you have to send a 1099 to the U.S. Post Office.?

Like most Democrats, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) supported repealing the 1099 provision but opposed cutting subsidies to enable uninsured Americans to obtain health insurance: ??People who are middle class could be making $25,000 a year, $40,000, $50,000, $80,000, $90,000, $100,000 a year. It's not easy to be able to afford your health premiums if you have a family of four and you're in that income bracket. I regret what's happening here today, because the bottom line is there was bipartisan agreement on the main goal of repealing this 1099 reporting?.There's no question here that we want to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement, but we don't want to pay for it on the backs of the middle class.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 243-185. All 239 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted ?yea.? 185 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation repealing a provision of a major health care law enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise, and cutting subsidies enabling uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 155
Mar 02, 2011
(H.R. 662) Legislation extending transportation programs (such as highway safety initiatives, grants for anti-drunk driving measures, and public transportation programs) that were set to expire on March 4, 2011. (This bill extended the legal authority for those programs to continue through September 30, 2011.) ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation extending transportation programs (such as highway safety initiatives, grants for anti-drunk driving measures, and public transportation programs) that were set to expire on March 4, 2011. This bill extended the legal authority for those programs to continue through September 30, 2011.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 [the underlying bill] continues the authorization of federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs through the end of this fiscal year [September 2011] at the same program funding levels established for fiscal year 2009. This authorization is essential to allow funds that had been included in transportation appropriations legislation to flow to states and local transit agencies?.Should this straight extension of transportation funding not be signed into law before the March 4 deadline, the impact would be severe and immediate. A shutdown would result in immediate furloughs and suspension of payments to states, which would hamper the Federal Highway Administration's ability to pay contractors.?

While Democrats supported the underlying bill, many opposed this resolution because it essentially barred amendments. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) argued: ?While I support the underlying bill, I would like to express my disappointment at the closed process. My colleague comes down here and talks about all the members are going to get a chance to come down here and they're going to get a chance to express their ideas. Well, there may be some members that may have had an amendment that might innovate something or might improve our transportation system?.[The resolution] did allow one--one--amendment by Chairman Mica [R-FL, who was the chairman of the committee that drafted the underlying bill], who wrote the underlying bill that I support. You heard that correctly. The only member who is allowed to offer an amendment is the same member who wrote the bill.?

Sessions characterized the resolution differently, arguing it provided for an open debate: ?This rule [resolution] provides for ample debate and opportunities for members on both sides of the aisle, the majority and minority, to make sure that they have ample time to participate, come to the floor, and express their ideas, which is what this new Republican majority is enabling members to do.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 256-169. All 238 Republicans present and 18 Democrats voted ?yea.? 169 Democrats?including a majority of progressives--voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation extending transportation programs that were set to expire on March 4, 2011.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 154
Mar 01, 2011
(H. J. Res. 44) Final passage of legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011 and cutting $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011. The short-term government funding bill?known as a ?continuing resolution,? or ?CR,? also cut $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives.

Two weeks earlier, the House had passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through September 2011 (the end of the federal government?s fiscal year), and cut $60 billion from federal programs. The Senate, however, took no action on that measure, and President Obama had threatened to veto it. Thus, the House brought up this two-week continuing resolution to fund the government through March 18 while congressional leaders negotiated with the Obama administration on a long-term funding bill.

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) urged support for the bill: ?This temporary CR is an extra special effort by the majority Republicans to avoid a government shutdown that could otherwise occur on March 4, when the current funding resolution expires. This temporary CR contains funding to allow all government agencies and programs to continue at the current rate of spending for the next 2 weeks until March 18, 2011, while reducing spending by $4 billion through several spending cuts and program terminations. These cuts reflect this Republican majority's continued commitment to significantly reduce spending, to rein in the nation's exploding deficits and debt, and to help our economy continue on the road to recovery.?

Rep. Steve Austria (R-OH) also supported the bill: ?Our first priority today is job growth. That's why we are putting into place policies that will stop the runaway spending here in Washington and help bring more certainty to our financial and business markets to grow our economy and create long-term sustainable jobs?.Nobody said these cuts were going to be easy, but they are absolutely essential to help put our country back on a fiscally sustainable path that will create jobs and strengthen our economy for future generations.?

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) opposed the bill, accusing the Republicans of using the prospect of a government shutdown to force extreme spending cuts: ??I rise in opposition to this 14-day continuing resolution. The House majority is threatening to close down the government. This is brinkmanship. Their desire to engage in brinkmanship damages our economy and creates uncertainty for businesses and families. Make no mistake, the proposed budget cuts will cost jobs, 700,000 jobs by the end of 2012, according to economist Mark Zandi, who, in fact, was the chief economist for Senator John McCain in his Presidential bid?. this budget [continuing resolution] makes deep and reckless cuts in the areas that most impact middle class and working families?.This resolution increases unemployment. It will hurt our economic recovery. And I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless resolution.?

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) also opposed the CR: ?This CR is further proof that the majority does not care about the unemployment crisis. This really is a question of our morality as a nation. Are we going to eat a loaf of bread that is spotted with the mold of conservatism and so-called fiscal responsibility, or are we going to bring to our children a loaf of bread that is healthy, whole wheat, and good for America? ?I am simply looking ahead for my children and for my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren. I cannot in good faith go along with this.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 335-91. Voting ?yea? were 231 Republicans and 104 Democrats. 85 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 6 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011 and cutting $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives. The Senate was expected to quickly pass the measure, and send it to President Obama to be signed into law.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 153
Mar 01, 2011
(H. J. Res. 44) On a motion that would have eliminated all federal tax benefits provided to oil and gas companies. This motion was offered to legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011 and cutting $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have eliminated all federal tax benefits provided to oil and gas companies. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011 and cutting $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives.

Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA) urged support for this motion to recommit: ??I rise to offer this motion to recommit which I believe will greatly improve our fiscal health and ensure that we're responsible to all taxpayer dollars and the taxpayers of this great nation. We all agree--all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike--that cuts in wasteful spending are vital to our country's future?.Let's stop sending taxpayers' money to the most profitable companies in the world. The time is now to stop subsidizing the largest oil companies. I think it shocks every American taxpayer to know that they're required to fork out over $40 billion in subsidies over the next decade to the most economically profitable of companies--especially as oil soars to a hundred dollars per barrel. My constituents in Plymouth, Massachusetts, are paying almost $3.50 per gallon and have had enough?.So let's put a stop to this welfare program for Big Oil right now.?

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) opposed the motion to recommit: ?This misguided policy [proposed by the motion] can only lead to higher energy prices, continued reliance on foreign oil, and economic hardship that hampers job creation. At a time when gasoline is currently approaching $4 a gallon around the country and when our resources are being threatened by the instability in the Middle East, we should be encouraging domestic energy production--not cutting it down?.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 176-249. Voting ?yea? were 176 Democrats. All 236 Republicans present and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have eliminated all federal tax benefits provided to oil and gas companies.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 152
Mar 01, 2011
(H. J. Res. 44) Legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011 and cutting $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011. The short-term government funding bill?known as a ?continuing resolution,? or ?CR,? cut $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives.

Two weeks earlier, the House had passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through September 2011 (the end of the federal government?s fiscal year), and cut $60 billion from federal programs. The Senate, however, took no action on that measure, and President Obama had threatened to veto it. Thus, the House brought up this two-week continuing resolution to fund the government through March 18 while congressional leaders negotiated with the Obama administration on a long-term funding bill.

Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill, arguing the budget cuts contained in the CR could be implemented relatively painlessly: ??To put these cuts in perspective, because, again, we have to get started somewhere, there is not going to be a speaker who stands up here today who doesn't speak out in favor of fiscal restraint. The questions are: When do we start? How much do we do?...Let's take the average American family who has to go out and buy groceries. That family has a 31-day grocery bill. Knowing that you've got to go out and buy 31 days' worth of groceries, what we're asking of the American people is to cut 1 day out. We're going to tell you now that we're going to cut 1 day out, and we need you to stretch your 30-days' worth of groceries into 31?. that doesn't seem that draconian. In fact, it doesn't seem draconian at all. It seems like what American families are doing over and over and over again in the recession that we've been battling.?

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) argued the CR?s budget cuts could lead to job losses, and that such short-term government funding bills create too much economic uncertainty: ?My fear is that we're just going to be kicking the can down the road every 2 weeks, every 2 weeks, facing another possible government shutdown?. that creates economic uncertainty and is not good for the economy.?We need to make wise investments in our future, in our education programs--which this [CR] cuts--in our research and development for the future, in infrastructure so that we can have roads and highways and mass transit so that commerce can continue and we can grow the economy.?So what I ask of my Republican colleagues is go out there, sit down with the Senate Democrats sit down with the House Democrats. Don't just say take it or leave this bill that we know has such draconian cuts and doesn't do anything to invest in America's future.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 251-170. Voting ?yea? were 236 Republicans and 15 Democrats. 170 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011 and cutting $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 151
Mar 01, 2011
(H. J. Res. 44) Legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011 and cutting $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. The short-term government funding bill?known as a ?continuing resolution,? or ?CR,? also cut $4 billion from government programs, including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives.

Two weeks earlier, the House had passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through September 2011 (the end of the federal government?s fiscal year), and cut $60 billion from federal programs. The Senate, however, took no action on that measure, and President Obama had threatened to veto it. Thus, the House brought up this two-week continuing resolution to fund the government through March 18 while congressional leaders negotiated with the Obama administration on a long-term funding bill.

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill, arguing that the House needed to pass a short term CR in order to avoid a government shut down (in which the federal government literally would run out of money): ?Ensuring that we don't go through a government shutdown is something that ? all of us in leadership positions, rank-and-file members alike, want to avoid, and that's why we've got this 2-week package that's before us. I hope the Senate will act so that we can do that, and then do what we all want to make sure happens, and that is have a negotiated agreement that will get to where we need to be.?

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) opposed the resolution and the underlying bill: ?This bill is just another part of the reckless Republican no-jobs agenda?.Republicans have been in control of the House for now more than 2 months. They have been in control of the House for now more than 2 months, and they have failed to bring up a single bill to create a single job?.I mean, they haven't done just a poor job. They haven't done anything?.I am absolutely against starting down a series of short-term cuts, of short-term CRs, that result in a bleed of the American middle class. This is death by 1,000 cuts--a slow bleed.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 241-179. All 234 Republicans present and 7 Democrats voted ?yea.? 179 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding the federal government through March 18, 2011 and cutting $4 billion from government programs--including renewable energy research, aid to poorly performing schools, and urban economic development initiatives.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 147
Feb 19, 2011
(H.R. 1) Final passage of legislation funding the federal government through September 2011 and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for government programs, including food stamps (which provide nutritional assistance to the poor), community health centers, Pell Grants for low?income college students, and funding for state job training programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was vote on final passage of legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.  For example, the bill cut funding from environmental protection programs, food stamps?which provide nutritional assistance to the poor?as well as community health centers, scientific research, Pell Grants for low?income college students, the National Institutes of Health, federal aid for state law enforcement programs, and funding for state job training programs.

The bill also prohibited its funding from being to implement a major health care reform law enacted in 2010. That measure expanded health care coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans and prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) urged support for the bill: ?The continuing resolution on the floor today represents the largest reduction in non-security discretionary spending [spending that does not include Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security] in the history of the nation. It funds the federal government for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, but, most importantly? it answers taxpayers' callings to right our nation's fiscal ship, making specific, substantive and comprehensive spending reductions?This bill is about shared commitments and shared sacrifice. Make no mistake: these cuts will not be easy, and they will affect every congressional district. But they are necessary and long overdue.?

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) also supported the bill: ??If we want to have jobs today, if we want to protect our children from bankruptcy tomorrow, we've got to quit spending money we don't have. There is a debt crisis in America, and it is spending driven, being led by the president and other friends from the other side of the aisle. It is a true crisis.?

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) opposed the bill: ?Democrats are committed to reducing the deficit. We believe, as taxpayers do, that we should start by ending tax subsidies and special interest waste. We should be slashing oil companies' subsidies first. We must make programs accountable and end the ones that do not work. We can no longer afford to continue the tax breaks for the top 2 percent of the country. Republicans are in a reckless rush to slash without regard to the impact on our economy, on the businesses which create jobs or on middle class or working families who are being responsible, doing the best for their families and educating for the future.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) also opposed the bill: ?Sadly, the Republican leaders have brought to the floor a continuing resolution that jeopardizes American jobs and our economic future by rolling back investments that will help our private sector grow and put people back to work. It thoughtlessly makes extreme cuts to appease an extreme wing of their party, at the expense of the American people.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 235-189. Voting ?yea? were 235 Republicans. All 186 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation funding the federal government through September 2011 and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for government programs, including food stamps, community health centers, Pell Grants?and prohibiting its fund from being used for the implementation of a major health care reform law enacted in 2010. The Senate however, had scheduled no action on the bill. In addition, President Obama had threatened to veto the measure.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HEALTH CARE Community Health Center Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 146
Feb 19, 2011
(H.R. 1) On a motion that would have increased funding for Pell Grants by $39 million. (Pell Grants provide federal financial aid to low-income college students.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions that would have increased funding for Pell Grants by $39 million. (Pell Grants provide federal financial aid to low-income college students.) A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion to recommit was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) urged support for the motion to recommit: ?The approach we take must focus on responsible cuts, which will have a lasting impact on the deficit, not arbitrary short-term cuts to programs that are needed to prepare the next generation of American workers and taxpayers. Consider the effects of the bill before us on Specialist John Carabillo from my home state of New Mexico. Specialist Carabillo served in the Army for 6 years, and he was deployed to Iraq twice during his service?.After returning to New Mexico, Specialist Carabillo decided he wanted to go back to school and earn his degree in IT [information technology]. The Pell Grant scholarships and GI benefits Specialist Carabillo receives have allowed him to enroll in an associate's program at a vocational school?.The Republican bill would cut Specialist Carabillo's Pell Grant scholarship. This cut in his financial aid means that he will have to take fewer courses this year and graduate later, try to take a loan he can't afford or drop out of school.?

No members spoke in opposition to this motion to recommit. Republicans, however, unanimously voted against it. In a CQ Today article on Pell Grants, Congressional Quarterly reporter Lauren Smith wrote: ?House Republicans have made no secret of their desire to cut the program?? She quoted Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN): "?I think everything is on the table,? said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who was Education secretary under President George H. W. Bush. ?Anytime you're borrowing 42 cents of every dollar you spend, you have to say everything is on the table.??

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 186-238. All 186 Democrats present voted ?yea.? All 238 Republicans present voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have increased funding for Pell Grants in a continuing resolution by $39 million.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 145
Feb 19, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a law requiring Texas to maintain funding for education at 2010 levels or above in order to receive $830 million in federal aid for education.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a law requiring Texas to maintain funding for education at 2010 levels or above in order to receive $830 million in federal aid for education. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

A 2010 law which provided economic aid (including funding for education) to all states imposed this requirement on Texas at the urging of a number of Texas House Democrats, including Rep. Lloyd Doggett and former Rep. Chet Edwards. Those members felt such a move was necessary after Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) had previously used federal funds specifically intended for education for other, non-education purposes?namely, a ?rainy day? fund intended to close the state?s budget deficit. (Those federal education funds were provided to all states by a 2009 economic stimulus law enacted in response to a financial crisis.)

Rep. Francisco Canseco (R-TX) urged support for the amendment: ?Last August, as part of a $26 billion bailout bill [the 2010 law which provided aid to states] for states, $10 billion was set aside to be distributed to the states for education. The state of Texas was set to receive $830 million as part of this education funding?.Yet tucked into this legislation was an amendment that was deliberately and maliciously slipped into it that imposed a restriction on the state of the Texas, and only Texas?The restrictive amendment required that Texas guarantee that spending levels for elementary and secondary education not dip below 2010 levels for 3 years?.Neither the governor nor the state government branches are able to make budget decisions that bind future legislatures?.The amendment is about fairness, equal treatment for American taxpayers in one state, and malicious conduct in an arena involving Texas taxpayers and Texas schoolchildren where such legislative conduct is unconscionable.?

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (R-TX) opposed the amendment: ?When Texas received $3.25 billion in education stimulus funds [from the 2009 economic stimulus law]?Governor Perry played a shell game that left Texas schools not a dime better off than if no federal aid had come in the first place. That is the only reason that, last summer, all 12 Democratic Texas members?joined together, in offering our Save Our Schools amendment [which imposed the requirement that Texas maintain its education funding at 2010 levels for three years], which is today federal law. Tonight's proposal seeks to nullify that protection so that Governor Perry can reach out for another federal bailout even if it means taking $830 million away from Texas schoolchildren?.Vote `no' on a very flawed amendment for a failed purpose.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 235-187. Voting ?yea? were 235 Republicans. All 185 Democrats present and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to enforce a law requiring Texas to maintain funding for education at 2010 levels or above in order to receive $830 million in federal aid for education.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 144
Feb 19, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that all public works projects pay the prevailing wage to workers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that all public works projects pay the prevailing wage to workers. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

King urged support for his amendment: ? The Davis-Bacon Act is an old and archaic act that was generated during the Depression era, the early years of the Depression era, in about 1931?.I have dealt underneath this law for my working life as a construction contractor? Do we want to create jobs or do we want to cost jobs? Do we want to build 4 miles of road under Davis-Bacon or do we want to build five? Do we want to build four schools or do we want to build five? Do we want to have an inflation of wages by an average of 22 percent? Do we want to see the price go up??

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) opposed the amendment: ?The Davis-Bacon Act ensures that workers on federally funded government contracts are paid no less than the wages paid for similar work in a community?.Despite the [Republican] majority's argument, the Davis-Bacon Act has no effect on total costs of construction. Study after study reveals that higher productivity makes up for any additional labor cost, essentially eliminating any cost savings if the law were repealed. If this amendment is enacted into law, we will be cheating workers of a fair wage with no cost savings to show for it.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 189-223. Voting ?yea? were 189 Republicans. All 185 Democrats present and 48 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to enforce the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that all public works projects pay the prevailing wage to workers.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 142
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $50 million in federal funding for oil and gas research at the Energy Department.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Carney (D-DE) that would have eliminated $50 million in federal funding for oil and gas research at the Energy Department. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Carney urged support for his amendment: ??My amendment is simple and straightforward. It would eliminate funding for the $50 million oil and gas research and development program funded through the Department of Energy's fossil energy R&D [research and development] account. This cut? would save the taxpayers money and end an unnecessary subsidy to the oil and gas industry?.We should be using our scarce federal dollars on clean energy innovation that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, and to stay competitive globally.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed the amendment: ??The amendment uses a heavy-handed approach in order to shut down important programs at the Department of Energy. Fossil energy sources supply more than 80 percent of our nation's total energy. Using these resources more efficiently and more cleanly and developing technologies that can access new domestic sources are extremely important when so much of our energy depends on fossil fuels. This amendment would stop programs that do just that. For example, it would prevent work like the development of ultra-clean fuels. There may be some areas of research in which the private sector does not need help, but there are other areas of research which are too risky for industry to take on.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 121-300. Voting ?yea? were 103 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 18 Republicans. 218 Republicans and 82 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $50 million in funding provided by a continuing resolution for oil and gas research at the Energy Department.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 141
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Health and Human Services Department to implement rules relating to an ?essential benefits package??the benefits all health insurance plans must provide to their enrollees under a major health care law enacted in 2010.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Health and Human Services Department to implement rules relating to an ?essential benefits package??the benefits all health insurance plans must provide to their enrollees under a major health care law enacted in 2010. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Pitts urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment prevents funds from being used by the Department of Health and Human Services to implement rules regarding ObamaCare's [the 2010 health care law] essential benefits package. As if ObamaCare's mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance wasn't enough, the law went one step further. The federal government will now tell every single American and business what their health plans must cover. To make matters worse, ObamaCare grants this unprecedented power to a single person. ObamaCare gives this power to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine which benefits are essential for patients, affecting every man, woman and child in America??

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) opposed the amendment: ??This amendment will stop the implementation of essential health benefits. These rules will ensure that a minimum level of quality health coverage will be covered by plans available on the exchanges. We are talking about benefits related to things like hospitalization, emergency services, maternity care, newborn care, mental health care. This ensures that every plan on the exchange meets minimum standards. It protects individuals and small businesses. It allows them to pick out their plans with the confidence that they will be able to get the adequate kinds of coverage that they need.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 239-183. Voting ?yea? were 235 Republicans and 4 Democrats. 181 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded the federal government through September 2011, and cut $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs) from being used by the Health and Human Services Department to implement rules relating to an ?essential benefits package??the benefits all health insurance plans must provide to their enrollees under a major health care law enacted in 2010.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 140
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose stricter limits on ?particulate matter??an air pollutant more commonly known as ?soot.?

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD) prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose stricter limits on ?particulate matter??an air pollutant more commonly known as ?soot.? This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Noem urged support for her amendment: ?Anyone who has driven a combine through a field or a pickup down a gravel road knows that dust is a part of rural living. Potentially fining farmers and livestock producers who practice good management with new dust regulations would be excessive and extremely detrimental to our nation's vital agriculture industry?.it's hard to think of something more emblematic of Washington's regulatory overreach than the potential punishment of farmers and livestock producers for kicking up a little dust. Expanding the coarse particulate matter standard on dust would be a burdensome regulation for farmers and ranchers. My amendment would prohibit the EPA from using any of the funds made available under this act to modify the standard for coarse particulate matter?Farmers are certainly looking for certainty about the future. Burdening them with greater regulations on dust is excessive and unreasonable.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ??The Noem amendment would prevent the EPA from updating air pollution standards for dangerous soot pollution?.If new science has emerged in the last 24 years that shows that soot pollution is more dangerous than we knew 24 years ago, EPA would have to ignore any new scientific findings?. Scientific studies have linked these particles [particulate matter] to a variety of serious health problems, including increased respiratory symptoms in children and premature death in people with heart and lung disease. Why is the [Republican] majority party so afraid of science?...It seems to me we ought to defer to the scientists and respect the public's health. EPA is charged with protecting the public health. They're doing a pretty good job and we ought to let them do it.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 255-168. Voting ?yea? were 234 Republicans and 21 Democrats. 164 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 4 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose stricter limits on "particulate matter" - an air pollutant more commonly known as "soot."


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 139
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to designate national monuments on federal land.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to designate national monuments on federal land. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Heller (R-NV) urged support for his amendment: ?I rise today to offer an amendment?to prohibit funds from being used to designate national monuments?Roughly 85 percent of Nevada is federally controlled. So I am sensitive to any actions that could close access to public lands. New national monuments would limit access, threaten grazing rights, end mineral exploration of mining, and even impact private property. And this is the last thing we need in this dire economy.?

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) opposed the amendment: ?Monument designations do not take non-Federal land. The Antiquities Act [which authorized the president to designate monuments] only allows monument designations on land the federal government already owns?.There is nothing improper about these designations?.Monument designations do not lock up resources. Monument designations?grandfather valid, existing rights so any mining or other claim existing before the designation can still move forward?.This amendment is based on an extreme ideology that the federal government should divest itself of the stunning national treasures?enjoyed by millions each year.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 209-213. Voting ?yea? were 204 Republicans and 5 Democrats. 179 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to designate national monuments on federal land.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 138
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being allocated to the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight?which was established by the Obama administration to enforce private health insurance companies? compliance with a major health care law.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) prohibiting federal funds from being allocated to the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO)?which was established by the Obama administration to enforce private health insurance companies? compliance with a major health care law signed into law by President Obama in 2010. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

While President Obama created CCIIO within the Health and Human Services Department in order to enforce the health care law, that law (known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) did not specifically authorize funding for this office. Thus, Republican critics of CCIIO argued that it was operating without congressional approval or oversight.

Burgess urged support for his amendment: ?The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act never mentions, never authorizes, never appropriates money to the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight? So, without congressional authorization?CCIIO, proceeded to hire staff, estimated to be 200 people by the end of last year. They have rented office space in Bethesda [in Maryland]?.This center has been allowed, without congressional authorization, without congressional oversight, to make the decisions that will affect all sectors of the American population. Without any due diligence or any congressional oversight, no agency or center should be able to obtain funding, carry out their own agenda, implement policy, write regulation, and remain largely unchecked.?

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) opposed the amendment: ?I respect Dr. [Rep.] Burgess a great deal, but I have no idea why he would be opposed to having an agency that is essentially putting a check on the insurance companies. The problem is that the insurance companies keep raising rates, they don't show the consumer what the real benefits that they're receiving are, and what we need is more transparency and some way to review these insurance premium rates so that they don't get out of hand. The fact of the matter is that this agency, working with states, has already had great success. In Connecticut, regulators recently rejected a proposed 20 percent rate increase by Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield?.Why are you objecting to us trying to put a check on these insurance companies that keep raising their rates at outrageous levels??

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 239-182. Voting ?yea? were 235 Republicans and 4 Democrats. 181 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being allocated to the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 137
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to implement or maintain a searchable public consumer safety information database.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was an amendment by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) prohibiting federal funds from being used to implement or maintain a searchable public consumer safety information database.  This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. The public consumer safety database was maintained by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)?the government agency charged with protecting the public from consumer products that pose ?unreasonable risks of injury or death??

Pompeo urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment is actually pretty straightforward. It's pretty simple. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 [the law which created the database] called for the creation of a public consumer information database?.This will drive jobs overseas. It will increase the cost for manufacturers and consumers. The National Association of Manufacturers has announced its support for this amendment. The Home Appliance Manufacturers, the American Home Furnishings Alliance, the Consumer Specialty Products Associations all have recognized that this regulation is terribly onerous.?

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) opposed the amendment: ?This amendment would deny the Consumer Product Safety Commission the implementation of a searchable public consumer safety information database. Now this database was part of a bill that passed this House by 424-1. We required a database, and CPSC is ready to release this database?.It would allow consumers to report harms associated with consumer products and then to research risks associated with these particular products. This is exactly what the American people want. They want information. They have a right to know?.This amendment is a `keep the consumers in the dark' amendment. Parents want to know if a toy is dangerous. This amendment would take away their right to go to a database that would give them this information.

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 234-187. Voting ?yea? were 227 Republicans and 7 Democrats. 177 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to implement or maintain a searchable public consumer safety information database.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 136
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to classify coal ash--a bi-product of burning coal for electricity--as hazardous waste.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) prohibiting federal funds  from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to classify coal ash (also referred to as ?fly ash)--a bi-product of burning coal for electricity--as hazardous waste. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Classifying coal ash as hazardous waste would have effectively given the EPA the authority to regulate it in order to prevent the pollution of nearby sources of water. Many Republicans opposed giving the EPA this authority.

McKinley urged support for his amendment: ?Let me frame the issue. Fly ash is an unavoidable byproduct of electric power generation using coal. It is captured before being emitted into the atmosphere. The fine grain, dust-like particles are then recycled into concrete mixtures for our roads, our bridges, and buildings?.It's been widely used in drywall panels used in houses, schools, and offices?.Coal ash use and disposal has been studied by the EPA for over 20 years?..The EPA's conclusion was that these wastes do not warrant regulation?How many more reports need to be conducted by the EPA to show that fly ash is nonhazardous? Enough is enough.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ?The fact is that coal ash contains dangerous contaminants, such as mercury, cadmium, and arsenic, and we know those can be dangerous to public health. Without further guidance by EPA, this ash will continue to be stored onsite at many large power plants, where it leaches into the groundwater and into nearby streams. EPA has found a number of communities across the country where coal ash has contaminated drinking water sources poisoning people and wildlife.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 239-183. Voting ?yea? were 220 Republicans and 19 Democrats. 165 Democrats and 18 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency to classify coal ash as hazardous waste?which would have given the agency the authority to regulate it in order to prevent the pollution of nearby sources of water.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 135
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke permits given for mountaintop mining projects. (The EPA was authorized to revoke permits if it determined that such mining posed an environmental threat to nearby water sources, wildlife, and fisheries.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke permits given for mountaintop mining projects. The EPA was authorized to revoke permits if it determined that such mining posed an environmental threat to nearby water sources, wildlife, and fisheries. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

McKinley urged support for his amendment: ?On January 13, 2011, the EPA took an unprecedented action by retroactively revoking a lawfully issued 4-year-old permit for the Spruce No. 1 surface mine in Logan County, West Virginia?.EPA's veto at Spruce mine caused the loss of 253 mining jobs and 298 indirect jobs in West Virginia. In addition, it prevented the investment of nearly $250 million. The EPA's action has had a chilling effect on many types of companies, all of which rely on the certainty of the permitting process in order to make crucial business planning decisions. It's virtually impossible for companies to take the necessary steps to obtain financing and create jobs if they must endure the threat of retroactive revocation of the very permits that allow them to do business.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ?Only in the most egregious instances has EPA used this authority. They should have the right to pull permits when companies carelessly and seriously harm the environment. That's EPA's responsibility. It's understandable that mining companies don't want any restriction on their mining, but it's not excusable for this Congress to prevent the EPA from carrying out its lawful responsibilities and not to heed the long-term health impacts on the American people and of the quality of the water in these regions.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 240-182. Voting ?yea? were 223 Republicans and 17 Democrats. 168 Democrats and 14 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke permits given for mountaintop mining projects.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 134
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to implement a new Environmental Protection Agency decision to allow the sale of gasoline with a higher proportion of ethanol.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK) prohibiting federal funds from being used to implement a new Environmental Protection Agency decision to allow the sale of gasoline with a higher proportion of ethanol. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Sullivan urged support for his amendment: ?Despite alarming consumer, environmental and economic concerns, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has approved a 50 percent increase in the amount of corn-based ethanol allowed in gasoline used by cars and light trucks manufactured in the 2001 model year and newer. This is simply another attempt by the EPA to engineer ethanol mandates and drive ethanol subsidies forward?.Quik Trip, a major gasoline retailer across the Midwest, which is headquartered in my hometown of Tulsa, Oklahoma, offers an unconditional guarantee on every drop of gasoline they sell. Because of the lack of liability protection, they will be left on the hook if someone puts the wrong blend of gas in the wrong kind of car. That will open up a litigation nightmare.?

Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) opposed the amendment: ?Raising the limit will accelerate the use of renewable fuels made in the U.S. We are not importing this oil?As importantly, raising the limit will grow our economy here in the U.S., create about 136,000 jobs in the United states. This is oil that we are not importing from oversees and spending billions and billions of dollars with our military to defend the oil coming into this country. These are good-paying jobs; they are very excellent as far as jobs in rural America. They cannot be outsourced overseas?.This is part of all of the above of energy independence for the United States. It's good for continuing investment in the renewable fuels, energy and for the rural parts of this country that need an awful lot of help these days.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 285-136. Voting ?yea? were 206 Republicans and 79 Democrats. 105 Democrats?including a majority or progressives?and 31 Republicans?voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to implement a new Environmental Protection Agency decision to allow the sale of gasoline with a higher proportion of ethanol.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Lost
Roll Call 133
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to provide ?step increases? in federal workers? salaries. Step increases refer to automatic pay-raises given to federal employees every one to three years.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to provide ?step increases? in federal workers? salaries. Step increases refer to automatic pay-raises given to federal employees every one to three years. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Issa urged support for his amendment: ?First of all, as for political appointees, the president has already frozen their pay. Second of all, awards, raises, and bonuses are not limited by this freeze [in step increases]. The fact is, if somebody is meritorious of a raise, award or bonus, he will still be able to get it?.When they [critics of this amendment] say that these [raises] are effectively meritorious?It is 99.94 percent of all eligible federal employees, meaning only six out of every 10,000 employees, failed to get this automatic increase. This [amendment] saves over $500 million in 7 months and over $700 million the next year.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ??We are the world's superpower, and much of the responsibility for maintaining the status of being that superpower falls on the shoulders of our federal civil service. Already, they get about a third less than what they would be getting in the private sector for the same responsibilities. We desperately need the best and the brightest, from all over this country, to serve the American people. If we punish them by limiting their salaries, by making them scapegoats, we are doing a disservice to the American people. Let's not do this. Defeat the amendment.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 191-230. Voting ?yea? were 190 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 184 Democrats and 46 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to provide ?step increases? in federal workers? salaries.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Won
Roll Call 132
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being allocated to the United Nations panel on climate change.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) prohibiting federal funds from being allocated to the United Nations panel on climate change?the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. (The IPCC, along with former Vice President Al Gore, won the Nobel Peace Prize for their work on climate change in 2007.) This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Luetkemeyer urged support for his amendment: ??This amendment would prohibit U.S. contributions to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an entity that is fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science. The IPCC advises governments around the world on climate change?if the families in my district have been able to tighten their belts, then surely the federal government can do the same and stop funding an organization that is fraught with waste and abuse. My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill can go toward the IPCC. This would save taxpayers millions of dollars this year and millions of dollars in years to come?.Our constituents should not have to continue to foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings that were used as justification to impose a massive new tax on every American. They deserve better.?

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) opposed the amendment: ?The U.S. contributes only $2.3 million to the IPCC, and our $2.3 million contribution leverages a global science assessment institution with global outreach and global technical input, a process we could not carry out alone and one that could come to a halt without U.S. support. Their work on climate change is unparalleled. In its four assessment reports to date, they have brought together thousands of scientists around the world in disciplines ranging from atmospheric science, to forest ecology, to economics to provide objective and policy neutral information. The panel has attracted hundreds of the best U.S. scientists. In fact, a majority of the research that's reviewed is undertaken in U.S. institutions.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 244-179. Voting ?yea? were 235 Republicans and 9 Democrats. 176 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a ?continuing resolution?  (which funded the federal government through September 2011, and cut $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs) from being allocated to the United Nations panel on climate change?the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Lost
Roll Call 131
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to carry out a study examining the need for additional regulations with respect to flood control, irrigation, fish and wildlife populations, and water quality along the Missouri River.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) prohibiting federal funds from being used to carry out the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study (MRAPS--a study examining the need for additional regulations with respect to flood control, irrigation, fish and wildlife populations, and water quality along the Missouri River. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Luetkemeyer urged support for his amendment: ?MRAPS comes on the heels of another comprehensive $35 million, 17-year study completed in 2004?For river communities, few issues are as important as water supply, power, and navigation?.MRAPS is duplicative and wasteful of taxpayer dollars?.After 17 years, hundreds of public meetings, and countless lawsuits, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concluded that the current uses of the river are appropriate. It is careless and irresponsible to conduct another multiyear, multimillion dollar study at taxpayers' expense, particularly given the dire state of our nation's economy.?

Rep. Ed Pastor (D-AZ) opposed the amendment, arguing that the study was already being phased out and that an abrupt elimination of funding for the study could jeopardize an ?orderly termination?: ??The reason I oppose it is that this language?may impact the orderly termination of the study? we at least go through an orderly order with the funding that's available so we can have an orderly termination. He added: ??The few dollars that remain will only be used to terminate the study in an orderly manner. That's the proper way of doing it??

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 245-176. Voting ?yea? were 229 Republicans and 16 Democrats. 167 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to carry out a study examining the need for additional regulations with respect to flood control, irrigation, fish and wildlife populations, and water quality along the Missouri River.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Lost
Roll Call 130
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to administer ?catch shares programs? (in which fisherman purchase a fishing permit, and only those who buy this permit are allowed to catch a portion of fish).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) prohibiting federal funds from being used to carry out ?catch shares programs? (in which fisherman purchase a fishing permit, and only those who buy this permit are allowed to catch a portion of fish). This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Catch shares programs are administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency that monitors the conditions of the atmosphere and oceans. The NOAA implemented these programs in order to prevent overfishing.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) urged support for this amendment: ??The fishing industry is a crucial part of our nation's economy, and catch shares pose a serious threat to the vitality of the fishing industry. Catch shares is a system where fishermen have to buy the right to fish, and only those who buy this right are given the opportunity to catch a portion of fish. I don't believe any fisherman should have to buy the right to go fishing?.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ??These programs put together by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are designed to replenish diminishing fish stocks. They assign shares to individuals, cooperatives, other fishing communities, because what we have seen that has resulted in depleted fish stocks and overfishing is a race to fish where the concern is that the stock is being depleted. And so they run out to get what's left?.Now, I can understand there are many fishing communities that don't want NOAA's intervention. But NOAA has been successful in ensuring sustainable fisheries and preventing overfishing and creating more stable and lucrative fishing jobs in communities from Alaska to Florida. And they bring a lot of economic and biological benefits. They eliminate what many think are dangerous races to fish, or what are called `derby' conditions, and they improve safety for fishermen.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 259-159. Voting ?yea? were 208 Republicans and 51 Democrats. 131 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 28 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to administer catch shares programs.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
N N Lost
Roll Call 129
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a regulation requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to review permits for mountaintop coal mining in order to ensure that they were not polluting nearby rivers, lakes, and streams.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a regulation requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review permits for mountaintop coal mining in order to ensure that they were not polluting nearby rivers, lakes, and streams.  This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Griffith urged support for his amendment: ?President Johnson had a war on poverty. There are some in my district and in Appalachia who believes that President Obama and his EPA have a war for poverty in the Appalachian region?.There is a bumper sticker that is very popular now in my district. It says if you think coal is ugly, wait until you see poverty. There are some who believe--and I think that there are some in Washington who think--that southwest Virginia and other parts of Appalachia should just be a giant park for rich folks to visit, and that those of us who live there, the folks in Washington think, ought to be happy to have the jobs changing the sheets for the rich folks.

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment, arguing it was ?designed to kill regulation of mountaintop mining. The amendment would prevent EPA from working with other federal agencies and mining companies to ensure that mountaintop mining is carried out in a manner that protects public health, the environment, and the economy using the best available science. Mountaintop surface mining removes entire mountaintops to access the coal underneath but then deposits toxic mining waste in nearby streams. Practices not carried out carefully and responsibly can be devastating to the environment and to local economies.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 235-185. Voting ?yea? were 227 Republicans and 8 Democrats. 175 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to enforce a regulation requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to review permits for mountaintop coal mining in order to ensure that they were not polluting nearby rivers, lakes, and streams.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 128
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have reduced funding for the Defense Department back to 2008 levels (which would have cut more than $50 billion in Defense spending).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Barbara Lee that would have reduced funding for the Defense Department back to 2008 levels (which would have cut more than $50 billion in Defense spending). This amendment was offered to a ?continuing resolution? which funded federal programs, departments, and agencies through September 2011--and cut $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Lee urged support for her amendment: ?If you want to cut domestic spending to 2008 levels [as Republicans favored], you can't exempt defense?.This amendment gives us a chance to put our money where our mouths are. It simply says that defense spending should be reduced to 2008 levels. If we are serious about getting our fiscal house in order, then we need to apply the same rules, mind you, to defense as non-defense discretionary spending.?

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) opposed the amendment: ?Now, if you want to reduce or cancel training for our troops that are coming home from the war, then you would vote for this amendment. If you want to cancel Navy training exercises, then you would vote for it. If you want to reduce Air Force flight training hours, you would vote for this. If you want to delay or cancel maintenance of aircraft, ships and vehicles, then you would vote for this. If you want to delay important safety and quality-of-life repairs to facilities and barracks, then you would vote for this. But I don't support any of that. And I don't think most of our colleagues support any of that. And a time of war is not the time to be withdrawing from our national defense capability, the readiness and security of our nation.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 76-344. Voting ?yea? were 70 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 6 Republicans. 230 Republicans and 114 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to a continuing resolution that would have reduced funding for the Defense Department back to 2008 levels--which would have cut more than $50 billion in Defense spending.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 127
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to establish an office focusing on climate change science within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (the federal agency that monitors the conditions of the atmosphere and oceans).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) prohibiting federal funds from being used to establish an office focusing on climate change science (the National Climate Service) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA--the federal agency that monitors the conditions of the atmosphere and oceans). This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Hall urged support for his amendment: ?My amendment would prohibit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, as we call them, from creating or implementing a National Climate Service. The new line office will take vital resources from the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Office, essentially gutting fundamental research at NOAA and shifting the main focus of the agency to climate. This shift threatens to harm important NOAA activities, such as helping with the restoration of the Gulf of Mexico to pre-spill conditions?.My amendment does not cut NOAA's budget and is not an attempt to hinder the agency from providing useful and authoritative information but, rather, to communicate congressional priorities when it comes to public safety and economic prosperity.?

Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) opposed the amendment: ?Climate change is happening, and the ocean is where climate is born. The coast of California is seriously considering all of what the rising oceans will do to the economic value of the most valuable coastal property in the United States?.Yesterday, hundreds of high school students from all over the United States were here working, showing their science projects on ocean acidification. They won awards from government entities and nonprofit entities. Their future is about studying these issues. This is the kind of program [the National Climate Service] that we want to invest in. Smart technology, smart energy, that is the way we are going to handle this problem in the future. Those are jobs.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 233-187. Voting ?yea? were 227 Republicans and 6 Democrats. 178 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to establish an office focusing on climate change science within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Lost
Roll Call 126
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for ?project labor agreements??collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors which establish the terms of employment for construction projects.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Frank Guinta (R-NH) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for ?project labor agreements? or PLAs?collective bargaining agreements between labor organizations and contractors which establish the terms of employment for construction projects. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Guinta urged support for his amendment: ?My amendment simply states no government money can be used to pay for any project that requires a PLA. This solves a significant problem. This is not against our unions. It is about providing equal footing between union and nonunion contractors. Considering the massive debt and deficit we are now struggling under, I feel we can't afford at this point to waste more taxpayer dollars. My goal here is to get more effective and efficient government. This amendment creates a level playing field that encourages fair and open competition for federal construction contracts funded by this bill.?

Rep. Rosa DeLauro opposed the amendment: ?The amendment is nothing more than another example of a union-busting Republican agenda. Project labor agreements contribute to the economy and efficiency of federal construction projects, help keep them on time and on budget. They bring all the contractors and subcontractors to agree to a standard set of conditions from the beginning of the project. And despite all the rhetoric on the other side that PLAs increase the cost of construction projects, there is no evidence for that?.PLAs are nothing new. They have been used on some of the most famous consequential construction projects in our history: the Hoover dam bypass bridge and the projects under the Tennessee Valley Authority just to name a few.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 210-210. (Under House rules, amendments must receive the support of a majority of members in order to pass. Thus, in the event of a tie vote, the amendment fails.) 210 Republicans voted ?nay.? All 184 Democrats present and 26 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used for project labor agreements.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 125
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used for the construction of an ethanol blender pump (which allows drivers to choose different fuels with varying levels of ethanol at gas stations), or an ethanol storage facility.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) prohibiting federal funds from being used for the construction of an ethanol blender pump (which allows drivers to choose different fuels with varying levels of ethanol at gas stations), or an ethanol storage facility.  This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. Flake urged support for his amendment: ??The taxpayers have subsidized ethanol for far too long. This amendment will simply bring that slowly to a stop.?

Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) opposed the amendment: ??This amendment clearly limits consumer choice, and is yet another attack on our nation's progress to try and achieve energy security?.It would actually make us much more dependent long term on foreign oil because you are going to limit the choices that are there. And without the blender pumps that he wants to prohibit, most Americans are left with just one option?If we continue to limit the amount of U.S.-produced ethanol we can use in our vehicles, we will be continuing to be beholden to foreign sources of energy, and we will be importing more oil every year.?

Flake responded: ??This is not a choice at all. It's a mandate. That's why we've got to end it. It's been a boondoggle for 30 years. It remains so. Let's vote for this amendment.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 261-158. Voting ?yea? were 183 Republicans and 78 Democrats. 105 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 53 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used for the construction of an ethanol blender pump or an ethanol storage facility.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Lost
Roll Call 124
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used for renovation or construction at the United Nations headquarters.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) prohibiting federal funds) from being used for renovation or construction at the United Nations (U.N.) headquarters.  This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Stearns urged support for his amendment: ?Now, the renovations that are occurring on the U.N. ultimately are necessary, but the cost that is occurring is not?.I want to be clear that?this amendment is not to obstruct the U.N. from making a safe environment for the workers and the visitors that come there but to encourage reform and use best business practices considering that the taxpayers are funding about a quarter of the amount of money they're spending for renovations.?

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) opposed the amendment: ?The U.N. headquarters complex, the majority of which is 55 years old, is not compliant with New York City building and life safety codes or modern security requirements. The major building systems are inefficient, beyond their useful life, increasingly difficult to maintain and repair?.Providing the U.N. with safe and functional headquarter facilities will enable the organization to operate more effectively is what we all want.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 231-191. Voting ?yea? were 215 Republicans and 16 Democrats. 170 Democrats and 21 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used for renovation or construction at the United Nations headquarters.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Lost
Roll Call 123
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a federal regulation intended to reduce nutrient pollution (pollution from plant nutrients and fertilizers) in Florida?s lakes, rivers, and streams.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a federal regulation intended to reduce nutrient pollution (pollution from plant nutrients and fertilizers) in Florida?s lakes, rivers, and streams.  This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Rooney urged support for his amendment: ? Like all Floridians, I want clean and safe water, but this debate is not over whether we want clean water for Florida; it is over how we reach that goal and at what cost?.Our unemployment rate is over 12 percent and at 15 percent in some parts of my district. New, costly regulations are not going to improve those numbers?.Until the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] is willing to consider Florida's unique needs and economy, this regulation must not go into effect. A recent poll shows that 68 percent of Floridians do not want this Washington, D.C., mandate.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ??This amendment is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand--I use that analogy because we're talking about Florida--hoping that a growing problem somehow will miraculously go away?.I fail to understand how the supporters of this amendment think that it's okay for folks to dump manure, fertilizer, and sewage into lakes and rivers without regard to the health of these waters or to the health of the people who depend upon these waters?.There's a good question as to how much longer tourists will keep flocking to Florida if its lakes, streams, and rivers are in a death spiral, flushed with the water quality of cesspools.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 237-189. Voting ?yea? were 221 Republicans and 16 Democrats. 172 Democrats and 17 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded the federal government through September 2011, and cut $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs) from being used to enforce a federal regulation intended to reduce nutrient pollution (pollution from plant nutrients and fertilizers) in Florida?s lakes, rivers, and streams.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
N N Lost
Roll Call 121
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to establish health insurance ?exchanges? where uninsured Americans could purchase health insurance.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) prohibiting federal funds from being used to establish health insurance ?exchanges? where uninsured Americans could purchase health insurance. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Under major health care health care legislation signed into law by President Obama in March 2010, the federal government was scheduled to establish health insurance exchanges in 2014. This amendment withheld federal funding for that provision of the health care law.

Gardner urged support for his amendment: ? The exchange does not allow the American people to choose the benefits in their health plans. Instead, it will force the American people into a one-size-fits-all program where government bureaucrats limit their health insurance options. The government will control which plans are allowed to be offered in each State. It will control which companies will be allowed to sell health insurance plans in each State and will control the benefits contained in those health insurance plans.?

Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) opposed the amendment: ?Now, the exchange does three things. It says that small businesses and families and individuals can get the same purchasing power that big corporations do when they buy their health insurance. It says you can choose among private competitors, insurance companies, and see who makes the best offer to you. And it says you make the choice that you want. This should sound very familiar to the members on the other [Republican] side because it's exactly what they have as members of Congress?So I would think that the members on both sides would want their constituents to have the same health care opportunities that they do. If you believe that's the case, then the right vote on this amendment is `no.'

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 241-184. Voting ?yea? were 236 Republicans and 5 Democrats. 183 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to establish health insurance exchanges where uninsured Americans could purchase health insurance.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 120
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a federal regulation intended to reduce nutrient pollution (pollution from plant nutrients and fertilizers) in the Chesapeake Bay (which is located in Maryland and Virginia.).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a federal regulation intended to reduce nutrient pollution (pollution from plant nutrients and fertilizers) in the Chesapeake Bay (which is located in Maryland and Virginia.).  This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Goodlatte (R-VA) urged support for his amendment: ?The EPA has proposed arbitrary limits on the amounts of nutrients that can enter the Chesapeake Bay and how these nutrients enter the bay?.These overzealous regulations will affect everyone who lives, works, and farms in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and the cost of complying with these requirements will be devastating during our current economic downturn, resulting in many billions of dollars in economic losses to States, cities, towns, farms and other businesses, large and small.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ?We've seen increased crab and oyster populations and an increase in underwater grasses. The bay is coming back to life. The agreed-upon, negotiated, detailed, multistate plans have the potential to finally restore the Chesapeake Bay if everyone does his part?.This amendment would break up the existing federal, state, local, and private partnership by prohibiting any federal financial assistance to farmers, municipalities, and businesses that are working to improve the Chesapeake Bay watershed?.The pollution of the Chesapeake Bay is also a jobs killer for the citizens in its watershed. If this amendment passes, it will ultimately result in a loss of thousands of fishing, crabbing and tourism jobs.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 230-195. Voting ?yea? were 222 Republicans and 8 Democrats. 180 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to enforce a federal regulation intended to reduce nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
N N Lost
Roll Call 119
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a federal regulation preventing toxic waste from coal mines from contaminating nearby rivers and streams.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a federal regulation preventing toxic waste from coal mines from contaminating nearby rivers and streams.  This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Johnson urged support for his amendment: ??The unemployment rate in my home state of Ohio is 9.6 percent. In parts of eastern and southeastern Ohio that I represent, we have double-digit unemployment. The average unemployment in the 12 counties I represent is 10.9 percent. There are entire communities that depend largely on the coal industry, both for direct and indirect jobs, and these jobs would be threatened by this proposed rules change?. My amendment would simply prohibit any funding to be spent on developing, carrying out, or implementing this ill-conceived proposed job-killing rule. I strongly urge my colleagues to support my amendment to stop the Obama administration from going forward with a regulation that will result in thousands of hardworking Americans losing their jobs.?

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) opposed the amendment: ??This amendment would essentially destroy efforts to put an end to the damage that is wrought by mountaintop removal?.you blow off the top of these beautiful mountains. You push all of the stuff that you've blown up into the valleys that surround it, poisoning streams, poisoning the people who live nearby, poisoning the water supply that feeds much of Appalachia. This is damage that is irreversible. It will never be like this again because nothing grows here. Now, I know a lot of people try to justify mountaintop removal by saying this is an economic boon for the region. In fact, since mountaintop removal became a prevalent practice, mining jobs have actually declined by more than 50 percent. This is not good for the people of Kentucky and Appalachia. It's not good for the economy, and it's certainly not good for the environment.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 239-186. Voting ?yea? were 228 Republicans and 11 Democrats. 177 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to enforce a federal regulation preventing toxic waste from coal mines from contaminating nearby rivers and streams.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 118
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have effectively limited the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe to 35,000.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have effectively limited the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe to 35,000. (Technically, the amendment would have prohibited funds provided by a ?continuing resolution??which funded the federal government through September 2011, and cut $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs?from being used to keep more than 35,000 American troops stationed in Europe.)

Polis urged support for his resolution: ?My amendment would save hundreds of millions of dollars by reducing our troop count in Europe. Instead of having over 80,000 troops in Europe where they are no longer needed, we would reduce the amount of troops in Europe to 35,000. This would allow the Department of Defense to save money by closing bases in Europe that don't have any strategic rationale. Deploying our troops out of Europe and closing these bases is an excellent way to help reduce expenditures and save money?.This step would save $278 million and improve our national security?.The U.S. taxpayer did not sign up to defend wealthy European democracies from imaginary threats forever. These bases cost U.S. taxpayers millions and millions of dollars?.There's no reason for us to subsidize European defense while every other aspect of our government we are looking at for cuts.?

Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) opposed the amendment: ??There is no strategic rationale for this amendment. This amendment is completely arbitrary in the cuts that are proposed, and there is no basis for these levels of cuts that are proposed. In fact, the strategic rationale is for the support of our troops that are currently serving in Europe?.These troops are not just staring down a past Soviet Union. They are, in fact, providing wartime support currently. They are also providing an effective deterrent both for our allies and for the United States?.These troops are actively providing protection both to our allies and to the United States and play a vital role in what is wartime operational capability.

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 74-351. Voting ?yea? were 69 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 5 Republicans. 232 Republicans and 119 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to a continuing resolution that would have effectively limited the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe to 35,000.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 116
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used for the Defense Department?s ?official representation? activities?which included hosting social events such as dinners for military leaders of other countries.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) prohibiting federal funds from being used for the Defense Department?s (DOD) ?official representation? activities?which included hosting social events such as dinners for military leaders of other countries. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Forbes indicated that his intention was to deny funds for such activities until the Defense Department completed an audit of its finances. He urged support for his amendment: ??Since 2006 the taxpayers have entrusted the Department of Defense with over $2.5 trillion, and the law has required that the Department of Defense make sure that they allow the taxpayers to know where that money is being spent by providing audited financial statements?.the records at the Department of Defense are so bad that less than 5 percent of all of the monies given to the Department of Defense are in an audit-ready position?. the [official representation funds ?are basically party funds. They are funds for dinners. They are funds for entertainment. They are funds that have no impact directly on our war-fighter.?our thought is that if we take away those funds until we have compliance with those audited financial statements that the taxpayers deserve, we will give a strong incentive to make sure that we get that compliance??

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) opposed the amendment: ? The amendment would preclude activities associated with hosting military to military contacts, both domestically and overseas. The activity extends official courtesies to guests of the United States and the Department of Defense, and upholds the prestige and standing of the United States. The amendment would also harm the military services' ability to conduct community relations activities. The amendment hurts DOD's ability to represent itself to foreign nations and to the communities in which DOD activities are located.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 281-184. Voting ?yea? were 198 Republicans and 43 Democrats. 145 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 39 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used for the Defense Department?s ?official representation? activities.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Lost
Roll Call 115
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from using federal funds to collect information on individuals who bought multiple semi-automatic rifles or shotguns.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK) amendment prohibiting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF) and Explosives from using federal funds to collect information on individuals who bought multiple semi-automatic rifles or shotguns. The ATF was established to protect American communities from the illegal sale or trafficking of guns, tobacco, alcohol, and explosives. This agency had asked for such authority to track sales of multiple firearms in December 2010.

This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Boren urged support for his amendment: ?Last December, ATF published an emergency request?It asked? for the power to collect information from firearms retailers on all sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles within five consecutive business days. This would include many of today's most popular rifles used by millions of Americans for self-defense, hunting, and other lawful purposes.?I strongly oppose granting ATF this information-collecting authority for three reasons: first, it would subject responsible firearms sellers who are often small business owners to burdensome reporting requirements. Second, ATF would catalog records on Americans who purchase rifles, thereby compromising their privacy. And, finally, ATF lacks legal authority to collect this information.?

Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) opposed the amendment: ?Thirty thousand. That's how many people were violently slaughtered by the Mexican drug cartels in just 4 short years. One of them was Bobby Salcedo, an American citizen and rising star from my district. He was kidnapped and murdered last year with a semiautomatic rifle.  I oppose this amendment because it makes it harder to stop these types of violent acts. This amendment will prevent the tracing of bulk sales of the military-style rifles, popular with cartels, that have resulted in tragic murders like Bobby's. Last year, the U.S. military announced that, if the drug war continues, it could cause the Mexican Government to collapse, and the cartel war could spread over the border into the U.S. This amendment makes the drug war worse.  Every day, people are dying from this war, even American citizens. We must stop it, and we can by opposing this amendment.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 277-149. Voting ?yea? were 236 Republicans and 41 Democrats. 147 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from using funds provided by a continuing resolution to collect information on individuals who bought multiple semi-automatic rifles or shotguns.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Gun Control
N N Lost
Roll Call 114
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have limited agricultural subsidies provided to farmers by making farms earning more than $250,000 per year ineligible for federal subsidies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) that would have limited agricultural subsidies provided to farmers by making farms earning more than $250,000 per year ineligible for federal subsidies. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Blumenauer urged support for his amendment: ?No serious effort to reduce the federal government is complete without addressing agricultural subsidies. Even in time of record high farm prices and profits, we still gave $16 billion in subsidies last year. There are no meaningful limits?.This amendment would establish a hard limit of $250,000 per entity?.I strongly urge that you join with me?to establish this limit, save $100 million this year and more in the future, and start us on a path of reform??

Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) opposed the amendment: ?This amendment changes current law. This is a decision that needs to be made in the context of the next new farm bill?.I know it is a popular parlor game in some circles to see how far you can jerk farmers around, but making these changes midstream?is disruptive to market decisions that producers have made in some cases years ago. All farmers and ranchers want certainty. They plan to work under current law. Plain and simple, the author of this amendment wants to change agricultural policy, and this debate does not belong in this bill.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 185-241. Voting ?yea? were 134 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 51 Republicans. 187 Republicans and 54 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have limited agricultural subsidies provided to farmers by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded the federal government through September 2011, and cut $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs) to $250,000 per farm.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 113
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a regulation which determined where off-road vehicles could be used in national forests.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a regulation which determined where off-road vehicles could be used in national forests. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Herger urged support for his amendment: ?Locally elected officials are now at the point of considering litigation against the Forest Service [which oversees the management of national forests] to keep these federal lands open to recreation. It is disgraceful that local counties would have to spend valuable public funding to preserve access to our own national forests. Not only are our counties forced to defend themselves against well funded environmental activists trying to turn every acre of federal land into some kind of sanctuary, but now also against the very agency that is supposed to serve the public.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ??Over the past few decades, we know that the availability and capability of off-road vehicles has increased tremendously. That means more Americans are enjoying access to, and recreational opportunities in, their national forests, but the resulting proliferation of random routes results in severe impacts, particularly on the quality of our water supply and the physical safety of national forest visitors. The national forests are spectacular lands?.Often times, we take them for granted and fail to realize that the national forests are the headwaters for much of our nation's surface waters. The clean, pure water produced on a national forest is a national treasure and the economic resource that supports industry and agriculture nationwide?.The proliferation, though, of random trails created by off road vehicles, increases erosion and pollution into water sources with no possibility for mitigation by culverts or other measures that would be available to land managers on designated routes.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 227-197. Voting ?yea? were 219 Republicans and 8 Democrats. 179 Democrats and 18 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to enforce a regulation that determined where off-road vehicles may be used in national forests.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Lost
Roll Call 112
Feb 18, 2011
We've chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn't truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 111
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to carry out the Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study, which examined the possibility of removing four dams on the Klamath River (which flows from southeastern Oregon to Northern California).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) prohibiting federal funds from being used to carry out the Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study, which examined the possibility of removing four dams on the Klamath River (which flows from southeastern Oregon to Northern California).  This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Local environmental groups and the Obama administration supported the removal of these dams in order to strengthen the local ecosystem and restore endangered salmon populations.

McClintock urged support for his amendment: ?Let me emphasize: Congress never authorized this study?. At a time when skyrocketing electricity prices threaten our economy and when acute capacity shortages threaten the reliability of our grid, destroying 155 megawatts of clean, cheap, and reliable hydroelectricity is simply insane.? Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) argued: ??As a staunch supporter of dams, I understand my colleague's position on this issue, and I support this amendment. The constituents I represent overwhelmingly oppose removing functioning hydropower and its associated benefits. I fully share that concern and the disturbing precedent it sets?this amendment by itself will, unfortunately, not address the underlying issue, which is the environmental extortion that impacts property owners across the West and that impacts the hardworking people who depend on the land for their livelihoods.?

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) opposed the amendment: ?This amendment would stop a comprehensive local solution to a major and very costly problem in the Klamath River Basin. This effort at the local level, supported by farmers and ranchers, fishermen, conservation groups, the privately owned power company in question, tribes, as well as the states of California and Oregon?It's a study. It does not, nor is it an agreement to, remove any dams. All the local communities in the Klamath Basin, even those who were opposed to dam removal, support the completion of the study and they are at the table working on this specific issue.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 215-210. Voting ?yea? were 210 Republicans and 5 Democrats. 182 Democrats and 28 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to carry out the Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study, which examined the possibility of removing four dams on the Klamath River.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 110
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a legal requirement that health insurance companies must spend 80-85% (depending on the size of the company) of the money they collect from insurance premiums on health care services, and no more than 15% to 20% on administrative costs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce a legal requirement that health insurance companies must spend 80-85% (depending on the size of the company) of the money they collect from insurance premiums on health care services, and no more than 15% to 20% on administrative costs. This requirement, known as the ?medical loss ratio,? was part of a major health care reform law signed into law by President Obama in March 2010. . This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Price urged support for his amendment: ?As a physician and dad, I care greatly about the issue of health care and came to Congress, frankly, as one of the major reasons was to try to fix the health care system and to make it more patient-centered.? He argued: ?It [the amendment] really is about who decides? In health care, who decides? The folks on the other [Democratic] side of the aisle want the government to decide. They want the government to decide what qualifies as health care and what kind of health care you can get for yourself and for your family and for everybody across this land. On this side of the aisle, we want patients to decide, patients and families and doctors.?

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) oppose the amendment: ?If you're with the gentleman from Georgia [Rep. Price], you are on the side of the big insurance companies, and you'll want to make sure that they make bigger profits, that they get bigger bonuses, that they pass out bigger dividends and more money to their CEOs; or if you're against this amendment and you want to go with the health care reform bill that we have, you're with the little guy--with the consumer, with the average American. Right now, the law says that consumers have to receive more value for their premium dollars. Insurance companies are required to spend 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care and health care quality improvements rather than on the bonuses and the salaries and the dividends for the CEOs and the stockholders. That's what this is all about. You're going to hand back to the insurance companies control over what happens with the money that you paid in your premium so they can do whatever they want with it and make whatever profit they want.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 241-185. All 238 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted ?yea.? 185 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agrees to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to enforce a legal requirement that health insurance companies must spend 80-85% of the money they collect from insurance premiums on health care services, and no more than 15% to 20% on administrative costs.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 109
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to give new leases?under which recipients paid no royalties?to oil and gas companies to drill for oil on public lands.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to give new leases?under which recipients paid no royalties?to oil and gas companies to drill for oil on public lands.  This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Markey urged support for his amendment: ??We all agree that we have to do some serious work to reduce the deficit. But we need to start by first eliminating unnecessary taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies?.oil companies are now drilling for free on public lands offshore in the Gulf of Mexico?. the American people currently stand to lose as much as $53 billion in royalty payments over the life of these leases?.And with oil prices at $90 a barrel, we do not have to be allowing them to drill on public lands for free and take all of the profit for themselves and giving nothing back to the American taxpayer. This amendment is very simple. It says to these companies we will allow you to continue to drill and not even pay any royalties, but we're not going to give you an opportunity to bid on any new leases on public lands in our country.?

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) opposed the amendment: ?This is about closing off more domestic sources of energy production at a time when the Middle East has never been more volatile. You might as well just call this the OPEC [Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries?the intergovernmental organization made up of major oil-exporting states] protection amendment, because it ensures that more of these companies, as they are already doing, will be going out of the country?. So I guess my colleague [Rep. Markey] is okay with shutting off more domestic energy, allowing more American companies to go bankrupt?my colleague wants to bring this amendment to shut even more areas of the Outer Continental Shelf off.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 174-251. Voting ?yea? were 163 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 11 Republicans. 226 Republicans and 25 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to give new leases?under which recipients paid no royalties?to oil and gas companies to drill for oil on public lands.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 108
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce a law which gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC?which regulates interstate transmission of electricity, oil, and natural gas) exclusive authority to govern the operations, building, or expansion of liquid natural gas terminals. Natural gas terminals are essentially ports for natural gas that has been turned into liquid for the purposes of storage and transportation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David Wu (D-OR) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce a law which gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC?which regulates interstate transmission of electricity, oil, and natural gas) exclusive authority to govern the operation, building, or expansion of liquid natural gas terminals. Natural gas terminals are essentially ports for natural gas that has been turned into liquid for the purposes of storage and transportation.  This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Wu urged support for his amendment: ?This is a states' rights issue. FERC's overbearing, overbroad federal regulatory structure is preventing states and local communities from having any input, let alone decision-making authority, over use of local property. In Oregon, where there are proposals for construction of LNG [liquid natural gas] terminals, I have heard time and time again from my constituents that they are confused and frustrated by FERC's intrusive projects and unclear timelines. More importantly, their voices are not being heard on decisions that affect their livelihoods and property rights?. Defunding FERC's exclusive approval authority over LNG projects is a crucial first step towards?ensuring that future energy decisions better reflect local citizens' interests.?

Rep. Ed Pastor (D-AZ) opposed the amendment: ?This amendment would prevent FERC from carrying out its statutory authority. The term `enforce' would impact oversight of existing and operating liquefied natural gas facilities. This amendment appears to prohibit FERC from approving environmental or safety-related amendments to existing liquefied natural gas facilities. This amendment will impact both import and export proposals in addition to almost any new facilities at preexisting plants. While I understand the gentleman has concerns in his district, the language would impact a much broader constituency, and for that reason I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 87-338. Voting ?yea? were 84 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 3 Republicans. 234 Republicans and 104 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to enforce a law which gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive authority to govern the operation, building, or expansion of liquid natural gas terminals.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 107
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to pay U.S. dues to the United Nations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to pay U.S. dues to the United Nations (U.N.).  This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Broun urged support for his amendment: ??In the United Nations over and over again we see enemies of America, enemies of our freedom, voting against us over and over again. We see an organization there that's just rife with fraud, corruption, with a tremendous amount of problems. We see the U.N. bring people over here who have diplomatic immunity who have been caught in the business of spying against America, want to harm us?.it's time to take a solid stand against our supporting this kind of organization by giving our taxpayers' hard earned money and taxpayers' dollars to an organization that I believe is not in the best interests of America?. I personally would like to see us get out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S., but we cannot do that today. But?we can deny taxpayer dollars being wasted on this organization?.So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to defund the U.N.?

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) opposed the amendment: ?The U.N. is critical to advancing U.S. national security interests, and the Broun amendment would impede our ability to influence crucial counterterrorism actions at the U.N. Security Council, including concrete steps targeting al Qaeda and the Taliban, global action addressing the conduct of regimes such as North Korea and Iran,?imposing the most comprehensive sanctions ever on these regimes?U.N. peacekeeping operations, which are an indispensable tool, have saved untold lives, averted dozens of wars, and helped restore or establish democratic rule in more than a dozen countries.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 177-243. Voting ?yea? were 171 Republicans and 6 Democrats. 180 Democrats and 63 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to pay U.S. dues to the United Nations.


WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Won
Roll Call 105
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have cut 3.5% of Defense Department and Homeland Security Department spending from a ?continuing resolution? which funded the federal government through September 2011

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) that would have cut 3.5% of Defense Department and Homeland Security Department spending from a ?continuing resolution,? which funded the federal government through September 2011.

Campbell urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment deals with?the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security?. We must learn how to defend this country for less, and we can do that?.We need to defend our country against vulnerabilities; but our debt, which is now 47 percent held by foreigners--and that percentage is increasing--is a greater threat to the security of this country than any aircraft carrier. It is a greater threat than any military force out there. We have to deal with that, but we can't deal with this debt unless we include the large spending in the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security and defend this country for less.?

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) opposed the amendment: ?I am concerned that the levels of cuts proposed by the gentleman from California go too far and will adversely affect many defense readiness programs?. this is not time to take a hatchet to these programs. The amendment would cause DOD to terminate contracts, which will, in turn, force companies to lay off employees. Defense spending cannot, of course, be justified simply by jobs; but at the same time, the prospect of adding to our unemployment just as we are emerging from the recession should be a consideration.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) also opposed the amendment, saying: ?At a time of war, we should be showing support for our troops and not undercutting them, even though for good reasons, in order to lower the federal deficit by making reductions of this amount.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 68-357. Voting ?yea? were 46 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 22 Republicans. 215 Republicans and 142 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut 3.5% of Defense Department and Homeland Security Department spending from a continuing resolution.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 104
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for the construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas (which was intended for the study of diseases which pose a threat to U.S. animal agriculture and public health).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for the construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas (which was intended for the study of diseases which pose a threat to U.S. animal agriculture and public health). This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

In order to pay for the construction of NBAF, the Homeland Security Department proposed to sell the Plum Island Animal Disease Research Center?which performed similar research to NBAF, and was located in Bishop?s congressional district (and thus employed many of his constituents).

Bishop urged support for his amendment: ?NBAF, in my view, is a government boondoggle that anyone concerned about fiscally responsible behavior should want to be stopped?.The Department of Homeland Security has consistently stated that the sale of Plum Island in my district would cover the cost of NBAF. This is not even remotely accurate. Any reasonable estimate of the cost of Plum Island will be no better than $80 million. Why should the American taxpayer invest $1 billion in this project?that is essentially redundant? Now my friends from Kansas--and I certainly understand their interest--have criticized this amendment as constituting parochial politics. And I would say, with respect to my friends, that I don't see anything parochial about trying to shield the American taxpayer from an investment of $1 billion in a facility that we do not need.?

Some Democrats and environmental groups opposed the sale because they believed relocating the facility to Kansas risked releasing contaminants that were dangerous to human health. Rep. David Price (D-NC) argued: ? I've had a longstanding concern about the decision to relocate the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility to the mainland without a comprehensive and validated strategy to prevent the release of harmful pathogens into the community.?

Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) opposed the amendment: ?NBAF will be a cutting-edge research facility, and it will accelerate our nation's ability to protect ourselves, our food supply, and our economy from biological threats. It will become the world's premiere animal health research facility and further solidify our nation's place as the international leader in animal health research?. Simply put, this debate should be about our national security, not parochial politics. In this age of uncertainty and global threats, conducting vital research to protect our nation could not be more crucial, and the truth of the matter is we are dangerously under-protected from the threat of a biological attack against our people and food?.We need to protect our food and our families from danger. We need to stay on the cutting edge of this research field. Our security is at risk, and delaying this project further because the gentleman from New York would prefer to preserve a stunningly outdated lab that just happens to be in his district is not an option.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 156-269. Voting ?yea? were 143 Democrats?including a majority of progressives--and 13 Republicans. 224 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used for the construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas.


ENVIRONMENT Biohazards
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 103
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have cut 5.5% of all federal non-military spending?and11% of all legislative branch spending (which funded the operations of Congress) from a ?continuing resolution? which funded the federal government through September 2011.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) that would have cut 5.5% of all non-military spending and 11% of all legislative branch spending (which funded the operations of Congress) from a ?continuing resolution? which funded the federal government through September 2011.

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) supported this amendment: ?We are broke. We are $14 trillion in debt, and we know it's more than that. By 2014, in interest on the debt alone, we will spend more than we will on all non-discretionary spending except for defense. By 2014, every citizen in the United States will spend $2,500 just to pay interest on the debt. I appreciate the leadership the Republican leadership has provided in being as bold as they can be on necessary, important spending cuts; but?we've got to have faith in the American people. They are ahead of us on this. They are ready. This is one of those rare moments when the American people are asking us to be bold, when they are asking us to go one step further.?
 
Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) opposed the amendment arguing it used a ?meat ax approach.? Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) said: ??Rather than make careful decisions on specific programs, the?amendment hits everything indiscriminately and in a heavy-handed way. We were elected to make choices, not run on automatic pilot.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 147-281. Voting ?yea? were 147 Republicans. All 189 Democrats present and 92 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut 5.5% of all non-military spending and 11% of legislative branch spending from a continuing resolution.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Won
Roll Call 102
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (assault vehicles designed by the U.S. Marine Corps that could travel on land or water) and the ?Surface-Launched Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile program? (a missile defense system designed to defend against short to medium-range missiles).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (assault vehicles designed by the U.S. Marine Corps that could travel on land or water) and the ?Surface-Launched Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile program (SLAMRAAM--a missile defense system designed to defend against short to medium-range missiles). This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Kind urged support for his amendment: ??If we're going to be serious about true deficit reduction, the defense aspect of the federal budget also has to be on the table. And what better place to start than by listening to our own military leaders who continually tell this Congress: stop appropriating money for weapons systems we don't want, that we don't want to use, that aren't necessary, they don't enhance military readiness, and they are not going to support our troops in the field. And these two programs fit that bill?. The defense budget should also be fair game for scrutiny and transparency and cost savings. And what better place to start than where our own military leaders are instructing us to go: weapons programs they don't need, will save money, reduce the redundancy, and help deal with the budget deficits that we're facing.?

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) opposed the amendment, arguing the two programs which Kind sought to prohibit funding for were already being phased out: ?The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is coming to an end?. It makes me cringe that they have spent $3 billion on this, but for an additional $34 million, we can finish the R&D [research and development] phase of this program?. Then we don't have to pay $145 million, as I understand it, in termination costs. I think it is just wise to get the final research done?.SLAMRAAM is?coming to an end. It is being terminated as well, and we support that. Again, I think we should reject the gentleman's amendment, but the outcome of what he is talking about will be achieved in the very near future.?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) responded: ?As I understand the arguments [of Rep. Dicks]?we are going to get rid of these [programs] eventually, but let's not do it too quickly because we might save money prematurely. I have never heard a weaker defense for continuing to spend money, that at some point we are going to stop. So why not stop now? So I think the gentleman from Wisconsin [Rep. Kind] ought to be supported.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 123-306. Voting ?yea? were 111 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 12 Republicans. 227 Republicans and 79 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles and the ?Surface-Launched Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile program.?


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 101
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $150 million in funding for Brazil?s cotton industry.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) that would have eliminated $150 million in funding for Brazil?s cotton industry. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The Obama administration agreed to provide Brazil with this funding after the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that the U.S. was illegally subsidizing American cotton production. In order to avoid $829 million in sanctions that could have resulted from the WTO ruling, the Obama administration reached an agreement with Brazil to pay $150 million to Brazilian cotton farmers.

Kind urged support for his amendment: ??My amendment is very simple and straightforward. It would save the American taxpayers $150 million a year by ending a new American taxpayer subsidy that is going to Brazilian cotton agribusiness. If this program sounds crazy, it's because it is. But it's also the truth. How did we get to this point? Well, Brazil had a successful WTO challenge against our own cotton subsidy program under our own farm bill. They prevailed; and you would think that the logical, reasonable response from us would be to reform our cotton subsidy program. But that's not what happened. Instead, a new program has been created to the tune of $150 million per year to buy off Brazil cotton agribusiness so they won't pursue economic sanctions against our country.?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) also supported the amendment: ?I think if we were to have a contest?for the single stupidest thing the federal government could do, it would be to take $120 million more of American tax dollars and send it to subsidize Brazilian cotton farmers so we can continue to subsidize American cotton farmers. That's what we're talking about.?

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) opposed the amendment: ??This settlement is necessary to prevent Brazil from imposing almost $1 billion in retaliation against American goods and services, as it's entitled to do. This retaliation could take many dangerous and costly forms, including high tariffs on our American sales abroad and allowing Brazil to no longer protect American intellectual property rights. Such retaliation would be devastating. It would cost U.S. jobs and harm thousands of innocent workers who have nothing to do with this case.?

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) also opposed the amendment: ?While far from perfect, this agreement was arranged by the Obama administration and the country of Brazil. This [amendment] will incite a retaliatory trade war against the United States' intellectual properties?.it will hurt other segments of our economies?.Voting for this is a vote to institute a trade war with Brazil, no matter what the rhetoric is from the other [Democratic] side.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 183-246. Voting ?yea? were 108 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 75 Republicans. 164 Republicans and 82 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $150 million in funding for Brazil?s cotton industry.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 100
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to impose penalties on Americans who had not obtained health insurance?which they were required to do under the 2010 health care reform law that was supported by President Obama and expanded health insurance coverage to nearly all Americans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to impose penalties on Americans who had not obtained health insurance?which they were required to do under the 2010 health care reform law that was supported by President Obama and expanded health insurance coverage to nearly all Americans.. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Emerson urged support for her amendment: ?This is the bright lights example of what's wrong with the health care law. It compels Americans to give up their freedoms, to render their choices, and part with their hard-earned money to support a system of health care designed by and run by the federal government?No Americans should be forced to buy or purchase health insurance they neither want nor can afford, and the federal government has never based the purchase of a good or service as a condition of being a law-abiding citizen. The American people need some form of protection that the IRS will not begin to aggressively implement the individual mandate, and this measure ensures that it won't be implemented prior to the end of fiscal year 2011.?

(The healthcare reform measure that Republicans sought to derail was strongly supported by President Obama, and he signed it into law in March 2010. The law (which Republicans derided as ?ObamaCare?) imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance?a provision known as the ?individual mandate??and was estimated to expand insurance coverage to 95% of the U.S. population. Employers with more than 50 workers were required to provide health insurance for their employees. The measure added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, and subsidized the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people. In addition, the health care law imposed a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals.)

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) opposed the amendment: ??The gentlewoman's amendment?is going to completely eliminate implementation of the health care reform because the bottom line is that, if this amendment were to pass, then all of the positive things that have already gone into place in terms of eliminating discrimination against preexisting conditions or the other discriminatory practices?all of these things essentially depend on the mandate, because without the mandate, what happens is that insurance companies go back, again, to discriminatory practices. This is nothing more but an effort essentially to eliminate the health care reform?.And we all know, it's absolutely clear, that without the mandate, it is going to be impossible to carry out the coverage and the implementation of these important provisions that eliminate discrimination.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 246-182. All 238 Republicans present and 8 Democrats voted ?yea.? 182 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to impose penalties on Americans who had not obtained health insurance.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 99
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to pay the salary of any federal employee to implement or enforce the landmark 2010 health care reform law that was signed into law by President Obama and expanded health insurance coverage to nearly all Americans. .

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) prohibiting federal funds from being used to pay the salary of any federal employee to implement or enforce a major health care reform law enacted in 2010. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The healthcare reform measure that Republicans sought to derail was strongly supported by President Obama, and he signed it into law in March 2010. The law (which Republicans derided as ?ObamaCare?) imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance, and was estimated to expand insurance coverage to 95% of the U.S. population. Employers with more than 50 workers were required to provide health insurance for their employees. The measure added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, and subsidized the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people. In addition, the health care law imposed a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals.)
This was the last of three similar amendments intended to prohibit federal funds from being used to implement the landmark health care reform law described above. While the first amendment specifically prohibited the Health and Human Services Department from using federal funds to implement the law, the second amendment imposed this prohibition on all federal employees. This amendment?the third and last?specifically prohibited federal funding from being used to pay the salaries of federal employees charged with implementing the health care reform law.


Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) supported this amendment: ?ObamaCare will likely create the largest government bureaucracy in the history of our country, filled with even more government jobs than any other agency. There is one thing that ObamaCare will likely do very, very well, and it's this: It will create the largest bureaucracy of government workers in the history of the nation.  It isn't that we will necessarily get more doctors; it isn't that ObamaCare will necessarily give us more nurses or truly more health care. What we will get from ObamaCare?is increased costs in health care with a huge bureaucracy, all designed for the purpose likely of saying `no' to people when they need to have access to health care. What a bargain? Pay more, get less.?

Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) opposed the amendment: ??Somewhere in America today a family is losing their home because they can't afford the health care premiums for a diabetic dad and a hypertensive mom. Somewhere in America tonight a child will die because they have been denied health care because of a preexisting condition?.At some time in our life we will all get sick. We need health care. But you know what? We, as members of Congress, are very fortunate. We all get health care. We get the very best. But what about Jennifer and Lisa and James and grandma and grandpa and the Johnsons and baby Joshua? We represent them too. They deserve what we get .My constituents sent me to Washington to preserve the affordable health care legislation?.On behalf of the people of this nation who depend on our leadership, I call upon you to defeat this amendment.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 237-191. Voting ?yea? were 234 Republicans and 3 Democrats. 187 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to pay the salary of any federal employee to implement or enforce a major health care reform law enacted in 2010.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
N N Lost
Roll Call 98
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by any federal employee to implement or enforce the landmark 2010 health care reform law that was signed into law by President Obama and expanded health insurance coverage to nearly all Americans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) prohibiting federal funds from being used by any federal employee to implement or enforce a major health care reform law enacted in 2010. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

(The healthcare reform measure that Republicans sought to derail was strongly supported by President Obama, and he signed it into law in March 2010. The law imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance, and was estimated to expand insurance coverage to 95% of the U.S. population. Employers with more than 50 workers were required to provide health insurance for their employees. The measure added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, and subsidized the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people. In addition, the health care law imposed a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals.)

This was the second of three similar amendments intended to prohibit federal funds from being used to implement the landmark health care reform law described above. While the first amendment specifically prohibited the Health and Human Services Department from using federal funds to implement the law, this amendment imposed this prohibition on all federal employees. The third amendment specifically prohibited federal funding from being used to pay the salaries of federal employees charged with implementing the health care reform law.

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) supported this amendment: ?For this is the first time in the history of this country that the price of citizenship, this is the first time in the history of this country that the price of freedom, this is the first time in the history of this country that the price of being an American is that you have to buy a particular product that some unknown, faceless bureaucrat here in Washington ordains that you have to buy. We have come to the time that liberty is being taken away from us, that the strong hand of a Big Brother is reaching out and telling us you have to do this and you have to do that as the price of freedom and the price of liberty.?

Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) opposed the amendment: ??Poll after poll shows that Americans oppose repealing or defunding health care. The latest one says 62 percent of Americans oppose these efforts. Why? Because they have figured out that the nonsense coming from Republicans over the last several years about this being socialized medicine or a government takeover is just that--it is nonsense. What they figured out is that this is helping millions of Americans all around this country, millions of Americans like a little 8-year-old boy named Kyle McCollough who had the courage to walk into my office yesterday and tell me about his battle with hemophilia. His family has to put out $10,000 a month to pay for his medications, and repeal of this legislation means bankruptcy for his family and for him a lifetime of worrying as to whether he has a job that covers his illness or whether he has the medications to stay alive.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 241-187. All 238 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted ?yea.?. 187 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used by any federal employee to implement or enforce a major health care reform law enacted in 2010.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
N N Lost
Roll Call 97
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by employees of the Health and Human Services Department (the federal agency that enforces laws relating to health care) to implement or enforce the landmark 2010 health care reform law that was signed into law by President Obama and expanded health insurance coverage to nearly all Americans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) prohibiting federal funds from being used by employees of the Health and Human Services Department (the federal agency that enforces laws relating to health care) to implement or enforce a major health care reform law enacted in 2010. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

(The healthcare reform measure that Republicans sought to derail was strongly supported by President Obama, and he signed it into law in March 2010. The law imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance, and was estimated to expand insurance coverage to 95% of the U.S. population. Employers with more than 50 workers were required to provide health insurance for their employees. The measure added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, and subsidized the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people. In addition, the health care law imposed a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals.)

This was the first of three similar amendments intended to prohibit federal funds from being used to implement the landmark health care reform law described above. While this amendment specifically prohibited the Health and Human Services Department from using federal funds to implement the law, the second amendment imposed this prohibition on all federal employees. The third amendment specifically prohibited federal funding from being used to pay the salaries of federal employees charged with implementing the health care reform law.

Rehberg urged support for his amendment: ?My goal, and the goal of the majority of Americans, is to repeal the new health care law. Until then, my objective is to defund it entirely and stop its implementation. It is impossible at this time to describe the many reasons that justify defunding and repeal. Let me begin with my belief that the law is unconstitutional. It runs contrary to our most fundamental concepts of limited government and individual liberty and responsibility. It's a law designed by those who wish to control every health care decision made by health care providers and patients, by every employer and employee, by every family and individual. It will control every aspect of one-sixth of our economy?.This is a job killer. How foolhardy to create a new entitlement program when we cannot pay for the ones we already have and cannot meet our current operating expenses without borrowing beyond our ability to repay. This is madness.?
 
Rep. George Miller (D-CA) opposed the amendment: ?If you are a member of the American public, this amendment changes your life. For millions of Americans and for millions of their children, for millions of their parents this amendment changes their life.?So many of our new Republican colleagues have come to town and said, I'm just one of the folks back home. I'm not enamored with Washington. I'm just one of the folks back home. Vote for this amendment, and you won't be like the folks back home. Vote for the amendment, and you will be very different than the folks back home, because you will have insurance and they won't?.You won't lose your insurance when you need it for you, your children, or your spouse, but your constituents will. You are not just like the folks back home. You are doing grave damage to the folks back home.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 239-187. Voting ?yea? were 236 Republicans and 3 Democrats. 185 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used by employees of the Health and Human Services Department to implement or enforce a major health care reform law enacted in 2010.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
N N Lost
Roll Call 96
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce any regulations relating to greenhouse gas emissions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) prohibiting federal funds from being used to enforce any regulations relating to greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Poe urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment will put an end to any backdoor attempt made by the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] to regulate greenhouse gases to go around Congress and circumvent the will of the people. Americans have rejected this policy. Despite being rejected by Congress, the administration has ignored the will of the people and the law to further some political agenda. It's absolutely necessary that Congress take immediate action to ensure that the EPA does not continue to destroy industry across the board in our country. We're in the midst of a massive economic downturn, and the last thing we need to do is to shoot ourselves in the foot with unnecessary, expensive new regulations that are on business and industry, not to mention Americans will be left holding the bag.?

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) opposed the amendment: ?Republicans and Democrats both believe we have a legal obligation to protect our kids from asthma. It's that simple. And Republicans and Democrats share one common precept. We both like to breathe. And that breathing is now in question for our kids. It's incredible to me to think the Republicans are going to leave our kids breathless on occasion. That is breathless in itself?. this really is an attack on science, because the science is very clear on this?.The science shows this [greenhouse gas emission] is a problem. And we ought to embrace science as Republicans and Democrats instead of listening to the polluting industries, which want to give license to put untold, indefinite, infinite amounts of these carcinogens into our atmosphere. That is just plumb wrong.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 249-177. Voting ?yea? were 236 Republicans and 13 Democrats. 175 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to enforce any regulations relating to greenhouse gas emissions.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Lost
Roll Call 95
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used by U.S. intelligence agencies to obtain access to library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) that would have prohibited federal funds from being used by U.S. intelligence agencies to obtain access to library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Nadler urged support for his amendment: ?The amendment is very narrowly drawn to protect the privacy of all Americans from unwarranted governmental investigation in an area directly related to their beliefs and private thoughts. What we read, where we read, what we listen to, our interests, the type of information we seek, our private tastes in art and music all tell a great deal about us. The right to be free from the prying eyes of government in these areas is absolutely necessary to protect our rights of free speech, religious liberty, liberty of conscience, freedom of association and political freedom. This amendment will not prevent the government from obtaining this type of information provided it obtains the constitutionally required warrant.?

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) opposed the amendment: ?Applications for?orders seeking library circulation records and book sales records may only be approved by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Deputy Bureau of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the Executive Assistant Director for National Security?.There is absolutely no evidence that this authority has been abused or misused to unlawfully acquire library or business records. This prohibition could create a safe haven for terrorists to utilize America's libraries and bookstores to conduct research or communicate with each other.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 196-231. 164 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 32 Republicans voted ?yea.? 206 Republicans and 25 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used by U.S. intelligence agencies to obtain access to library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Government Surveillance of Citizens
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 94
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Review Board (which reviews permits relating to oil drilling) to invalidate a permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to drill for oil in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Don Young (R-AK) prohibiting federal funds from being used by the Environmental Review Board (which reviews permits relating to oil drilling) to invalidate a permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to drill for oil in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Young urged support for his amendment: ? Remember, we're [Alaskans] not the only ones in the Arctic anymore. Iceland, Greenland, China, Russia are all drilling. We're the only ones not involved; yet we have the best equipment?We have the proper equipment to do it safely. It's being held up by bureaucrats who don't want to issue the permits. EPA has said it's all right, but the review board says, no, it's not?All it [the amendment] says, if they have the permit issued, then it should go forth, and let's get on to serving this country as we should for the benefit of this nation, for the benefit of those so we don't have to go to war over in the Middle East over oil. So if you don't like what's going on over there, let's support this amendment.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ? The appeals board is the final decision-maker on administrative appeals under all major environmental statutes that the Environmental Protection Agency administers. It's an impartial body, independent of all agency components outside the immediate office of the administrator. To support this amendment is to take away people's right to petition their government. This is an impartial board that looks out for the regular citizen?.I'm disappointed that the gentleman's position would appear to favor Big Oil over the small Alaskan villages that are being protected??

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 243-185. Voting ?yea? were 230 Republicans and 13 Democrats. 176 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used by the Environmental Review Board to invalidate a permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to drill for oil in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 93
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds.Planned Parenthood provides a number of reproductive and child health services. Abortions are among the services that Planned Parenthood offers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) prohibiting Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds.Planned Parenthood provides a number of reproductive and child health services. Abortions are among the services that Planned Parenthood offers. However, Pence?s amendment would have banned federal funding for all Planned Parenthood services?not just abortions.  This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Pence urged support for his amendment: ?Now I know that some consider this amendment to be something of a war on Planned Parenthood. But this is not about Planned Parenthood's right to be in the abortion business. Sadly, abortion on demand is legal in America. This is about who pays for it. Nobody is saying that Planned Parenthood can't be the leading advocate of abortion on demand in America, but why do I have to pay for it? Nobody is saying that Planned Parenthood can't continue to be the largest abortion provider in America. But why do tens of millions of pro-life American taxpayers have to pay for it??

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) opposed the amendment: ??This amendment by the Congressman from Indiana continues? [a] pattern of contempt for women's health and basic rights. With this amendment, my colleague is trying to specifically exclude one provider of legal health services, Planned Parenthood, from federal funds?.and it needlessly puts the lives of American women in danger. Planned Parenthood carries out millions of preventative and primary care services every year. This includes immunizations and routine gynecological exams. This includes nearly 1 million screenings for cervical cancer, identifying more than 90,000 women who are at risk for cervical cancer. Every year, cervical cancer kills 4,000 women. If you can identify the risk early on, then you can save a woman's life. Planned Parenthood cares for more than 3 million American men and women every year.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 240-185. Voting ?yea? were 230 Republicans and 10 Democrats. 178 Democrats and 7 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds provided by a continuing resolution.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
FAMILY PLANNING Availability of Contraceptives
N N Lost
Roll Call 92
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for enforcing an Education Department regulation which withheld financial aid for career education programs that, according to critics (including the Obama administration), left students in debt and without the possibility of gainful employment. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Kline (R-MN) prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for enforcing an Education Department regulation which withheld financial aid for career education programs that, according to critics (including the Obama administration), left students in debt and without the possibility of gainful employment. (These schools, which include Kaplan University and Capella University, are sometimes referred to as ?proprietary schools? or ?career colleges.?) This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Kline urged support for his amendment: ?More than 3 million students attend proprietary schools. These schools, also known as for-profit schools or career colleges, provide students with skills that can be applied immediately to specific jobs in the workforce. With more than 6 million workers unemployed for more than 26 weeks, proprietary schools address a critical need in today's economy. These schools also help address the needs of local communities. Proprietary institutions are nimble and easily adapt to the demands of an ever-changing local economy?For years, proprietary schools have served young adults, single parents, first-generation college students, and low-income individuals. They have opened doors to bright futures and strengthened our economy.?

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) opposed the amendment: ?If we are going to build the workforce of the future, we need to increase the number of Americans with college degrees. But students should not have to mortgage their futures to pay for college, and they should be secure in knowing that when they graduate, they will have a degree or a credential that will help them to secure a job and to repay their student loans. Leaving college without a credential or with one that is of little value in the job market can leave students unable to climb out of debt. And that is what happens to far too many students who have been taken in by the aggressive marketing tactics of for-profit colleges.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 289-136. Voting ?yea? were 231 Republicans and 58 Democrats. 132 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 4 Republicans voted ?nay. As a result, the House rejected an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a continuing resolution for enforcing an Education Department regulation that withheld financial aid for career education programs that, according to critics, left students in debt and without the possibility of gainful employment.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 91
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have limited funding for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan during 2011 to $10 billion. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) that would have limited funding for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan during 2011 to $10 billion. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Nadler urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment states that not more than $10 billion of the funds made available by the [underlying] bill may be used for military operations in Afghanistan. The intent is clear: It is time to bring U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan to an end and to bring our troops home. The war effort in Afghanistan is no longer serving its purpose of enhancing the security of the United States, which should be our goal. We were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in Afghanistan. It made sense to go in and destroy those bases. And we did. We have every right, we have every duty to destroy bases which are being used to plot against the United States. But the CIA tells us that there are now fewer than 100 al Qaeda personnel in all of the country of Afghanistan.?

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) opposed the amendment: ?I'm not going to debate the issue of the war in Afghanistan. The fact is we're there, our soldiers are getting hurt every day, and too many of them are dying. So we're not going to debate that particular part of the war. What we're going to debate is this amendment. I've said?a number of times, we're not going to do anything in this defense appropriations bill in the savings that would have an adverse effect on the war fighter. This amendment would affect the war fighter, especially those in Afghanistan.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 98-331. Voting ?yea? were 91 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 7 Republicans. 232 Republicans and 99 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have limited funding for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan during 2011 to $10 billion.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 90
Feb 18, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated all federal funding ($7 million) for the Defense Department?s sponsorship of NASCAR. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) that would have eliminated all federal funding ($7 million) for the Defense Department?s sponsorship of NASCAR. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

McCollum urged support for her amendment: ?I would urge my Republican colleagues who are cutting homeless veterans, cutting law enforcement officers, cutting firefighters, why not cut some real waste and at the same time free NASCAR from its dependency on the American taxpayer? This amendment gives members a clear choice: a vote to end wasteful spending or a vote to keep wasting the American people's money. I urge a "yes" vote to end the funding to NASCAR.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed the amendment: ?Effective recruiting is critical to the military's ability to attract new qualified military men and women and maintain our all-volunteer force. The Department of Defense uses its sponsorship of NASCAR and other sporting events to create awareness of the different military services and the unique advantages and programs that come with serving our nation. Quite frankly? it's a great public-private partnership. NASCAR sponsorship has proven to be a very cost-effective recruiting tool, with some estimates stating that for every dollar the military puts in NASCAR sponsorship, it gets $4 in advertising through television, merchandise, and other outlets. We believe the dollars are well spent.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 148-281. Voting ?yea? were 118 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 30 Republicans. 209 Republicans and 72 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated all federal funding ($7 million) for the Defense Department?s sponsorship of NASCAR.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 89
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have increased funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (which regulates banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions?and guards against abusive practices by financial institutions against consumers) by $63 million. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) that would have increased funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB--which regulates banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions?and guards against abusive practices by financial institutions against consumers) by $63 million. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Holt urged support for his amendment: ?If we've learned any lesson from the financial crisis of the last several years, it should be this: by protecting consumers, we can protect the rest of the financial system. This amendment ? [provides] the appropriate amount of money that the CFPB estimates that it will need to get the work done for the sake of American consumers. This amendment would ensure that the recently created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?will have the independence and will have the resources that it needs to begin its critical work of protecting consumers and, by extension, protecting the entire financial system of this country.?

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) argued that the CFPB would receive adequate funding from the underlying continuing resolution: ?I am not disagreeing that there is a strong need for consumer protection. I'm a mom. I believe in that very strongly. But just as commerce shouldn't run wild, neither should consumer protection. So the [funding] limitation in the bill, I believe, represents an adequate level?. It represents the level of resources that are currently expended by [federal] regulatory agencies on consumer protection activities??

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 163-265. Voting ?yea? were 161 Democrats?including a majority of progressives--and 2 Republicans. 235 Republicans and 30 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by $63 million.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 88
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have increased funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission (which regulates financial markets) by $131 million. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) that would have increased funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC--which regulates financial markets) by $131 million. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Frank argued that the SEC needed additional funding in order to fulfill new responsibilities that had been given to the agency in major financial regulatory reform legislation enacted in 2010: ?The SEC is given new responsibilities for investor protection. We have asked the SEC to enforce a new fiduciary responsibility for people who are telling other people how to invest their money in various ways. They won't be able to carry it out?.The question is, Do you want to fund increased responsibilities for the SEC, or do you not? Do you want them to be able to hire the kind of people they need? Do you want them to improve their technology??

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) opposed the amendment: ??When my colleagues argue that the SEC doesn't have enough funding, I've got to argue perhaps they do but they're not using the funding in the appropriate ways. All of us have had to tighten our belts. And I understand the need for us to have strong regulation. I am not opposed to strong regulation of the financial industry--of banks and nonbanks and hedge funds and the like. But at a time when we're all trying to do more with less, I think that it's important for all of the agencies of the government to do more with less, too?.I believe very, very strongly that we must make this agency understand that they've got to try to revamp the systems they've got within and to use the moneys that we've given them??

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 160-270. Voting ?yea? were 154 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 6 Republicans. 233 Republicans and 37 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission by $131 million.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 87
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for the salaries and expenses of White House czars--high-ranking policy officials with interagency authority who were not subject to congressional oversight. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for the salaries and expenses of White House czars--high-ranking policy officials with interagency authority who were not subject to congressional oversight.. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Scalise urged support for his amendment: ??We've seen over the last 2 years under President Obama a very disturbing proliferation of czars, these unappointed, unaccountable people who are literally running a shadow government, heading up these little fiefdoms that nobody can really seem to identify where they are, what they are doing. But we do know that they're wielding vast amounts of power, many of them making six-figure salaries, and yet you can't find out exactly what they're doing?. So the bottom line is it's time that we reestablish our responsibility as a legislative branch. Let's get back to those constitutional principles, and let's get rid of these czars?.We shouldn't have the government running the shadow government, and we shouldn't have all these czars.?
 
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) opposed the amendment: ?This is a complex world. A president needs an ability to govern. The president relies on many of these executive positions to effectively govern this country. It is not a Democratic or Republican thing. It is about having an effective executive and effective administrative branch?. and while I certainly oppose this amendment, I would love to work with the gentleman and others to look at these positions one by one. We have discussed a proposal to eliminate the drug czar, for instance. The drug czar's office spends $21 million a year, and yet drug use has gone up since its inception, illegal drug use. There are ways that we can work together, but a blatant removal of the ability of a President to effectively govern the country is not a wise measure, and one that I rise in opposition to.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 249-179. Voting ?yea? were 236 Republicans and 13 Democrats. 178 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a continuing resolution for the salaries and expenses of White House czars--high-ranking policy officials with interagency authority who were not subject to congressional oversight..


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 86
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for the enforcement of environmental standards regulating air toxins released by cement manufacturing. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Carter (R-TX) prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for the enforcement of environmental standards regulating air toxins released by cement manufacturing. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Carter urged support for his amendment: ?The U.S. cement industry provides more than 15,000 high-wage jobs with an average compensation of $75,000 per year, and, along with allied industries, accounts for nearly $27.5 billion of the gross domestic product. Due to the recession, the cement industry has already lost over 4,000 jobs. This bad rule [regulating air toxins] threatens to close another 18 of the 97 cement plants nationwide and throw another 1,800 Americans out of good-paying private sector jobs?.as bitter as this would be in the middle of a horrible recession, if it were to guarantee that it would reduce mercury pollution, at least this high human cost might be justified. But when the cement production from these plants is shifted to China and India with no air quality standards, we could face increased mercury pollution worldwide and in this country.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ??What it [the amendment] does is to prohibit EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] from implementing, administering or enforcing final rules to control air toxins from the?cement industry. The standards for? cement kilns have already been promulgated. The amendment would not relieve the industry of the obligation to meet these standards. Even though the agency would be precluded from spending funds to enforce the standards, citizens or states could bring enforcement actions against these sources of pollution that didn't comply with the standards?.These funding limitations to stop EPA rules really have unintended consequences. They don't stop the legal requirements to regulate polluters. They really do, though, contribute to the pockets of lawyers that would litigate these issues out in the courtrooms.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 250-177. Voting ?yea? were 231 Republicans and 19 Democrats. 170 Democrats?including a majority of progressives--and 7 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a continuing resolution for the enforcement of environmental standards regulating air toxins released by cement manufacturing.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
N N Lost
Roll Call 85
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for a program that reimburses plaintiffs for attorneys? fees when they successfully sue the federal government. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for a program that reimburses plaintiffs for attorneys? fees when they successfully sue the federal government. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Lummis urged support for her amendment: ??This law [allowing for the recovery of attorneys? fees] has been hijacked by certain groups who use it to sue and recover judgments?There are 14 environmental groups that have recovered $37 million by filing 1,200 lawsuits for which they've recovered judgments and even legal fees under settlements with the federal government, thereby fueling the fire of suing the federal government.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ??Equal access to our nation's courts for all Americans is a hallmark of our democracy and our system of justice. Providing attorneys' fees to successful plaintiffs?ensures that the government is held accountable when it overreaches its power?.Providing attorneys' fees ensures that powerless, less wealthy individuals who wouldn't otherwise have a voice as a result of their not being wealthy or representing a corporate interest can nevertheless be heard by our government, by our court system; otherwise, they wouldn't have the means.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 232-197. Voting ?yea? were 227 Republicans and 5 Democrats. 185 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a continuing resolution for a program that reimburses plaintiffs for attorneys? fees when they successfully sue the federal government.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 83
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for the enforcement of ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? refers to a regulation prohibiting Internet service companies from giving preferential treatment to online content providers that pay more for faster service.) This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for the enforcement of ?network neutrality? rules. (?Network Neutrality? refers to a regulation prohibiting Internet service companies from giving preferential treatment to online content providers that pay more for faster service.) This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.)

Supporters of network neutrality argued that allowing major high-speed Internet companies such as Verizon and AT&T to charge Web site owners higher fees for faster service would lead to an essentially ?two-tiered? system. In other words, content providers with more money would thrive as a result of being able to pay for faster service. Less affluent web site owners, meanwhile, could see their traffic slow to a crawl as a result of slower, cheaper service.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC--which regulates interstate and international communication) had imposed network neutrality rules on Internet service providers in 2010. This amendment would have blocked funding for enforcing that regulation.

Walden urged support for his amendment, arguing that network neutrality would stifle innovation: ?The Internet?did not become the explosive driver of communications and economic growth it is today until it was opened up to free enterprise to participate in. And the American entrepreneurs and innovators did what they did best: they grew jobs and they created new technology. As early as the 1970s, the FCC took a hands-off approach to data services. FCC Chairman William Kennard reaffirmed this approach during the Clinton administration. In rebuffing requests to regulate cable Internet access service, Chairman Kennard explained in a 1990 speech, and I quote, `The fertile fields of innovation across the communications sector and around the country are blooming because, from the get-go, we have taken a deregulatory competitive approach to our communications structure, especially the Internet.??

Rep. Henry Waxman opposed the amendment: ? This amendment is bad policy. It would overturn a decision by the FCC enacted last December that would protect the Internet from those who might interfere with the ability of consumers to access whatever they want?.    Contrary to the hyperventilated rhetoric from the [Republican] majority, the FCC rules do not regulate the Internet. They do not grant the government the power to turn off the Internet. They do not determine what content is appropriate for users to access. Their goal is just the opposite. They prevent Internet gatekeepers, like Verizon, from deciding what content their subscribers can access.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 244-181. Voting ?yea? were 234 Republicans and 10 Democrats. 177 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a continuing resolution for the enforcement of ?network neutrality? rules.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Telecommunications Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media
N N Lost
Roll Call 82
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment waving a provision of current law that required fire departments receiving federal funding to limit salaries, and prohibited them from laying off firefighters for two years. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. David Price (D-NC) waving a provision of current law that required fire departments receiving federal funding to limit salaries, and prohibited them from laying off firefighters for two years. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Price urged support for his amendment: ??These provisions [requirements] are fine when local coffers are healthy, but we all know how strapped our cities and counties are right now, and these requirements, quite simply, are impossible for many of them to meet?.if we don't pass this amendment and waive these provisions, the fire organizations tell me that very few departments will be able to apply for [federal] funds. The burden of these requirements is simply too much right now. The result will be more firefighter layoffs, fewer rehires, and a less prepared country.?

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) opposed the amendment: ?Under these costly waivers, there are no controls, no salary limits, no local commitments. These proposed waivers totally undermine the original purpose and intent of the? program by forcing the taxpayers to subsidize the everyday operating expenses of local first responders, taking over, in essence, the funding of the local firemen. Given our nation's dire fiscal situation, we must take a stand that it is not the federal government's job to bail out every municipal budget or to serve as the fire marshal for every city and town across the country.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 267-159. Voting ?yea? were 188 Democrats and 79 Republicans. 156 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment waving a provision of current law that required fire departments receiving federal funding to limit salaries, and prohibited them from laying off firefighters for two years.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 81
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for carrying out activities of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which provides public funding for presidential candidates and political parties? nominating conventions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) prohibiting the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for carrying out activities of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which provides public funding for presidential candidates and political parties? nominating conventions. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

When filing tax returns, taxpayers have the option of devoting $3 of what they pay to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF). PECF then uses this money to help finance presidential candidates? campaigns (provided that those candidate agree to abide by campaign spending limits) and political parties? nominating conventions.

Cole urged support for his amendment: ?If signed into law, it [the amendment] will save $617 million over 10 years?. today's amendment is a down payment on that goal. CBO scored this amendment as saving $38 million in budgetary authority and $40 million in outlays for fiscal year 2011. We all know on this floor we need to cut spending?.we can start today by canceling political welfare for politicians and political party conventions. This is an easy amendment that I urge all members to support.?

Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) opposed the amendment: ?It's interesting that the gentleman calls it political welfare for elected officials. We should remember why this was created and when it was created. This was created after Watergate [the political scandal which eventually led to President Nixon?s resignation in 1974], and it was created as an understanding that we needed to move more and more to a situation where folks with a lot of money would not go around controlling our elections. The gentleman calls it political welfare for presidential candidates, but, in fact, without this, it is totally in the hands of people making donations; whereas, here, it is the average American citizen who gets a chance to donate to this campaign.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 247-175. Voting ?yea? were 234 Republicans and 13 Democrats. 174 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting the use of funds provided by a continuing resolution for carrying out activities of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which provides public funding for presidential campaigns.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Lost
Roll Call 80
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (which were assault vehicles designed for use by the U.S. Marine Corps that could travel on land or water) and the V-22 Osprey (a military aircraft that has been criticized by some as expensive an ineffective)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) that would have prohibited the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (which were assault vehicles designed for use by the U.S. Marine Corps that could travel on land or water) and the V-22 Osprey (a military aircraft that has been criticized by some as expensive an ineffective). This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.)

Woolsey urged support for her amendment: ?For years, the Pentagon has been throwing billions at weapons systems that don't work and don't keep us safe; weapons systems that are obsolete in the post-Cold War era; weapons systems that are not giving us bang for the buck. The V-22 Osprey is essentially a lemon. It makes defense contractors rich but doesn't make our military strong?. According to the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget, the EFV [Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle] breaks down on average every 8 hours and has trouble steering in water. Shouldn't we be worried about an amphibious vehicle that doesn't steer well in water? Would you spend billions of dollars on a family car that breaks down every 8 hours and doesn't steer well? And besides, even if the EFV ran like a dream, when was the last time we needed to launch an attack by sea? Once again, we're developing weapons for enemies that no longer exist.?

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) argued the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was ?good for the taxpayer, is good for the Marine Corps, and is good for the Marines.? He also argued: ?The V-22 is a most effective weapon being used in Afghanistan. Because of the high mountains, because of the high altitudes, because of the weather, the V-22 is the vehicle of choice to move our war fighters from where they are to where they have to be?.Here is an airplane--the Marines use this V-22 in Afghanistan on a regular basis?It has the ability for altitude, it has the ability for speed, and it is an outstanding aircraft today.?
 
The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 91-339. Voting ?yea? were 85 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 6 Republicans. 234 Republicans and 105 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited the use of funds provided by a ?continuing resolution? for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles and the V-22 Osprey.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 79
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have cut federal funding for Amtrak rail service by $446.9 million. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) that would have cut federal funding for Amtrak rail service by $446.9 million. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Sessions urged support for his amendment: ?In 2008, the Pew Charitable Trusts Foundation performed a study of Amtrak's services. According to that study, the 20 most egregiously inefficient train lines run annual deficits between $4.9 million and $59.4 million per year? Amtrak has proven to be a money-losing venture that the government can no longer sustain and support. In 2008 alone, Amtrak lost $1.1 billion. At a time of record debt and deficit, this amendment stops wasteful spending and directs the entire $446,900,000 to the spending reduction account to help pay down the debt. We must operate within some sense of business operation of common sense. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to reduce federal spending.?

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) opposed the amendment: ?The gentleman's proposal is to cut?$446 million?That happens to leave us in a situation where there is almost no money left for Amtrak to operate, to do any capital program for the rest of the year? if the gentleman's amendment were adopted, it would take $446 million out [of Amtrak?s federal funding], leaving only $403 million left?So it virtually ends up with leaving them [Amtrak] nothing?for the kind of emergencies and anything that would be otherwise planned for the rest of the year. Now that, in fact, means then that Amtrak will in fact terminate another 1,000 jobs.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 176-250. Voting ?yea? were 176 Republicans. All 190 Democrats present and 60 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut federal funding for Amtrak rail service by $446.9 million.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
N N Won
Roll Call 78
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $211.2 million in funding for international institutions that provide loans and grants to countries for economic development. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) that would have eliminated $211.2 million in funding for international institutions that provide loans and grants to countries for economic development. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Heller urged support for his amendment: ??It is not our responsibility to create jobs in foreign countries. Our responsibility is to create jobs right here at home. And I choose America first. I think that's what our constituents are asking: In this process, do you choose America first over foreign aid to some of these other countries? I choose America first. I choose Nevada first. And I think when our nation is facing some significant budget crisis and many Americans needs are still unmet, the fact that Congress continues sending so much money overseas is unconscionable, and I believe the federal government is responsible to Americans before any other country.?

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) opposed the amendment: ?I understand that it is quite easy in a time of fiscal belt tightening to offer an amendment to reduce funding for international financial institutions, but I would encourage my colleagues to recognize that voting in favor of this amendment has serious consequences for U.S. interests?.The amendment would undermine the ability of the United States to meet its commitment to global debt relief efforts and to countries around the world that rely on grants and loans from these institutions to stabilize their economies?.This would represent a major step back from U.S. engagement in these organizations and dramatically impact U.S. national security.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 190-241. Voting ?yea? were 180 Republicans and 10 Democrats. 182 Democrats and 59 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $211.2 million in funding for international institutions that provide loans and grants to countries for economic development.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
N N Won
Roll Call 77
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating $10.7 million in funding for the East-West Center, which was established to improve relations between the United States and Asia. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Francisco Canseco (R-TX) eliminating $10.7 million in funding for the East-West Center, which was established to improve relations between the United States and Asia. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Canseco urged support for his amendment: ?I'm not here to debate the merits of the East-West Center. I'm not here to question whether or not the money has been used to do good things. What I'm here to do today is to debate and question why this program should be considered a priority and receive taxpayer funding when we're in a fiscal crisis. Make no mistake, we are in a fiscal crisis that threatens not only our economic security but our national security.?

Del. Eni Faleomavega (D-American Samoa) opposed the amendment: ??The East-West Center promotes a better understanding among the peoples and nations of the United States, Asia, and the Pacific region, and this understanding is critical to our own economic, political, and social interests, especially our strategic and military interests in this region of the world. The Asia Pacific region is the world's most populous region, where more than 4 billion people live, currently more than 60 percent of the world's population. Two of the three largest economies in the world are in the Asia Pacific region. Our trade and commercial relations with the Asia Pacific region are critical to our own economic interests in this important region.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 274-155. Voting ?yea? were 230 Republicans and 44 Democrats. 148 Democrats?including a majority of progressives--and 7 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment eliminating $10.7 million in funding for the East-West Center, which was established to improve relations between the United States and Asia.


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
N N Lost
Roll Call 76
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating $42.7 million in funding for the United States Institute of Peace, which was established to help resolve international conflicts peacefully. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) eliminating $42.7 million in funding for the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), which was established to help resolve international conflicts peacefully. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Weiner (D-NY) urged support for his amendment: ??It is incumbent on all of us to?[see] opportunities where we can find things in the budget that perhaps we can do without. Just like in the eighties when there were so many of the programs we felt important to us came under attack during the Reagan years, it sharpened our focus and it made us come up with better and better programs that dealt with some of the critique of our opponents. We need to do that now as well. The idea of weeding out government waste is a Democratic progressive ideal?.should we be spending $100 million of taxpayer money to build a think tank, a giant headquarters a stone's throw from the State Department?... This is a moment that we progressives have to embrace. There's a lot of waste. They didn't get a lot of it, the other [Republican] side of the aisle. And I think that we should be looking for opportunities to say maybe we can do things a little bit differently.?

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) opposed the amendment: ??The U.S. Government simply must have options for solving international conflict other than military action or international diplomacy. USIP is the only independent U.S. government actor that is dedicated solely to conflict mediation and resolution. For example, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, USIP has been on the ground since the beginning of these conflicts, actively bringing together parties to the conflict and building an agenda for the resolution of these conflicts, resulting in less need for American troops and paving the way for stabilization efforts.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 268-163. Voting ?yea? were 226 Republicans and 42 Democrats. 150 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 13 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment eliminating $42.7 million in funding for the United States Institute of Peace.


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
N N Lost
Roll Call 75
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated all funding ($283 million) for the National Labor Relations Board, which was established to protect workers? rights and promote productive negotiations between labor and management. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) that would have eliminated all funding ($283 million) for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which was established to protect workers? rights and promote productive negotiations between labor and management. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Price urged support for his amendment: ??I rise on my amendment, which identifies an agency that can only be described as anti-worker and anti-business and anti-jobs?. It is the National Labor Relations Board. It's a New Deal relic charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and investigating unfair labor practices?.So my amendment is very simple. At a time of crippling national debt that destroys jobs, my amendment would defund the NLRB and save the American taxpayer $283 million?.So a vote for this amendment would be a vote for America's job creators, and we would work to defund an agency whose time has really, really passed.?

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) opposed the amendment: ?The NLRB has been in existence for 75 years. Its functions are to protect the rights of workers to unionize or not unionize; to promote peaceful, productive relations between labor and management?.Why do we want to throw out the entire system with nothing to replace it? If the amendment were adopted, what would take the place of the NLRB in determining workers' preferences about unionization? If workers are fired for joining a union, where would they go for a remedy??

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 176-250. Voting ?yea? were 176 Republicans. All 190 Democrats present and 60 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated all funding ($283 million) for the National Labor Relations Board, which was established to protect workers? rights and promote productive negotiations between labor and management.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Won
Roll Call 73
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment increasing funding for state programs serving children with disabilities by $557 million, but cutting $337 million in funding for education grants to low-income school districts, and cutting $500 million in funding for grants to states to improve poorly-performing schools. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) increasing funding for state programs serving children with disabilities by $557 million, but cutting $337 million in funding for education grants to low-income school districts, and cutting $500 million in funding for grants to states to improve poorly-performing schools. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

McMorris Rodgers urged support for the bill: ??35 years ago Congress recognized that too many special needs children were being denied an education and the opportunity to maximize their potential and contribution to our society, and 35 years ago severely disabled children who were confined to state institutions received no education. Special needs students did not attend school. They were kept out of classrooms, receiving little education. Today?Special needs children are no longer confined to institutions. The number of special needs students who graduate high school with a diploma has increased. ? we have increased our nation's expectations of our children. But more can and must be done.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) opposed the amendment: ?Poor children need access to high-quality education and students with disabilities need access to high-quality education. The kind of barbaric attitude that is being carried out here in terms of playing these two populations off against one another is simply outrageous. It's unfair to the students with disabilities because it is being done in their name, and we know how desperate they and their families are for education and for the resources to carry out that education. And in their name, we are stripping the resources from some of the poorest children, and also some of the poorest children with disabilities we're stripping the resources for them.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 249-179. Voting ?yea? were 232 Republicans and 17 Democrats. 174 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment increasing funding for state programs serving children with disabilities by $557 million, but cutting $337 million in funding for education grants to low-income school districts, and cutting $500 million in funding for grants to states to improve poorly-performing schools.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 70
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating all federal funding (totaling $15 million) for the Presidio Trust Fund, which oversees the management of Presidio National Park in San Francisco. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Thomas Reed (R-NY) eliminating all federal funding (totaling $15 million) for the Presidio Trust Fund, which oversees the  management of Presidio National Park in San Francisco. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Reed urged support for his amendment: ??When I look at the Presidio Trust fund and I look at the park--and it's a great park. I concede that point. But the plan for the park was to be self-sufficient. And upon researching, going through page by page of this budget and doing the hard work, my staff and I have uncovered that this park is at the point where it can be self-sufficient on its own?. They have a $15 million gift from the private sector from Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr?. And at this point it's time for us to put all our cards on the table and say, Now that you are standing on your own two feet, when we face this fiscal crisis, this government now has to make a responsible decision. And to me, that responsible decision is to allow the park to stand on its own two feet?.So I stand today and ask your support for this amendment. I think it is the responsible action to do.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ?In 1996, Congress established the Presidio Trust to govern this unique national park site and to ensure its preservation by making it financially self-sustaining. And that's exactly what has happened. Over the past 12 years, appropriations as a percentage of the overall trust budget have been reduced from over 95 percent federal funding in fiscal year 1998 to less than 20 percent in fiscal year 2010. The current ratio of private investment in the Presidio to federal appropriations is already greater than 4:1?.Eliminating funds just 1 year short of its goal violates the spirit of the 1996 law, and it undermines the trust's ability to achieve self-sufficiency?.It also sends a terrible signal to communities across the country that may also have innovative solutions in partnering with the federal government.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 239-186. Voting ?yea? were 224 Republicans and 15 Democrats. 176 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment eliminating all federal funding (totaling $15 million) for the Presidio Trust Fund, which oversees the management of Presidio National Park in San Francisco.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Lost
Roll Call 69
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating all federal funding (which totaled $4.5 million) for a program that supports artistic and cultural initiatives in the District of Columbia. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Francisco Canseco (R-TX) eliminating all federal funding (which totaled $4.5 million) for a program that supports artistic and cultural initiatives in the District of Columbia. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Canseco urged support for his amendment: ?I'm not here to debate the merits of the program. I'm not here to question whether or not the money has been used by the institutions to accomplish good things. What I'm here to do today is to debate and question why this program should be considered a priority and receive taxpayer funding when we're in a fiscal crisis. Make no mistake, we are in a fiscal crisis that threatens not only our economic security but our national security.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ?This amendment would entirely eliminate funding for a successful, proven program. The National Capital Arts grant program was established in 1986 to fill a substantial funding gap affecting the major private arts groups in the District of Columbia, our nation's Capital?.The fact that we are talking about such a small amount of money in the context of such an enormous deficit, it really seems wrong that children in our nation's Capital would be denied outreach from these arts institutions that are proximate to where they live but wholly inaccessible without this program. So I would urge that we have a heart, particularly for the children in the schools in Washington, D.C. Reject this amendment and leave this very small amount of money in this interior appropriations bill.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 248-177. Voting ?yea? were 223 Republicans and 23 Democrats. 164 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 13 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment eliminating all federal funding (which totaled $4.5 million) for a program that supports artistic and cultural initiatives in the District of Columbia.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities
N N Lost
Roll Call 68
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating $20.6 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts (which provides federal funding for things such as musical performances and theater). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) eliminating $20.6 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts (which provides federal funding for things such as musical performances and theater), or ?NEA.? This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Walberg urged support for his amendment: ?Though some would call for the full defunding of the NEA, I'm not doing that. You see, I believe in the true fine arts, and of course that's defined by individual standards, I understand. I found that to be a fact for a number of years when I was a finance chair of a symphony orchestra?. The National Endowment for the Arts does provide benefits to our country, and helps fund some true fine arts. However, we are asking them to only fund their true priorities, priorities approved by the majority of taxpaying citizens, of sponsors and of patrons of the arts. Limiting resources sometimes refocuses and defines that focus.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ?The NEA has already been cut by $22 million in this [underlying] continuing resolution. The NEA's contribution to deficit reduction is really infinitesimal, but its elimination would not be. It would be very costly? the NEA represents less than 1/100th of discretionary spending. The economic dividend this Nation receives from the Endowment for the Arts, however, far exceeds the investment we make. It seems to me that, when there are too many issues that divide this nation, and when there remains too much harshness and rancor, the arts have an even more important role to play because they remain a powerful medium through which we can all transcend our common differences, appreciate beauty, and empathize with all of humankind. This is what the arts are all about.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 217-209. Voting ?yea? were 214 Republicans and 3 Democrats. 187 Democrats and 22 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment eliminating $20.6 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities
N N Lost
Roll Call 67
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $7.4 million in funding for the U.S. Forest Service International Programs (which promote forest preservations and sustainable management of forests around the world). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) that would have eliminated $7.4 million in funding for the U.S. Forest Service International Programs (which promote forest preservations and sustainable management of forests around the world). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Pompeo urged support for his amendment: ?This program started out a long time ago to provide funds for saving the Brazilian rainforest. But like so many programs that had good intentions, it's morphed, it's morphed into something terribly different. Just this past year, this program funded field trips for students in Mexico to follow the migration of monarch butterflies. It funded research in China to protect the Panda habitat and make sure that we didn't have the infestation of forest pests in China. I think the Chinese can fund themselves if someone thinks that's a worthy task. Last year, the International Forestry Program funded a study on the declining hummingbird populations in the western United States, Canada, and Mexico.?

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) opposed the amendment: ?One of the things that disturbs me most is the way that a program has been described that allows students to interact with one another and learn about forestry management, biology, and how we are interconnected in this world. There are no Mexican students that go on field trips here in the United States, but there is an exchange of classrooms in Canada and the United States and in Mexico where teachers online follow the migration of the monarch. Students learn about, yes, insects. They learn about the trees that are important to them, and they learn biology. These are very, very important programs. They should not be maligned.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 171-256. Voting ?yea? were 168 Republicans and 3 Democrats. 186 Democrats and 70 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $7.4 million in funding for the U.S. Forest Service International Programs.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 66
Feb 17, 2011
(H.R. 514) Final passage of legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance program known as the Patriot Act. Those provisions?which were set to expire on February 28, 2011?included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance program known as the Patriot Act (a law designed to conduct surveillance on terrorists but which critics argued could be used against anyone). Those provisions?which were set to expire on February 28, 2011?included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records.  

The House had already passed a bill to extend these provisions for ten months. The Senate, however, amended the bill to shorten the extension to three months. This vote was on the Senate-passed, three-month extension of the three provisions described above. 

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) urged support for the bill: ?Just this week, the FBI announced that the probability that the U.S. will be attacked with a weapon of mass destruction at some point is 100 percent. The head of the FBI's WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] Directorate said that the type of attack that keeps him awake at night is an attack by a so-called `lone wolf.' With the likelihood of a weapons of mass destruction attack at 100 percent, we cannot afford to leave our intelligence officials without the tools they need to keep America safe. The war on terror is not over, but the terrorist threat is constantly evolving. We must fully arm our intelligence community with the resources they need to prevent another devastating and deadly terrorist attack.?

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) argued: ?There is bipartisan consensus that these important tools for our Intelligence Community cannot be allowed to lapse. The?[bill],which was also supported by a wide bipartisan margin in the other body [the Senate], will keep these three needed priorities in place for the next 90 days, till May 27.?

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) opposed the bill: ? This dragnet approach allows the government to review personal records even if there is no reason to believe that the individual involved had anything to do with terrorism. This poses a threat to individual rights in the most sensitive areas of our lives with little restraint on government. Congress should either ensure that the things collected with this power have a meaningful connection to suspected terrorism activity or allow the provision to expire.?

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) argued: ?To win the war on terror, the United States must remain true to the founding architects of this democracy who created a Constitution which enshrined an inalienable set of rights. These Bills Of Rights guarantee certain fundamental freedoms that cannot be limited by the government. One of these freedoms, the Fourth Amendment, is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. We do not circumvent the Fourth Amendment, or any other provision in the United States Constitution, merely because it is inconvenient.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 279-143. Voting ?yea? were 211 Republicans and 68 Democrats. 117 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 26 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance program known as the Patriot Act. Since the Senate had already passed this bill, House passage sent the bill to President Obama, who had publicly stated his support for the measure.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Government Surveillance of Citizens
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 65
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating $10 million in funding for sewer construction in Tijuana, Mexico. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Thomas Reed (R-NY) eliminating $10 million in funding for sewer construction in Tijuana, Mexico. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. This sewer project--which was funded by a U.S.-Mexico border environmental protection program--had been intended to address concerns by San Diego-area residents that human waste from Tijuna had washed up on their shores.  
 
Reed urged support for his amendment: ??Today I rise to ask that we?remove $10 million of spending on a sewer project in Tijuana, Mexico. When we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar on the backs of our children and our grandchildren, I ask the question: Why are we spending $10 million so that a sewer could be constructed in Tijuana, Mexico?... rather than use our dollars, our borrowed dollars that are being absorbed by our children and grandchildren, we hold them [Tijuanans] accountable. And I think this is exactly what we should be doing and standing and calling out this kind of wasteful spending, in my opinion.?
 
Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) argued that the underlying CR already cut funding for the U.S. Mexico Border program, and that Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needed to review the sewer project further before cutting additional funding for it: ? In the CR we have reduced the U.S.-Mexico border program by $7 million from $17 million in 2010 to $10 million in the continuing resolution. It's a 41 percent decrease?.This is a program that we plan to have active discussions on with the EPA during the 2012 budget hearings, and we'll either build the case for further reductions, or we will have a better understanding of why we should look elsewhere for additional cuts based upon programmatic needs.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 228-203. Voting ?yea? were 219 Republicans and 9 Democrats. 182 Democrats and 21 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment eliminating $10 million in funding for sewer construction in Tijuana, Mexico.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 64
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating $8.5 million in funding for a program requiring companies that were major sources of carbon pollution (such as power plants) to report their greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Mike Pompeo (R-KS) eliminating $8.5 million in funding for a program (known as the Greenhouse Gas Registry) requiring companies that were major sources of carbon pollution (such as power plants) to report their greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.   

Pompeo urged support for his amendment: ? My amendment takes on only one very costly piece of the EPA's [Environmental Protection Agency] effort to destroy jobs, the Greenhouse Gas Registry. I'm not against bridal registries or even the registration of property deeds, but forcing businesses to comply with these unnecessary and burdensome regulations will destroy jobs in Kansas and all across America. This registry drives up the cost of doing business all with the asserted mission of satisfying the left's obsession with regulating every nook and cranny of our existence.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ?It [Pompeo?s amendment] says that we should not even bother to find out how much pollution is being put into our air. I guess you could call it the `ignorance is bliss' amendment. The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program simply requires the largest sources of carbon pollution--power plants, refineries, and the very largest factories--to tell EPA and the public how much they pollute. If we are ever going to deal responsibly with this pollution, we need to know where it is coming from and have some idea of how much is being emitted. This amendment is yet one more example of putting profits and pollution ahead of people and public health.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 239-185. Voting ?yea? were 228 Republicans and 11 Democrats. 176 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment eliminating $8.5 million in funding for a program requiring companies that were major sources of carbon to report their greenhouse gas emissions.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Lost
Roll Call 63
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated all funding (more than $64 million) for an environmental science research program. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated all funding (more than $64 million) for an environmental science research program. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.   

Flake urged support for his amendment: ?It's the intent of this amendment to zero out this costly [environmental science research] program for the rest of the year?Don't get me wrong. If we were printing money in a basement and if we had plenty of it, this may be something we'd want to spend some money on. I'm sure something good comes out of it, but we're not in that situation now. We have a debt of $14 trillion, and we have an annual deficit now of $1.5 trillion. When we're funding research like this?I think it's time to question whether or not this is the time we should do this or not.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ?It [Flake?s amendment] ends funding for EPA's [the Environmental Protection Agency] groundbreaking computational toxicology research effort, which enables us to screen literally thousands of chemicals at one time. I've seen how this works, and it's extraordinarily productive and cost-efficient. It screens chemicals for environmental health hazards, and it saves millions of dollars in the process. These innovative and cost-saving tools also offer the potential to greatly reduce our dependence on animal testing?.Now, it's not the end of the world, but it will be the end of a program that works very well--a program that recruits, trains, and integrates some of the very best minds in preserving and protecting our environment.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 199-230. Voting ?yea? were 190 Republicans and 9 Democrats. 182 Democrats and 48 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated all funding for an environmental science research program.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 61
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $35 million in funding for the purchase of new land by the federal government. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) that would have eliminated $35 million in funding for the purchase of new land by the federal government. (The amendment would have cut all funding available for this program for the remainder of 2011.) This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Lummis urged support for her amendment: ?My amendment?would strike the remaining funding for this 6 months in this year totaling $35 million from the budgets of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the Forest Service for the purpose of buying new federal land. There are many alternatives to buying land with cash that would allow them to continue using Yankee ingenuity, and those include land exchanges.?

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: ??This amendment represents a complete elimination of a bipartisan program that has existed for 45 years?. It will hurt willing seller landowners by preventing agencies from finishing out commitments that are already in place?.many landowners, ranging from elderly widowers and family trusts to ranchers and forest owners, have pressing financial needs that now depend on completion of these ongoing land and water conservation projects.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 213-216. Voting ?yea? were 207 Republicans and 6 Democrats. 184 Democrats and 32 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $35 million in funding for the purchase of new land by the federal government.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 59
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $24 million in funding for the Selective Service System, which maintains information on individuals who could potentially be eligible for military conscription (a military draft). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) that would have eliminated $24 million in funding for the Selective Service System, which maintains information on individuals who could potentially be eligible for military conscription (a military draft). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.  

Defazio argued that the Selective Service System no longer served a purpose, given that the U.S. no longer drafted people into the military, and did not intend to do so in the future: ?I don't think there are many in this House who believe that we are going to go back to having a draft. The Pentagon doesn't want to go back to a draft. The Pentagon has said time and time and time again they believe in an all-volunteer military; the all-volunteer military is superior to forced enlistment, as in the years of the draft. We're a higher quality, we're using significant incentives to get people to enlist in the military, and we have the best military in the world as a result. So why would we maintain this bureaucracy??

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) opposed the amendment: ?While most would hope that we would never need to use the draft again, I think this agency is an important insurance policy against unforeseen threats. If we eliminate the Selective Service System, it would take us over a year to draft men into military service, whereas now it would take 90 to 120 days. And in any kind of an emergency, wartime situation, this could be disastrous.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 130-301. Voting ?yea? were 86 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 44 Republicans. 196 Republicans and 105 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $24 million in funding for the Selective Service System, which maintains information on individuals who could potentially be eligible for military conscription (a military draft).


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 58
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would eliminated $70 million in funding for research relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) that would have eliminated $70 million in funding for research relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.  

Latta urged support for his amendment: ?While citizens across the country are struggling to pay their bills, it would be very difficult to justify not being able to cut $70 million from this office. With Americans also struggling with higher gasoline prices and other fuel costs rising, Congress should focus on legislation that allows us to utilize resources we have available to drive prices down. The free market is the best place for technological innovation. Reducing taxes and eliminating burdensome regulations will allow private companies to bring new, more fuel-efficient technologies to market when it becomes cost effective.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed the amendment: ??The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program supports technology, research, and development to keep America competitive and ensure our access to domestic energy sources?.there is simply no more fat to trim [in this program]. Cutting the program would cost excessive job losses and defaults on past commitments. While I support the gentleman's efforts to further reduce spending, this amendment would go too far beyond the careful balance that we have crafted in this bill.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 137-293. Voting ?yea? were 135 Republicans and 2 Democrats. 190 Democrats and 103 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $70 million in funding for research relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
N N Won
Roll Call 57
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have removed a ban on funding for ?weatherization assistance? (which helps low-income households to make their homes more energy-efficient) and the State Energy Program (which provides assistance to states for energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) that would have removed a ban on funding for ?weatherization assistance? (which helps low-income households to make their homes more energy-efficient) and the State Energy Program (which provides assistance to states for energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.  This CR explicitly prohibited the use of funds for weatherization assistance or the State Energy Program.

Tonko urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment has strong bipartisan appeal. It is about lowering utility bills for people on the brink. It is about preserving construction, inspection, and renovation jobs?. It has been a harsh and unrelenting winter in many parts of America. We should not be leaving our friends and our neighbors out in the cold. The State Energy Program is a 30-year old program that provides resources to states for energy efficiency and renewable energy, and it works?.The other program my amendment addresses is the Weatherization Assistance Program. Some 38.6 million low-income, elderly, and disabled households are eligible for renovations to become more energy efficient and to lower their electric bills. Per household, this program creates a $437 savings or more in annual utility bills, or about 35 percent off of a typical utility bill.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed the amendment: ?Now is? the right time to cut the fat and replace indiscriminate spending increases with smart prioritization and oversight?.[The] Weatherization Assistance [program] and the State Energy Program, do not focus on competitiveness and instead pass funding on to state and local governments?.The amendment ignores these commonsense facts and the imperative to reduce spending by moving unneeded funding back into an already bloated program. I therefore, oppose the amendment and urge members to do the same.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 208-223. Voting ?yea? were 185 Democrats and 23 Republicans. 217 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have removed a ban on funding for weatherization assistance and the State Energy Program.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 56
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have increased funding for research on new energy technology by $20 million and cut funding for fossil fuel research by $20 million. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) that would have increased funding for research on new energy technology by $20 million and cut funding for fossil fuel research by $20 million. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. 

Specifically, Inslee?s amendment would have increased funding by $20 million for the ?Advanced Research Projects Agency?Energy,? or ?ARPA-E,? which was established in 2009 to advance research and development on energy technology.

Inslee urged support for his amendment: ??We have a simple amendment that will help restore two principles to our budget: one is innovation, and two is balance. What our amendment would do would be add $20 million to the ARPA-E account. It would be fully paid for with a balance taken out of the fossil fuel research account?Our nation's economic performance will live or it will die on the ability to innovate a new clean energy technology; and today, tonight, when we're speaking, the Chinese are investing $786 billion in the development of new clean energy technologies.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed the amendment: ?ARPA-E has shown some promise in advancing our competitiveness; but in the light of the tough tradeoffs we've had to make in this bill--and indeed, they've been tough--I can't support further increased funding for ARPA-E before we've had a broader discussion of the new program?.The [Inslee] amendment would reduce funding for fossil energy research and development. The program cut by the amendment ensures not only that fossil energy which generates nearly 70 percent of the nation's electricity is clean and efficient but that it uses technologies invented in America and creates jobs here at home.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 159-273. Voting ?yea? were 146 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 13 Republicans. 227 Republicans and 46 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected and amendment that would have increased funding for research on new energy technology by $20 million and cut funding for fossil fuel research by $20 million.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Coal Industry
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 55
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $50 million in funding for research on energy technology. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) that would have eliminated $50 million in funding for research on energy technology. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. 

Specifically, this amendment would have cut $50 million from the ?Advanced Research Projects Agency?Energy,? or ?ARPA-E,? which was established in 2009 to advance research and development on energy technology. Biggert argued that this program threatened to divert funding from the Department of Energy?s (DOE) Office of Science: ?I have always believed that ARPA-E threatens to divert resources from the DOE's Office of Science, the largest supporter of basic research?. In supporting my concerns about spreading resources too thin, now-[Energy] Secretary Steven Chu said the following of ARPA-E in testimony before the Energy subcommittee in 2006: `In funding ARPA-E, it is critical that its funding not jeopardize the basic research supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Science???I urge my colleagues to join me in cutting ARPA-E funding and in rejecting duplication and stretched resources.?

Rep. Ed Pastor (D-AZ) opposed the amendment: ??It [ARPA-E) is a promising program that already has provided not only research but the taking of the research, the finding of private capitalization, and the developing of products that can go forward. One of the problems that we have found in the past for many years is that the Department of Energy has sometimes great problems in doing the basic research or in funding basic research. It has a difficult time getting out to find capitalization and then in being able to commercialize it. ARPA-E is a process that is small but big in talent which is able to take innovative ideas and is able to research and take them to the next step with private capitalization. It is a program that takes public investment and increases the investment by the private sector.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 170-262. Voting ?yea? were 165 Republicans and 5 Democrats. 187 Democrats and 75 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $50 million in funding for research on energy technology.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
N N Won
Roll Call 54
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated more than $324 million in funding for the Legal Services Corporation, which provides legal aid to the poor. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) that would have eliminated more than $324 million in funding for the Legal Services Corporation, which provides legal aid to the poor. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. 

Duncan urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment deals with the Legal Services Corporation, which is a relic from the Great Society?Folks, let me remind you that we have a trillion-and-a-half-dollar deficit spending and we have $14 trillion in debt. We can't afford to keep paying for liberal trial lawyer bailouts like the LSC. This is low hanging fruit if we are serious about cutting spending in this body.?

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) responded: ?When the Legal Services Corporation is described as a `trial lawyer bailout,' I think it shows a total misapprehension of what Legal Services does. For many Americans, tens of thousands of Americans who are at risk of having their house foreclosed out from under them, seeking assistance from Legal Services to stay in your home, that is not a trial lawyer bailout. I don't think people who go to Legal Services because they can't afford an attorney and desperately want to stay in their home feel like they are giving some sort of bailout to trial lawyers when they go to the neighborhood Legal Services and ask for help to stay in their home.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 171-259. Voting ?yea? were 170 Republicans and 1 Democrat. 191 Democrats and 68 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated more than $324 million in funding for the Legal Services Corporation.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
N N Won
Roll Call 53
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment increasing funding for the COPS program (which provides federal funding to states for additional police officers) by $298 million, and cutting funding for space exploration programs by $298 million. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) increasing funding for the COPS program (which provides federal funding to states for additional police officers) by $298 million, and cutting funding for space exploration programs (under the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA) by $298 million. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Weiner urged support for his amendment: ?The COPS program has been a success not just because it's been a big-city program. You've got COPS over the first 10 years of the program in every single state. Every single community has had an increase because of police officers. And I thought being tough on crime was a Republican ideal. You slash this funding and what's going to wind up happening is your localities are going to have one of two choices: Lay off police officers or raise taxes some other way. It's going to be a net zero effect because they're going to want to keep these cops on the beat.?

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) objected to cutting NASA?s budget: ?This [underlying] bill makes deliberate choices within NASA to strike an appropriate balance between achieving budget savings?and safety and mission assurance to prevent spaceflight accidents?. I teach security to prevent the Chinese from having cyber attacks. We had hearings the other day, and we learned that the Chinese have had cyber attacks against NASA's computers. This amendment would say that it's okay, that we can have the cyber attacks. We're going to put it somewhere else. In addition?this amendment will cost NASA's civil servants and contractors between 1,500 and 2,000 jobs.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 228-203. Voting ?yea? were 158 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 70 Republicans. 169 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment increasing funding for the COPS program by $298 million, and cutting funding for space exploration programs by $298 million.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Assisting Crime Impacted Communities
Y Y Won
Roll Call 52
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $10 million in funding for the construction of scientific research facilities. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) that would have eliminated $10 million in funding for the construction of scientific research facilities. (Such construction is funded through the federal government?s National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST], an agency that works with private industry to develop new technologies.) This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Latta urged support for his amendment: ??My amendment would reduce spending for the Department of Commerce under the National Institute of Standards and Technology construction of research facilities account by $10 million?This program provides government money for construction of research science buildings. Currently, H.R. 1 [the underlying bill] funds the technology construction of research facilities account at $58 million and this amendment would reduce it to $48 million. While scientific research is important, when our nation is experiencing massive deficits, we have to make these difficult cuts.?

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) opposed the amendment: ?This account has been hit very, very hard already. Each reduction in the bill was carefully determined. The funding level provided for? construction in the bill is $89 million below? 2010 [funding]. NIST has played a key role in enabling innovative ideas with regard to strengthening infrastructure for advance manufacturing, service and science. NIST works with the private sector, other government agencies and universities to develop and apply the technology, measurements and standards needed for new and improved products.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 184-247. Voting ?yea? were 157 Republicans and 27 Democrats. 165 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 82 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $10 million in funding for the construction of research science buildings.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 51
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating approximately $34 million in funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center, which provides information to law enforcement relating to drug consumption, production, and trafficking. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) eliminating approximately $34 million in funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), which provides information to law enforcement relating to drug consumption, production, and trafficking. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Flake urged support for his amendment: ?I think everybody admits that there is no reason for this facility to exist anymore and to keep sucking millions and millions of dollars every year from the taxpayer. The White House, successive White Houses, Republican and Democrat alike, have said this is inefficient. It is not filling its mission. So it is up to Congress now, when we're running a $1.5 trillion deficit that stacks up against a $14 trillion debt, to look at programs like this and say, All right. Enough is enough. It's time that we close them down.?If we can't do this, where can we save money? If we can't close down a center that's received hundreds of millions of dollars that the White House, successive administrations, Republican and Democrat, have said it is duplicative, it is not fulfilling its mission; if we can't close these kind of things down, when are we going to save money??

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) opposed the amendment: ?I appreciate the gentleman's usual zeal for finding savings in the budget, but I believe his amendment goes too far to achieve savings without considering the impacts. NDIC plays an important role in analyzing and disseminating information to law enforcement and the intelligence community about the production, trafficking, and consumption of illegal drugs. It produces the annual drug threat assessments, as well as local and regional assessments.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 262-169. Voting ?yea? were 217 Republicans and 45 Democrats. 147 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 22 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment eliminating approximately $34 million in funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 49
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have provided $5 million to assist farms in transitioning to organic production methods. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) that would have provided $5 million to assist farms in transitioning to organic production methods. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

DeFazio urged support for his amendment: ?In the most recent statistics, the organic sector of the agriculture production in this country was nearly $27 billion. That's up from $4 billion in 1997. There are over 14,500 family farms engaged in organic agriculture, and they have been experiencing dramatic increases. Now you might say, well, why would we want to continue to research and help them. Well, we're spending a tremendous amount of money in research and subsidies on other crops which are obviously totally developed and do not need assistance. In this case, we're talking about many people who own struggling family farms who want to convert [to organic methods]. They're interested in moving to organics because they know there is potential for higher profitability with those products with dramatically increasing demand.?

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) opposed the amendment: ??If you consider that organic farming is a $25 to $27 billion industry--in fact, my friend Mr. DeFazio just used the number $27 billion--it is a successful ongoing and growing industry already, and I do not believe that we need to continue the transition subsidy program to get more farmers in it. American farmers know where the profit is. They follow the commodity. The commodity follows the profit. They get into an area where it is going to be most profitable already.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 136-296. Voting ?yea? were 127 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 9 Republicans. 231 Republicans and 65 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have provided $5 million to assist farms in transitioning to organic production methods.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
N Y Lost
Roll Call 48
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $1.5 billion in funding for the Iraqi police. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) that would have eliminated $1.5 billion in funding for the Iraqi police. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Holt urged support for his amendment: ?If we are going to be cutting Pell Grants [for low-income college students] and energy research and heating assistance for families here in the United States, we certainly should take a hard look at Pentagon spending as well. Would taxpayers want their dollars to go to pay for Iraqi police on the streets of Baghdad when we are cutting funding for police in Trenton, New Jersey, and other cities and towns across our nation??

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) urged opposition to the amendment: ?The Iraqi Security Forces [the Iraqi police] Fund is required to enable the Iraqi Security Forces to reach minimum essential capabilities. These capabilities will allow those forces to maintain internal security with police forces in the lead and defense forces in support while building foundational capabilities for the Iraqi military forces to provide external defense prior to U.S. forces' departure on 31 December 2011.This is our nation's commitment, our President's commitment, our Commander-in-Chief's commitment.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 133-299. Voting ?yea? were 117 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 16 Republicans. 224 Republicans and 75 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $1.5 billion in funding for the Iraqi police.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 47
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $400 million in funding for improving infrastructure (such as roads, bridges, etc.) in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) that would have eliminated $400 million in funding for improving infrastructure (such as roads, bridges, etc.) in Afghanistan. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Jones urged support for his amendment: ?I bring this amendment to the floor because of the frustration of the American people. Here we are trying to find $400 million to put in an infrastructure fund for Afghanistan?At this time in America's history when we are having these debates tonight that I've heard all day long with the frustration of the members of Congress from both parties that here we cannot even balance the budget of this country and we're trying to find this money to go to the infrastructure of Afghanistan and we're going to say to the American people, we can't help you with your infrastructure needs in your counties, in your towns, in your cities, it makes absolutely no sense to me, and more important than me is to the American people.?

A majority of Democrats supported this amendment. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) argued: ?I support this cut not because I am opposed to providing humanitarian aid to other countries. To the contrary, I am very supportive of helping improve living conditions and human rights in countries around the world by investing in infrastructure. However, I have strong concerns about this important work being directed by our armed forces because it raises the specter of the `militarization' of our foreign aid, which can often place troops, aid workers, and the civilian population at risk.?

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) urged opposition to the amendment: ??The reason we have troops in Afghanistan is to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a sanctuary from which terrorists will launch attacks against us. For us to one day be able to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, the Afghan people have to be able to stand on their own two feet, and this fund is designed to help them do that.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 135-294. Voting ?yea? were 99 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 36 Republicans. 202 Republicans and 92 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $400 million in funding for improving infrastructure in Afghanistan.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 46
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment eliminating $450 million in funding for an alternative engine for the F-35 fighter jet. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) eliminating $450 million in funding for an alternative engine for the F-35 fighter jet. This program had been widely criticized as wasteful. (Among others, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was a prominent critic of the alternative engine.) This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Rooney urged support for his amendment: ?I rise today in support of my amendment striking funding for an extra engine for the F-35 fighter jet to immediately save the American taxpayers $450 million. It is dubious why Congress continues to fund a program that the Air Force, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Department of Defense adamantly state they do not want. Just today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the program ``an unnecessary and extravagant expense'' and stated that this money is needed for higher priority defense efforts. As we decide which cuts to make in our defense, ones that won't hurt our troops today, this should be at the top of the list?.I urge my colleagues to follow through with their promises, to listen to the voters as to why they sent us here, and to vote to strike the funding for this expensive and unnecessary program.?

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) urged opposition to the amendment, arguing that adding a second engine would improve military readiness and save taxpayers money through increased competition among contractors: ??There are many of us who serve on the Armed Services Committee who have a little different view than does the Pentagon on this subject. So what are the benefits of the second engine?... First of all, it is the sense of security. You've got basically an aircraft now that is going to be serving the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Air Force. All of our services will be dependent on this one aircraft, which is the Joint Strike Fighter. That particular Joint Strike Fighter [currently] has one engine?Certainly, the competition is another good point. You save a lot of money. If you've got two different contractors bidding against each other, we're going to get a good price on the engines, and that's going to be important, particularly year in and year out.?

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 233-198. Voting ?yea? were 123 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 110 Republicans. 130 Republicans and 68 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment eliminating $450 million in funding for an alternative engine for the F-35 fighter jet.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N Y Won
Roll Call 45
Feb 16, 2011
(H.R. 514) Legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance program known as the ?Patriot Act? -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill. Specifically, the bill extended provisions allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance program known as the Patriot Act (a law designed to conduct surveillance on terrorists but which critics argued could be used against anyone). Those provisions?which were set to expire on February 28, 2011?included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records).  

The House had already passed a bill to extend these provisions for ten months. The Senate, however, amended the bill to shorten the extension to three months. This vote was on the Senate-passed, three-month extension of the three provisions described above.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?None of these three provisions have been held unconstitutional by a court. There hasn't even been a challenge to the roving wiretaps, and there hasn't been a challenge to the lone wolf provision that is also up for renewal?.They [critics of the bill] are saying that there has been a violation of civil liberties. There hasn't been. No court has found that there has been a violation of civil liberties?.On none of these provisions that are up for renewal has there really been any meritorious complaint. There has been this great big fear that civil liberties have been violated, but when you get down to the facts, no court has found that civil liberties have been violated.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) urged opposition the resolution and the underlying measure: ?We have the lone wolf provision, which relates to foreign nationals in our country that are not specifically connected to a foreign terrorist network or foreign government or represent a security threat. We have the roving wiretap provision, again particularly problematic in how it's been designated where you don't have to even designate whose phone you are tapping or the area in which the phone is being tapped. All that has to be shown is that it might be a phone that is used by somebody who might be considered a suspect by someone without any oversight with regard to that matter. There's nothing to restrict it from being used to tap the phones of an entire neighborhood, an entire block, an entire city.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 254-176. Voting ?yea? were 236 Republicans and 18 Democrats. 172 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation extending expiring provisions of a  controversial government surveillance program known as the Patriot Act.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Government Surveillance of Citizens
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Absent N Lost
Roll Call 43
Feb 15, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have cut $415 million from the Navy and Air Force? s annual funding for aircraft procurement. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) that would have cut $415 million from the Navy and Air Force? s annual funding for aircraft procurement. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) urged support for the amendment: ?I rise to support the amendment introduced by my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez). If we are truly serious about reducing our long-term deficits, we must look at the whole picture, a picture that includes defense. There can be no sacred cows or pork. Today, defense spending, including security-related programs, comprises almost 20 percent of Federal spending, yet it is the only part of this budget that is exempt from the tough cuts facing all other Departments.?

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) urged opposition to the amendment, arguing it could deprive American troops of needed aircrafts such as the V-22 (an aircraft that had been deployed by the U.S. during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan): ??I am going to be very brief and just say very simply, this amendment could possibly have a serious adverse effect on the soldiers and the Marines who are operating in and around the mountains of Afghanistan who need what the V-22 can provide them. If it is not available, if it is not there, they could be in serious trouble. So this is not a good amendment, and I don't think we should support it in any way.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 105-326. Voting ?yea? were 88 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 17 Republicans. 223 Republicans and 103 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have cut $415 million from the Navy and Air Force? s annual funding for aircraft procurement.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 41
Feb 15, 2011
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have cut $18.75 million for boards and commissions that provide advice and policy recommendations to the Defense Department. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would have cut $18.75 million for boards and commissions that provide advice and policy recommendations to the Defense Department. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Flake urged support for his amendment: ?I realize the amount of savings in this amendment is relatively small compared to the overall defense budget, but I think the point has to be made here that the defense budget is not sacrosanct. We can't say if it is defense, it is all good; that there is no waste here, we can't cut any. So it is important to look for ways we can actually save.?

A majority of Democrats supported Flake?s amendment. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) argued: ?I rise today in support of the bipartisan Flake amendment?In my opinion, any discussion about getting our fiscal house in order must begin with a real discussion about reducing the bloated size of the Pentagon??

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) argued that Flake?s proposal needed to be reviewed more thoroughly before such budgetary cuts could be safely implemented: ?? America is at war. We have soldiers fighting, losing their lives, having serious injuries not only in Afghanistan but in Iraq and, before that, in Kosova and in Bosnia. We have known war for a long time, and cutting the defense budget was unheard of?.The idea of the Flake amendment may be a good idea. The [Defense] subcommittee would like to be able to analyze it to make sure that it doesn't have any kind of a negative effect [on military readiness]. It may be, as we go through our process for this year, that we would include that, but the subcommittee would very much like to have an opportunity to review this recommendation by the Flake amendment.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 207-223. Voting ?yea? were 115 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 92 Republicans. 148 Republicans and 75 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected and amendment that would have cut $18.75 million for boards and commissions that provide advice and policy recommendations to the Defense Department.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 40
Feb 15, 2011
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

N N Lost
Roll Call 39
Feb 15, 2011
(H.R. 1) Legislation funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for government programs, including food stamps (which provide nutritional assistance to the poor), community health centers, Pell Grants for low?income college students, and funding for state job training programs ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. For example, the bill cut funding from environmental protection programs, food stamps?which provide nutritional assistance to the poor?as well as community health centers, scientific research, Pell Grants for low?income college students, the National Institutes of Health, federal aid for state law enforcement programs, and funding for state job training programs.

Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ??We have a $1.65 trillion deficit?.This is not fiscal restraint. This is not sanity. I have four grandchildren, and the reason I am here is to make sure that they have a future. We cannot continue this outrageous spending that is going on in Washington. And when you look at this bill that we are talking about?less than 1/16th of the annual deficit. It is scratching the surface?.this is the first step to bring some fiscal sanity back to Washington, D.C., to actually understand what the ramifications are long-term in spending.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Democrats very much want to eliminate wasteful spending. We are committed to making the tough choices to get this budget more balanced, to get our deficit reduced, and start paying down the debt. That's not the issue. The issue is where do you make those cuts. My friends on the other side of the aisle talked about shared sacrifice. Well, the only people that seem to be sacrificing under their approach are middle-income families and the poorest of the poor in our country.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 242-174. Voting ?yea? were 234 Republicans and 8 Democrats. 174 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for government programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 38
Feb 15, 2011
(H.R. 1) Legislation funding the federal government through September 2011 and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for government programs, including food stamps (which provide nutritional assistance to the poor), community health centers, Pell Grants for low?income college students, and funding for state job training programs ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as ?continuing resolutions, or ?CRs?) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.  If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. For example, the bill cut funding from environmental protection programs, food stamps?which provide nutritional assistance to the poor?as well as community health centers, scientific research, Pell Grants for low?income college students, the National Institutes of Health, federal aid for state law enforcement programs, and funding for state job training programs.

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ? The American people didn't send us here to pass promises. They didn't ask us to start making tough choices next year. There is always next year, but our effort to rein in the size, scope, and cost of the federal government has got to start right now. This continuing resolution honors our commitment, starting with funding for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year?.Reductions of this magnitude are really challenging but are very necessary given the fiscal situation facing the nation. Priority funding in this bill is focused on the most essential programs, such as security for the courts, counterterrorism, financial intelligence operations, as well as drug task forces.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Sadly, the Republican leadership has brought to the floor a continuing resolution that jeopardizes American jobs and our economic future by rolling back investments that are necessary and important to help our private sector grow and help create jobs. This CR thoughtlessly makes extreme cuts to appease an extreme wing of the other party at the expense of the American people. This CR arbitrarily kills jobs. It would set our country back decades in scientific research simply because Republicans don't like what the science says. Worst of all, it puts our children's health at risk by handcuffing the EPA's ability to please polluters.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 240-179. All 238 Republicans present and 2 Democrats voted ?yea.? 179 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for government programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 36
Feb 14, 2011
(H.R. 514) Final passage of legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance law known as the ?Patriot Act.? Those provisions included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance law known as the Patriot Act (a law deigned to conduct surveillance on terrorists but which critics argued could be used against anyone). Those provisions?which were set to expire on February 28, 2011?included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business and library records).

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) urged support for the bill: ?I rise in support of these three provisions of the Patriot Act. I think it's very important that we extend them for a variety of reasons. The lone wolf provision, roving wiretaps, which have been in place for some time, we're not breaking any new ground here. Roving wiretaps have been used by local law enforcement for years in terms of dealing with drug dealers, organized crime. We're simply allowing those roving wiretaps to be extended to those who may be engaged in terrorist activities.?

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) also supported the bill: ?As the Democrats choose to play politics rather than worry about the safety of our country, we're now under a time crunch. Only 4 legislative days, including today, remain for the House to extend these provisions before they expire and our nation is placed at a greater security risk. We can't let our guard down. These are needed provisions to keep America safe, and I urge the House to approve this bill today and urge the other body to act quickly to reauthorize these provisions.  It's time to put politics aside and do what's right for America's national security.?

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) urged opposition to the bill: ?The most flawed provision of the three provisions is the one I want to comment on briefly, and that is the so-called ``lone wolf'' provision--someone operating on his own and not particularly attached to anyone. This provision allows our full national security surveillance powers, which are designed to be used against enemy governments, to be used against a single individual who is unaffiliated with any foreign power or terrorist group?.I come before you today to urge that we do not accept this measure. It is way too broad. And under the statutory definition, virtually any evildoer can be declared a ``lone wolf.'' So, ladies and gentlemen, let's be tough on terrorists. But let's describe this in a way that it will not be used in a way that will create fears that if we drop the lone wolf provision, the world may come to an end. I urge that this one provision is sufficient reason for us not to agree to the measure before us today.?

Rep. Bobby Scott (R-VA) also opposed the bill: ?I am opposed [to the bill] because I simply do not accept the argument that, in order to be safe, we necessarily have to sacrifice our rights and freedoms. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, who stated during the formation of our nation: `They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' One of the provisions in the bill reauthorizes section 215 of the Patriot Act, which gives the government power to secretly invade our private records, such as books we read at the library?There is no requirement to show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of being related to a specific act of terrorism, and therefore, there is no meaningful standard to judge whether or not the material is, in fact, necessary.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 275-144. Voting ?yea? were 210 Republicans and 65 Democrats. 117 Democrats?including a majority of progressives?and 27 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation extending expiring provisions of a controversial government surveillance law known as the ?Patriot Act.?


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Government Surveillance of Citizens
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 35
Feb 14, 2011
(H.R. 514) On a motion that would have required all investigations of U.S. citizens conducted under a controversial government surveillance law known as the Patriot Act to ?be conducted in a manner that complies with the Constitution of the United States?? The motion also would have required courts to expedite cases brought by American Citizens who claim that their civil rights have been violated as a result of the Patriot Act.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required all investigations of U.S. citizens conducted under a controversial government surveillance law known as the Patriot Act (a law designed to conduct surveillance on terrorists but which critics argued could be used against anyone) to ?be conducted in a manner that complies with the Constitution of the United States?? The motion also would have required courts to expedite cases brought by American Citizens who claim that their civil rights have been violated as a result of the Patriot Act.  A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion was offered to legislation extending expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. Those provisions included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business records (such as library records).

Rep. David Price (D-NC) urged support for the motion to recommit: ??This motion is as straightforward as they come. The Patriot Act should be enforced in a manner that doesn't violate Americans' constitutional rights, and those who believe their constitutional rights have been violated should receive fair and equitable treatment by the courts. I can't imagine any of my colleagues from either party voting against this bedrock principle that the executive branch should respect the Constitution when it comes to investigating American citizens. After all, each of us took an oath of office last month to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I know we all take that oath seriously.?

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) urged opposition to this motion: ??Rather than expediting the request to seek information on terrorists, this motion to recommit tells the court to expedite civil lawsuits against the United States Government to get money damages under a provision that is in the Patriot Act...They don't need to be expedited. What needs to be expedited is going after the terrorists with business records?.Now, there is a provision in the motion to recommit that says that the Constitution has to be followed. We don't need to put things in the statute book that says the Constitution needs to be followed. That's the supreme law of the land. This is completely redundant. It is unnecessary?.Vote against this motion to recommit and pass the bill.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 186-234. All 184 Democrats present and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.?. 234 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have required courts to expedite cases brought by American Citizens who claim that their civil rights have been violated as a result of the Patriot Act, and would also have required all investigations of U.S. citizens conducted under  a controversial government surveillance law known as the Patriot Act to ?be conducted in a manner that complies with the Constitution of the United States??


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Government Surveillance of Citizens
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 32
Feb 11, 2011
(H. Res. 72) On a motion that would have required congressional committees to ?place a high priority on preserving the standards that ensure the safety of the nation's food supply, safe drinking water, and the safety of children's toys? when conducting a review of federal regulations. This motion was offered to legislation instructing congressional committees to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations from federal agencies and identify which of those regulations may have been hindering economic growth and job creation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions that would have required congressional committees to ?place a high priority on preserving the standards that ensure the safety of the nation's food supply, safe drinking water, and the safety of children's toys? when conducting a review of federal regulations. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.) This motion was offered to legislation instructing congressional committees to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations from federal agencies and identify which of those regulations may have been hindering economic growth and job creation.

There was no debate on this motion to recommit. Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO), however, spoke to the substance of his motion to recommit earlier during general debate on the underlying measure: ?I'm in favor of a strong and vigorous debate here on cutting red tape and finding bipartisan solutions to our nation's problems. But to pretend that commonsense oversight measures to protect families and businesses are inherently burdensome with no benefit fails to acknowledge the reality of the financial disaster that was brought upon this country on Wall Street?.It fails to acknowledge toxic toys and drywall coming into this country. It fails to acknowledge the increase in deadly food-borne illnesses from lax oversight of our food safety system. And it fails to acknowledge what the American people want us to work on right now, and that's creating good jobs to support their families.?

Rep. Pete Sessions  (R-TX) had responded: ?The Republican Party is now in charge in this House, and our agenda is about jobs. It is about reducing spending, and it is about reducing the size of government?.we start with rules and regulations that not only stifle innovativeness, that stifle inventions, and jobs, and job creation, but it is harming the way of life of the free enterprise system and sapping the energy from that system. By reviewing existing, pending, and proposed regulations from agencies of the federal government, Congress can begin to assist small and large businesses to focus on job creation, economic growth, and innovation. We first need to understand the too true impact that is being placed upon the free enterprise system.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 178-242. Voting ?yea? were 178 Democrats. 239 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion that would have required congressional committees to ?place a high priority on preserving the standards that ensure the safety of the nation's food supply, safe drinking water, and the safety of children's toys? when conducting a review of federal regulations.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 31
Feb 10, 2011
(H. Res. 72) Legislation instructing congressional committees to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations from federal agencies and identify which of those regulations may have been hindering economic growth and job creation ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the measure

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation instructing congressional committees (such as the Education and the Workforce Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, etc.) to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations from federal agencies and identify which of those regulations may have been hindering economic growth and job creation.

Rep Pete Sessions (R-TX) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation: ?Regulatory burdens are hindering job growth. Regulatory burdens are hindering investment and innovation while eroding some of the most basic and fundamental freedoms in America. Congress and this administration must work together to do more than prevent harmful new regulations. They must also review, study, and eliminate unnecessary rules that are already on the books.?

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) criticized the resolution: ?While we won't object to Republicans wanting to debate the efficiency of federal regulations, we do object to spending 9 1/2 hours debating what everyone has already agreed to. House committees are already required to conduct oversight. They already examine federal regulations. And they already promulgate legislation making changes to federal law. Wasting this body's time debating this matter only serves to underscore that Republicans still have no plan for improving the economy and no interest, it does appear, in prioritizing legislation that will create jobs and best serve the American people.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 255-169. Voting ?yea? were 237 Republicans and 18 Democrats. 169 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation instructing congressional committees to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations from federal agencies and identify which of those regulations may have been hindering economic growth and job creation.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Lost
Roll Call 30
Feb 10, 2011
(H. Res. 72) Legislation instructing congressional committees to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations from federal agencies and identify which of those regulations may have been hindering economic growth and job creation ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the measure

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation instructing congressional committees (such as the Education and the Workforce Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, etc.) to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations from federal agencies and identify which of those regulations may have been hindering economic growth and job creation. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation: ?With the current high unemployment rate, it is essential we do everything reasonably possible that we can to look at and to reduce government rules and regulations that impede job creation and economic growth, that discourage innovation, hurt or harm global competitiveness, limit credit, create economic uncertainty, impose unnecessary paperwork and cost on small businesses, and that result in large-scale and often unnecessary unfunded mandates on employers.?

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) argued that Republicans? vision of less regulation would result in repealing clean air standards: ??Let me give a warning to people about what happens when the Republican Party wants to look at regulations. You know the first thing they did, they're trying to repeal the Clean Air Act. They're trying to gut the Clean Air Act which is the guardian angel for the air that our kids breathe?.They have a dirty air act that would gut the ability--that would eliminate in total the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate harmful gases, carbon dioxide, ozone, and a host of other dangerous chemicals.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 240-180. All 234 Republicans present and 6 Democrats voted ?yea.? 180 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation instructing congressional committees to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations from federal agencies and identify which of those regulations may have been hindering economic growth and job creation.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Lost
Roll Call 29
Feb 10, 2011
(H.R. 514) Legislation extending expiring provisions of a terrorism surveillance program known as the ?Patriot Act? -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill. Specifically, the bill extended provisions allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business records (such as library records).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending expiring provisions of a terrorism surveillance program known as the Patriot Act. Those provisions?which were set to expire on February 28, 2011?included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business records (such as library records).

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The individuals and networks who seek to do harm to Americans change and adapt every single day.?The threat is much different today than it was 10 years ago, and that's why we need to recognize that they are constantly changing and adapting their tactics to try and undo the United States of America and the free world. Staying one step ahead requires a tremendous amount of flexibility, ingenuity, coordination, and of course the right law enforcement tools?.This measure is designed to ensure our national security. Without national security, we won't have the potential to save and create jobs in this country.?

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The Patriot Act has been used more than 150 times to secretly search individuals' homes, and 90 percent of those cases have had nothing to do with terrorism. The Patriot Act was used against Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim American, innocent of any crime, to tap his phones, seize his property, copy his computer files, spy on his children, take his DNA, all without his knowledge?part of what makes America special is the balance between our civil liberties and our rights as Americans and our national security. When so many Members of Congress, so many Americans on both sides of the aisle, of all ideologies, feel that we can do better, I think we owe it to the people of this country to do better and have a better process as a Congress, to improve the Patriot Act to help protect our liberties and keep us safe over the long term.?
 
The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 248-176. Voting ?yea? were 233 Republicans and 15 Democrats. 172 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation extending expiring provisions of a terrorism surveillance program known as the Patriot Act.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Government Surveillance of Citizens
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 28
Feb 09, 2011
(H.R. 519) Final passage of legislation that would have required the United Nations to return $179 million to the United States. These funds had been overpaid into the United Nations (U.N.) Tax Equalization Fund, which reimburses UN employees for taxes paid on their salaries. (The Obama administration, however, had not requested that the overpaid funds be returned to the U.S. Treasury.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have required the United Nations (U.N.) to return $179 million to the United States. These funds had been overpaid into the United Nations Tax Equalization Fund, which reimburses U.N. employees for taxes paid on their salaries. (The Obama administration, had not requested that the overpaid funds be returned to the U.S. Treasury, because the U.N. had begun to use the money to enhance Security at its New York headquarters.)

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.  

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) urged support for the bill: ?The Tax Equalization Fund, TEF, is a roundabout mechanism premised on the U.N. belief that U.N. employee salaries and benefits should be tax free. The TEF has collected much more from the U.S. than it has paid out. The U.N.'s most recent biennial financial report states that the amount of the U.S.-paid surplus has grown to $179 million. The U.N. readily admits that it does owe the overpaid money to our U.S. taxpayers?.Should the 179 million taxpayer dollars, which the U.N., again, admits it has no right to keep, be returned to the United States taxpayers??

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) criticized the bill: ?I am opposed to this bill for one simple reason: It's not a smart thing to do. It recklessly jeopardizes the security and safety of the people of New York City, and it does so for no reason. This is a national security issue?. Why do this? Only a radical, wild-eyed obsession with taking a pound of flesh out of the U.N., which at times deserves it, and to do so no matter what the cost to our national security. Where is the common sense in clawing back money that is going to be used for desperately needed, long overdue security upgrades that we have the money for anyway and have the responsibility to do anyway??

The vote on this bill was 259-169. Voting ?yea? were 236 Republicans and 23 Democrats. 167 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?nay. While a majority of members voted in favor of this bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since this bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure was defeated. As a result, the House rejected legislation that would have required the United Nations to return $179 million to the United States. Republican leaders, however, remained free to bring up the bill again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.


WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Won
Roll Call 26
Feb 08, 2011
(H.R. 514) Passage of legislation that would have extended expiring provisions of a terrorism surveillance program known as the ?Patriot Act.? Those provisions included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business records (such as library records).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have extended expiring provisions of a terrorism surveillance program known as the Patriot Act. Those provisions?which were set to expire on February 28, 2011?included allowing the federal government to wiretap terrorism suspects, authorizing intelligence officials to conduct surveillance of individuals who are not known to be affiliated with terrorist groups (known as the ?lone wolf? provision), and providing federal investigators?after receiving permission from a judge?with access to business records (such as library records).

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.  

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) urged support for the bill: ?We are safe today because the men and women of our Armed Forces, our intelligence community, and our law enforcement agencies work every single day to protect us. And Congress must ensure that they are equipped with the resources they need to counteract continuing terrorist threats. On February 28, three important provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will expire. These provisions give investigators in national security cases the authority to conduct `roving' wiretaps, to seek certain business records, and to gather intelligence on lone terrorists who are not affiliated with a known terrorist group. These types of provisions have been used by domestic law enforcement agencies for years to apprehend typical criminals. It is common sense to give our national security investigators the same tools to fight terrorists that our police officers have to combat crime.?

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) also supported the measure: ?With respect to roving wiretaps? Law enforcement has been using roving wiretaps for years against drug dealers and organized crime, I believe since 1986. Extending that roving wiretap provision to terrorists makes good sense. We have been doing it. We need to give law enforcement and our intelligence services the tools they need to take down these terror plots before they become operational. That is why this extension is needed.?

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) criticized the bill, including the extension of the lone wolf provision: ?Surveillance of an individual who is not working with a foreign government or organization is not what we normally understand as foreign intelligence. There may be many good reasons for government to keep tabs on such people, but that is no reason to suspend all our laws under the pretext that this is a foreign intelligence operation.?

Some Republicans also opposed the bill. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) argued: ??It is good to be safe, but governments can't make us safe. I question whether or not we have been made safer by the Patriot Act. But let's say a law makes us somewhat safer. Is that a justification for the government to do anything they want? For instance, if you want to be perfectly safe from child abuse and wife beating, the government could put a camera in every one of our houses and our bedrooms, and maybe there would be somebody made safer this way. But what would you be giving up.  So perfect safety is not the purpose of government. What we want from government is to enforce the law and to protect our liberties.?

The vote on this bill was 277-148. Voting ?yea? were 210 Republicans and 67 Democrats. 122 Democrats and 26 Republicans voted ?nay.? While a majority of members voted in favor of the bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Thus, the bill was defeated. As a result, the House rejected legislation that would have extended expiring provisions of a terrorism surveillance program known as the ?Patriot Act.? Republican leaders, however, were expected to bring the bill up again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Government Surveillance of Citizens
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 25
Jan 26, 2011
(H.R. 359) Final passage of legislation eliminating public funding for presidential campaigns.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation eliminating public funding for presidential campaigns. Specifically, the underlying bill eliminated U.S. taxpayers? option to designate a portion of their income tax for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. The bill would transfer the current balance of that fund to the United States Treasury for deficit reduction. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this bill reduced the deficit by $617 million over ten years.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) urged support for the bill: ??The estimates are that we could save $612 million over a 10-year period. We all know in this Chamber we have a $1.4 trillion deficit problem. Governing is choosing and prioritizing. This is $612 million that doesn't feed a single American, doesn't educate a single American, doesn't build a single mile of interstate highway or infrastructure, doesn't pay to defend the country; it simply goes to support a handful of politicians that want to run for President, many of whom are marginal?. So in an era where we have to make genuinely hard decisions, to me, this is a no-brainer. This is a lot less important than a lot of the things that we need to consider and a lot of the decisions that we will have to make.?

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) also supported the bill: ??Eliminating this program would save taxpayers $617 million over 10 years and would require candidates and political parties to rely on private contributions rather than tax dollars. In times when government has no choice but to do more with less, voting to end the Presidential Election Campaign Fund should be a no-brainer.?

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) opposed the bill: ?We have a deeply corrupt campaign system, Mr. Chairman. Special interest money is having a corrosive effect on our democracy, eating away at the people's confidence in their government and their elected Representatives. The one beacon of light in this system is the public financing of Presidential campaigns. It is, I would remind everyone, a voluntary system. Americans must choose to opt in on their tax returns. It has served the country well, at limited expense. It needs updating. It does not need to be dismantled. We need more public financing, in all of our Federal elections, not less. H.R. 359 [the bill] goes in exactly the wrong direction.?

Rep. David Price (D-NC) also urged opposition to the measure: ?To simply abolish this, to once again turn over presidential financing to big private and corporate interests, to overlook the abuses, the problems that led to this system in the first place, falls far short of what we should be about as responsible legislators looking out for our country's best interests. I ask for members to look at our legislation, to repair and rejuvenate the public funding system and in the meantime to reject this summary attempt to destroy one of the proudest achievements of reform.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 239-160. Voting ?yea? were 229 Republicans and 10 Democrats. 159 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation eliminating public funding for presidential campaigns.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Lost
Roll Call 24
Jan 26, 2011
(H.R. 359) On a motion that would have required independent groups that fund campaign advertisements to disclose their financial donors. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have required independent groups that fund campaign advertisements to disclose their financial donors. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion was offered to legislation eliminating public funding for presidential elections. That bill was estimated to reduce the federal budget deficit by $617 million over ten years.

Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN) urged support for the motion to recommit, and argued it was necessary to ensure that campaign ads were not secretly funded by foreign corporate interests: ?The idea that we should have our elections be influenced by undisclosed foreign money runs counter to everything in this nation's history?. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support this very simple motion to recommit to keep our elections fair, to keep the American people informed, and to keep this democracy in our hands, not foreign corporations.?

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) urged opposition to the motion to recommit, arguing that its Democratic proponents were disingenuous and simply trying to sabotage the underlying bill: ?There is a real attempt on the part of the proponents of this [underlying] bill? to try and save money?and the folks that are behind H.R. 359, the underlying bill, are ultimately saying we can save $617 million over a 10-year period?. So it comes down to a very simple thing. If you want to save the money, you defeat the amendment [motion to recommit]. If you want to play games on the day that we're all heading out [this vote came on the eve of a week-long Congressional recess], trying to act like you are full of transparency and openness, support the amendment.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 173-228. Voting ?yea? were 172 Democrats and 1 Republican. 227 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have required independent groups that fund campaign advertisements to disclose their financial donors.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 22
Jan 26, 2011
(H.R. 359) Legislation eliminating public funding for presidential campaigns ? On bringing to a final vote a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation eliminating public funding for presidential campaigns. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.  Specifically, the underlying bill eliminated U.S. taxpayers? option to designate a portion of their income tax for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Under the bill, the current balance of that fund would be transferred to the United States Treasury for deficit reduction. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this bill reduced the deficit by $617 million over ten years.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Although this concept may be foreign to many liberals and many Washington Beltway insiders, it's what the Americans expect out of the new Republican majority they recently sent to represent them here in the people's House. Instead, H.R. 359 [the underlying bill], which CBO estimates would save $617 million over 10 years, eliminates an expensive federal program that wastes taxpayer money funding presidential campaigns and national party conventions.?

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) urged members to oppose the resolution and the underlying legislation: ?This week, Republicans have engaged in what amounts to a shifty attack on a program that successfully limited the influence of corporations and special interests in our presidential campaigns, tilting the playing field further in favor of multimillionaires who can, and often do, spend their own money. Just as poll taxes and literacy tests prevented poor people and minorities from voting, eliminating this program will place those without the multimillion-dollar political clout yet another step away from having their day in a presidential race.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 234-178. All 232 Republicans present and 2 Democrats voted ?yea.?  178 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation eliminating public funding for presidential campaigns.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Lost
Roll Call 20
Jan 25, 2011
(H. Res. 38) Final Passage of a resolution requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of a resolution requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less.  (Specifically, the underlying resolution provided that federal spending on ?non-security? programs could not exceed 2008 levels. The measure did not, however, define, ?non-security.?)

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged support for the resolution: ?The looming crisis of our national debt is a challenge that working Americans recognize very clearly. While the magnitude of a $14 trillion debt is simply too massive to truly comprehend, those with a modicum of common sense can appreciate the crushing weight that will fall on future generations. If we do not immediately change course, the damage could quickly become irreversible. Today's resolution is a clear signal that we are making that change in course.?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) also supported the measure: ?Business as usual has to come to an end?and we've got to put limits on spending?.That is exactly and precisely why this measure is necessary. So all the rhetoric aside, the days are over of unlimited spending and of no prioritization. And the days of getting spending under control are just beginning. This is a first step in a long process. This is a minimal, small down payment on a necessary process to go forward so that we can leave our kids with a better generation, so we can get this debt under control, so the spending spigot can close, and so we can do right by our constituents and treat their dollars wisely.?

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) argued against  the resolution: ??Reverting to 2008 budget levels will cut more than $17 million from the National Health Service Corps. This program trains and employs health care providers, all while caring for millions of Americans. Moreover, it will cut both nurse faculty loan programs and nurse training programs by nearly 70 percent. These cuts will decimate our health care workforce now and long into the future.?

Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) urged members to oppose the measure: ?All those who care for and think about the 15 million unemployed people in this country, on both sides of the aisle, want the Congress to work together to help small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs for Americans, but the new majority, right out of the gate, has ignored that obligation?.Here is one fact the members ought to take into consideration. Last year, the departments that would be subject to up to a 25 percent spending cut under this bill made a million contracts with small businesses that gave $60 billion worth of work to caterers, electricians, other small businesses. What will happen to the jobs created by those small businesses if this 25 percent cut goes through??

The House passed this resolution by a vote of 256-165. All 239 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted ?yea.? 165 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed a resolution requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 19
Jan 25, 2011
(H. Res. 38) On a motion that would have prohibited the federal government from awarding contracts to companies that have outsourced American jobs overseas.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions that would prohibited the federal government from awarding contracts to companies which have outsourced American jobs overseas. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. This motion was offered to a resolution requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less.  (Specifically, the underlying resolution provided that federal spending on ?non-security? programs could not exceed 2008 levels. The measure did not, however, define, ?non-security.?)

While there was no debate on this motion to recommit, Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) released a statement arguing: ?"The American people elected this Congress to help create American jobs,? Congressman Bishop said.  ?Outsourcing costs American jobs and should not be subsidized with taxpayer dollars.  I am stunned that the majority is prepared to justify this job-killing practice to the American taxpayer who foots the bill."

Calls seeking comment from Republican offices were not returned.

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 184-242. Voting ?yea? were 184 Democrats. All 238 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit on a budget resolution that would have prohibited the federal government from awarding contracts to companies that have outsourced American jobs overseas.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
LABOR RIGHTS Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 18
Jan 24, 2011
(H. Res. 38) Legislation requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the measure

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less. Specifically, the underlying legislation provided that federal spending on ?non-security? programs could not exceed 2008 levels. The measure did not, however, define, ?non-security.?

Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) urged support for the resolution and the underlying budget measure: ?Deficit spending in Washington is burdening future generations. Unborn Americans will have to pay for the benefits that we ascribe to ourselves. During the previous 2 years, Congress has added nearly $3.3 trillion to the national debt. Is it any wonder then that during the same time period our unemployment rate has skyrocketed from 7.8 percent to 9.4 percent??

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying measure: ?I don't see any numbers on this budget resolution?I call it the ``budget-less'' resolution, because it contains no numbers, no specifics, and worst of all, no ideas for job creation or economic recovery?This is not the way to manage the budget. It's worse than arbitrary. It's like budgeting with blindfolds on. It gives no thought, no reasons, no real discussion on how the cuts would be made and what the ramifications would be.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 240-168. All 232 Republicans present and 8 Democrats voted ?yea.? 168 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 17
Jan 24, 2011
(H. Res. 38) Legislation requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the measure.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less.  (Specifically, the underlying legislation provided that federal spending on ?non-security? programs could not exceed 2008 levels. The measure did not, however, define, ?non-security.?) If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.
 
Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying measure: ?Just as families and small businesses across this country have been forced to cut back during these difficult economic times, we here in this institution are going to have to do the same?.Some federal programs? are wasteful and duplicative and deserve to be cut. There will be others that have merit, but which we simply cannot afford at the current levels. We have to be honest about that. We have to engage in a responsible debate about what our priorities must be.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying measure: ??The resolution doesn't cut a single dollar--not one dime--from the federal budget. If this were a good-faith effort, there would be some numbers in this resolution. Instead, the resolution says that we should `assume non-security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels or less' without defining `non-security' spending or specifying exactly what those levels might be. In other words? this is a budget resolution without any numbers, which is why it is so meaningless?. the resolution walls off defense spending from the budget axe?.Why then would they take hundreds of billions of dollars of potential savings off the table right out of the gate??

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 238-174. All 232 Republicans present and 6 Democrats voted ?yea.? 174 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring the House Budget Committee to set funding allocations for all federal programs (except those affecting national security) at 2008 levels or less.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 16
Jan 20, 2011
(H. Res. 9) Final passage of a resolution instructing committees in the House of Representatives to draft health care reformlegislation. The resolution laid out general principles for new health care legislation, stating that such measures should ?foster economic growth and private sector job creation by eliminating job-killing policies and regulations? and ?lower health care premiums through increased competition.?

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution instructing four committees in the House of Representatives (the Ways and Means Committee, Judiciary Committee, Education and the Workforce Committee, and Energy and Commerce Committee) to draft new health care reform legislation. House Republicans laid out general principles to which any new health bills should adhere, but did not propose any new programs or policies. For example, the resolution stated that new health care legislation would have been required to ?foster economic growth and private sector job creation by eliminating job-killing policies and regulations; lower health care premiums through increased competition and choice?[and] eliminate duplicative government programs and wasteful spending.? Republicans intended for this new health care bill to replace a major health care law enacted in 2010. The House of Representatives had already passed legislation to repeal that law. (The Senate, however, was not expected to act on the repeal measure. In addition, President Obama had indicated he would veto any bill repealing the health care reform law.)

The healthcare reform measure that House Republicans had voted to repeal was strongly supported and signed into law by President Obama in March 2010. The law imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance, and was estimated to expand insurance coverage to 95% of the U.S. population. Employers with more than 50 workers were required to provide health insurance for their employees. The measure added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, and subsidized the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people. In addition, the health care law imposed a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals. 

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged support for this resolution: ?This resolution, H. Res. 9, initiates the second step of a two-part process, which, as we all know with the 245-189 vote last night, saw repeal of the [Democratic] health care bill. Having taken that action to wipe the slate clean, we're now moving on to the far more challenging task of crafting real solutions for the American people to ensure that we can drive down the costs of health insurance and health care. This resolution instructs the four committees of jurisdiction to draft legislation that brings about meaningful health care reforms.?

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) also expressed support for the measure: ?There is no doubt in my mind that supporters of?[the 2010 health care reform] bill would have passed a government-run single payer system if they could have gotten away with it. What they did pass was a first step towards total government run healthcare. The same kind of healthcare system that Great Britain is trying to abandon, because it doesn't work. We must stop America from going down the path of a government-run, single-payer healthcare system. Yesterday the House acted on our promise to repeal Obamacare, and today we must vote to start the process of replacing it with common sense, affordable solutions.?

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged members to oppose the resolution: ?What this resolution does is ask the committees of jurisdiction to hopefully, maybe someday, if they would be so kind, to report legislation to the House that meets certain vague goals. Instead of repeal and replace, this is repeal and relax. Trust the Republicans to do the right thing. No thank you?Yesterday, this House voted?to eliminate the Affordable Care Act in its entirety. The members who voted for that bill voted to return to the days when insurance companies could discriminate against people based upon preexisting conditions?.Instead of real language that would provide real benefits to real Americans, this resolution is simply a collection of empty promises.?

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) also opposed the measure: ?If you believe that they [the Republicans] have got something new to offer to genuinely reform our health care system in a way that will help middle-class Americans instead of health insurance monopolies, I think you will want to buy some of that Republican ice cream that helps you lose weight. Our families don't need Republican platitudes; they need real help.?

The House passed this resolution by a vote of 253-175. All 239 Republicans present and 14 Democrats voted ?yea.? 175 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed a resolution instructing committees in the House of Representatives to draft new health care reform legislation..


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 14
Jan 19, 2011
(H.R. 2) Final passage of legislation repealing a 2010 landmark health care reform law that prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions and provided health insurance coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation repealing a 2010 landmark health care reform law that prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions and provided health insurance coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans.

The healthcare reform measure that Republicans sought to repeal was strongly supported and signed into law by President Obama in March 2010. The law imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance, and was estimated to expand insurance coverage to 95% of the U.S. population. Employers with more than 50 workers were required to provide health insurance for their employees. The measure added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, and subsidized the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people. In addition, the health care law imposed a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals.

Rep. John Kline (R-MN) urged support for the bill repealing the health care law: ?Almost 1 year ago, Democrats launched a nearly $1 trillion government takeover of health care that increases national health care spending by $311 billion over 10 years and levies more than $500 billion in new taxes on individuals, consumers, and businesses. The 2,700-page law has led to more than 4,000 pages of new rules and regulations, and the law is only 10 months old. The uncertainty of what this all means for individuals and businesses today, and in the months and years to come, is having a chilling effect on the country's job creators.?

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) also urged members to vote to repeal the health care measure: ?This law imposes burdens on all Americans. It's a threat to senior citizens in that it will lead to waiting lists, deferral services, and rationing. It's a threat to our nation's youth in that it burdens them with excessive debt?.the liberal health care takeover destroys jobs, limits freedoms, and expands big government.?

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) urged members to vote against repealing the health care reform law: ?I strongly oppose this effort to repeal the health care bill. Millions of Americans are already benefiting from this legislation: insurers have stopped discriminating against sick children; seniors are saving money on prescription drugs; and small businesses are receiving billions of dollars in tax credits to provide health care coverage. Repeal will roll back these benefits.?

Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) argued that repealing the health care reform law would inflict pain on the middle class: ?A mother has two 4-year-old twins who are diagnosed with leukemia and tries to buy health insurance. The insurance company says we won't sell it to you because your children have leukemia, or we will charge you five times as much. We say that should be illegal and the law today the majority tries to repeal says differently. A `yes? vote for repeal means she is told, Sorry, no insurance.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 245-189. All 242 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted ?yea.? 189 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation repealing a 2010 landmark health care reform law that prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions and provided health insurance coverage to 30 million Americans. The Senate, where the Democrats maintained a 53-47 majority, was not expected to take action on the measure. In addition, President Obama had vowed to veto any bill repealing the health care reform law.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 13
Jan 19, 2011
(H.R. 2) On a motion) that would have delayed the implementation of legislation repealing a health care reform law until all members of Congress forfeit the health insurance benefits they receive through the federal government employee health insurance program (known as the ?Federal Employees Health Benefits program?). A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions that would have delayed the implementation of legislation repealing a health care reform law until all members of Congress forfeit the health insurance benefits they receive through the federal government employee health insurance program (known as the ?Federal Employees Health Benefits program?). A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.  This motion to recommit was offered by Democrats to a Republican-backed bill repealing a 2010 landmark health care law that provided health insurance coverage to 30 million Americans.

Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) urged support for the motion to recommit: ??This motion to recommit says the following: In the spirit of that principle, members who support the repeal should live with its consequences. This repeal will become effective when a majority of this House and a majority of the other body are dismissed from membership in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that the taxpayers fund for the members of the House. There are serious consequences of this bill. We believe that repealing it is unfair and wrong, just plain wrong. But it would be even more plain wrong for those who support repeal to live by a different standard.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) did not respond directly to Andrews, but argued that the Democratic motion to recommit was simply intended to prevent the health care reform law (which he referred to as ?ObamaCare?) from being repealed. He urged members to oppose the motion: ?The motion to recommit is simply an effort to protect ObamaCare from being repealed, period. If you think the new health care law will improve how health care is delivered in the U.S., then support the motion to recommit.  But if you believe, as most Americans do, that the new health care law will put America on the wrong path--that the open-ended entitlement design of the new law will contribute to putting us on a path to bankruptcy, that the policies in the law will deny patients access to the care that they want and need, if you believe that the new law will increase health care costs, not lower them, and that the new law is generating great uncertainty for our businesses, is hurting our economy and that the new law is unconstitutional--then vote against the motion to recommit.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 185-245. Voting ?yea? were 185 Democrats. All 240 Republicans present and 5 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have delayed the implementation of legislation repealing a major health care reform law until all members of Congress forfeit the health insurance benefits they receive through the Federal Employees Health Benefits program.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 11
Jan 07, 2011
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

N N Lost
Roll Call 10
Jan 07, 2011
(H.R. 2) Legislation repealing a major health care law enacted in 2010 which provided health insurance to 30 million uninsured Americans, prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and required nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation repealing a major health care law enacted in 2010 which provided health insurance to 30 million uninsured Americans, prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and required nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance.

President Obama signed the health care reform measure into law in March 2010 over fierce Republican opposition. No Republicans in the House or Senate voted for the legislation. During the 2010 midterm election campaign ? which culminated in the Democrats losing control of the House of Representatives ? Republicans vowed to hold a vote on repealing the health care reform law.

Rep. Franciso Canseco (R-TX) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill repealing health care reform: ?Ten months ago, President Obama and his allies in the Democrat-controlled House and Senate committed legislative malpractice when they jammed through the Congress and into law a Washington takeover of health care. They did so despite the overwhelming opposition of the American people. Since its enactment into law, what was already a unpopular law has only continued to become more unpopular. There is no doubt that we need to reform health care in America. However, it is not done by assaulting individual liberties guaranteed in our Constitution, bankrupting our children and grandchildren, and putting Washington bureaucrats in the personal relationships between our doctors and our patients.  Repealing the health care bill will also help encourage job growth to get our economy back on track.?

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill: ?There is no commitment to the American people here. The only commitment is to the insurance companies. They are the only ones that are going to gain from repeal of this very important legislation, because they want to increase premiums, and they want to institute discriminatory practices again against women, a woman perhaps who has breast cancer and a pre-existing condition and can't get insurance?Let me tell you here, the only one who benefits is the insurance company, not the American people.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 236-181. All 232 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted ?yea.? 181 Democrats voted nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation repealing a major health care law that provided health insurance to 30 million uninsured Americans, prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and required nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 9
Jan 07, 2011
(H.R. 2) Legislation repealing a major health care law enacted in 2010 which provided health insurance to more than 30 million uninsured Americans, prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions, and required nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation repealing a major health care law enacted in 2010 which provided health insurance to more than 30 million uninsured Americans, prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions, and required nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

President Obama signed the health care reform measure into law in March 2010 over fierce Republican opposition. No Republicans in the House or Senate voted for the legislation. During the 2010 midterm election campaign ? which culminated in the Democrats losing control of the House of Representatives ? Republicans vowed to hold a vote on repealing the health care reform law.

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill repealing health care reform: ?Just as predicted, the so-called [health care reform] reform bill [law] is having very real negative consequences for our economy and our job market. It is putting enormous burdens on job creators, particularly small businesses, at a time that is already one of the most difficult that we have faced, imposing significant new burdens and penalties while the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent?.So we still are dealing with very, very serious economic challenges, and that's why we need to take a commonsense approach to, first, repeal this measure and then deal with solutions.?

 Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill: ?This is what the Republicans are after, what their repeal would mean: It would take away from millions of Americans coverage for kids with pre-existing conditions, coverage for young adults under 26. Recommended preventive care would be taken away. It would take away lower drug costs for seniors?.It would give back to insurance companies unreasonable premium increases, unjust policy terminations, rescissions [in which a health insurance company terminates one?s coverage, usually when that person becomes sick]. It would take away this. It would give back profits and CEO salaries to insurance companies...?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 236-182. All 234 Republicans present and 2 Democrats voted ?yea.? 182 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation repealing a major health care law enacted in 2010 which provided health insurance to 30 million uninsured Americans, prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and required nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 6
Jan 05, 2011
(H. Res. 5) Final passage of a resolution revising the procedural rules of the House of Representatives, including eliminating House floor voting rights for House delegates from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, and revising budget rules to make it easier for Republican leaders to bring up tax cut bills that increase federal budget deficits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of a resolution revising the procedural rules of the House of Representatives (known as a ?rules package?). The Republicans brought up this rules package immediately after regaining control of the House in 2011 (following the 2010 midterm elections).

Republicans made a number of major changes to House rules in this package. First, the measure eliminated House floor voting rights for delegates from the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. (Those delegates, however, were still permitted to vote in committees.)

In addition, the measure changed House budget rules to make it easier for the new Republican majority to bring up legislation cutting taxes. Under the budget rules used by the Democratic majority from 2007-2010, any bill increasing federal spending or cutting taxes violated House rules if it increased the budget deficit. Under the new Republican-backed rules package, only spending bills that increased the deficit violated the rules. Thus, a bill that cut taxes and increased the deficit was permissible under the Republicans? rules package.

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged support for the measure: ?They've [the American public] made clear to us that what their priorities are--job creation, economic growth, and a smaller, more accountable federal government--must be done. The reforms included in the rules package are designed to ensure that those priorities are met and that we are held responsible for our actions to do the people's work.?


Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) urged support for the Republicans? rules package: ?People told us very clearly they are interested in jobs, they are interested in spending. The rules package before us right now facilitates the growth of the former and helps in the limitation of the latter.?

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) urged opposition to the rules package: ??The rules package, the plan put forth by the Republican majority?is so disappointing, because after months on the campaign trail telling the American people that they want to reduce deficits and the debt, this rule opens the door to larger deficits and a bigger national debt. It is a fiscally reckless blueprint, and the American people deserve better.?

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) also criticized the rules package: ?Our Republican friends have been in charge of the House for about 1 hour, and already they are up to their old discredited tricks. They promised the American people that they were serious about deficit reduction. Apparently that promise was for campaign purposes only, because the Republicans' rule package before us today paves the way for a huge explosion in our national debt??

The House passed this rules package by a vote of 238-191. All 238 Republicans present voted ?yea.? All 191 Democrats present voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed a resolution revising the procedural rules of the House of Representatives -- including eliminating House floor voting rights for House delegates from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, and revising budget rules to make it easier for Republican leaders to bring up tax cut bills that increase federal budget deficits.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 5
Jan 05, 2011
(H. Res. 5) On a motion to commit (which was the minority?s last chance to amend or torpedo the underlying legislation) that would have required all members of the House of Representatives to publicly state whether they would enroll in the federal government?s health care program for federal employees. (This motion to commit was offered on a resolution revising the procedural rules of the House of Representatives.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to commit (which was  the minority?s last chance to amend or torpedo the underlying legislation) that would have required all members of the House of Representatives to publicly state whether they would enroll in the federal government?s health care program for federal employees (known as the ?Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan). This motion to commit was offered to legislation revising the procedural rules of the House of Representatives.)

House Democrats offered this motion because many Republicans who opposed the health care reform legislation signed into law by President Obama in 2010 -- and argued against ?government-run health care? -- accepted health care benefits through the federal government.

House rules prohibited debate on this motion. However, the New York Daily News reported that Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) dismissed Democratic criticism of Republicans who oppose health care reform but accept federal government health benefits: ??What am I, not supposed to have health care??? he said. ?It?s practicality. I?m not going to become a burden for the state because I don?t have health care, and God forbid I get into an accident and I can?t afford the operation. That can happen to anyone.??

The Daily News also reported the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee?s response to Grimm: ?Rep. Grimm has become the latest Republican health care hypocrite to demand government-funded health care benefits for himself, while trying to repeal health care reform and make it harder for most Americans to afford coverage for their own families."

The House rejected this motion to commit by a vote of 191-238. All 191 Democrats present voted ?yea.? All 238 Republicans present voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to commit that would have required all members of the House of Representatives to publicly state whether they would enroll in the federal government?s health care program for federal employees.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 4
Jan 05, 2011
(H. Res. 5) Legislation revising the procedural rules of the House of Representatives, including eliminating House floor voting rights for House delegates from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, and revising budget rules to make it easier for Republican leaders to bring up tax cut bills that increased federal budget deficits ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the measure.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution revising the procedural rules of the House of Representatives (known as a ?rules package?). If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. The Republicans brought up this rules package immediately after regaining control of the House in 2011 (following the 2010 midterm elections).

Republicans made a number of major changes to House rules in this package. First, the measure eliminated voting rights on the House floor for delegates from the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. (Those delegates, however, were still permitted to vote in committees.)

In addition, the measure changed House budget rules to make it easier for the new Republican majority to bring up legislation cutting taxes. Under the budget rules used by the Democratic majority from 2007-2010, any bill increasing federal spending or cutting taxes violated House rules if it increased the budget deficit. Under the new Republican-backed rules package, only spending bills that increased the deficit violated the rules. Thus, a bill that cut taxes and increased the deficit was permissible under the Republicans? rules package.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) urged support for this rules package: ? By passing this rules package, we will take a significant step in the right direction. It will put us on the road to weaning America off its dependence on debt and government programs as an economic lifeline, and it will help us build a new, more hopeful future rooted in limited government, long-term investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship.?

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) urged opposition to the rules package: ?As we stand here today? the concern about deficits has disappeared from everything but the press releases. Under the new majority rules, the other side will essentially gut ?the?rules adopted by Democrat majorities in the House and Senate in 2007 under which tax cuts or increases in entitlement spending must be offset by tax increases or entitlement cuts?.It was a hallmark of Democrat leadership, and we are proud of it. We adhered to responsible spending levels and affordable tax cuts, and we took sensible steps towards controlling the deficit.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 236-188. All 236 Republicans present voted ?yea.? All 188 Democrats present voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on legislation revising the procedural rules of the House of Representatives, including eliminating House floor voting rights for House delegates from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories ? and revising budget rules to make it easier for Republican leaders to bring up tax cut bills that increased federal budget deficits.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 3
Jan 05, 2011
(H. Res. 5) On a motion to table (kill) a Democratic proposal that would have required a special committee (made up of five members of Congress ? 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) to determine whether a Republican resolution eliminating voting rights for House delegates from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories (such as Puerto Rico) was constitutional.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on tabling (killing) a Democratic proposal that would have required a special committee (made up of five members of Congress ? 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) to determine whether a Republican resolution eliminating all voting rights on the House floor for delegates from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories was constitutional.

When Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in 2011 (following the 2010 midterm elections), they brought up a resolution revising the procedural rules of the House (known as a ?rules package?). One of the Republicans? proposed changes to House rules eliminated all House floor voting rights for delegates from the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. (Delegates, however, were still permitted to vote in committees.) When Republicans brought up their House rules package, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C) offered a motion to require a special committee made up of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats to determine the constitutionality of eliminating voting rights for delegates from the constituencies listed above. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) then made a motion to table (kill) Norton?s motion.

There was no debate on Norton?s proposal or Cantor?s motion to table it. The New York Times reported, however, that Norton told a crowd of ?voting rights advocates? the following: ?If we don?t stop this assault now, it will develop into a full-scale war on home rule for the District of Columbia.? A press release put out by Norton?s office also said: "With this motion, we formally begin the protest that will be necessary to salvage what D.C. has won in the past.?

The Washington Post reported that a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) argued that Republicans eliminated those voting rights because ?they constitutionally cannot vote on the House floor." The Associated Press quoted Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) as saying "It's very apparent to me that we need to focus on the Constitution and (under the Constitution) states are to be represented in the House of Representatives.?

The House voted to table (kill) Norton?s motion by a vote of 225-188. All Republicans present voted ?yea.? All 188 Democrats present voted ?nay.? As a result, the House killed a motion that would have required a special committee (made up of five members of Congress ? 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) to determine whether a Republican resolution eliminating all voting rights on the House floor for delegates from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories was constitutional.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 664
Dec 22, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment: H R 847 James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 662
Dec 21, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Concur in the Senate amendment to House amendment to Senate amendment: H R 3082 Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate amendment to House amendment to Senate amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 661
Dec 21, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments: H R 2751 FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments

Y Y Won
Roll Call 660
Dec 21, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment: H R 2142 GPRA Modernization Act of 2010
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 659
Dec 21, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment: H R 5116 America COMPETES Reauthorization Act
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 657
Dec 21, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1771 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 656
Dec 17, 2010
(S. 3874) Final passage of legislation effectively eliminating lead from faucets and other fixtures used for drinking water

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation effectively eliminating lead from faucets and other fixtures used for drinking water. Under the bill, the sale of such products would be permissible only if they were ?lead-free.?

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) urged support for this bill: ?This bill will update the national lead content standard to nearly eradicate lead in faucets and fixtures which currently contribute up to 20 percent of human lead exposure, according to the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]. In a 21st century America, we have a responsibility to do more to protect our children and families against the lead exposure acquired through plumbing systems. The Safe Drinking Water Act, which determines the national lead content standards, currently allows up to 8 percent lead content for faucets and other plumbing fixtures and limits the amount of lead that can leach from plumbing into drinking water. But health studies have concluded that much smaller amounts of lead exposure can have serious impacts on children and adults, including kidney disease, reduced IQ, hypertension, hearing loss, and brain damage.?

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) argued that the bill failed to educate the public about the new lead standard, and therefore would lead to mass confusion, and perhaps unintended consequences: ??We need an education component to this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill so we can get an education component part of it. I am concerned that do-it-yourselfers, much like me, are going to see this legislation pass, think that their existing faucets are toxic fountains, go to their hardware store to get a new faucet, cut their home piping, thereby releasing lead shavings into their home's pipes, and wind up with water streaming from their faucets with even more lead than had they just left the faucet alone.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass this bill by a vote of 226-109. Voting ?yea? were 195 Democrats and 31 Republicans. 108 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation effectively eliminating lead from faucets and other fixtures used for drinking wa


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 655
Dec 17, 2010
(H.R. 5510) Final passage of legislation that would have allowed the Treasury Department to provide financial assistance to non-profit organizations that offer legal assistance to homeowners who were facing foreclosure

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have allowed the Treasury Department to provide financial assistance to non-profit organizations that offer legal assistance to homeowners who were facing foreclosure.
 
Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) urged support for the bill: ?People are trying very hard to fight these battles alone. They can't get in touch with the [legal] services?.we are allowing these homeowners to swim out there alone by themselves with no help. Let's help the American people. This is the least that we can do?We can not only send this message, but we could stand up and demand that they get the kind of help that will keep them and their families in their homes.?

Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) argued that the bill was fiscally irresponsible, and amounted to a ?bailout.? He contended that any funding to help those facing home foreclosures should come from the Legal Services Corporation, which is federally funded and provides legal aid to the poor: ?Taxpayers are already paying for legal services for the impoverished. It's the Legal Services Corporation. And the appropriation [funding level] for this year, at least as it currently is listed, is $440 million?If the [Democratic] majority is upset that there is not enough money going to legal services for the poor, whether it's for foreclosures or other legal issues, the right path would be?asking for additional funds within an already existing process.?

While a majority of members voted in favor of this bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since this bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. The vote on the bill was 210-145. Voting ?yea? were 204 Democrats and 6 Republicans. 140 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation that would have allowed the Treasury Department to provide financial assistance to non-profit organizations that offer legal assistance to homeowners who were facing foreclosure.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 654
Dec 17, 2010
(H.R. 2142) Final passage of legislation that would have required federal government agencies to establish performance standards intended to help assess and improve the efficiency of those agencies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have required federal government agencies to establish performance standards intended to help assess and improve the efficiency of those agencies. The bill also provided for a training program for employees who would be charged with evaluating the merits and efficacy of government programs.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.  

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) urged support for the bill: ?The concept is not complicated. We can cut down on the debt by cutting down on waste. With greater government efficiency, we can produce cost savings for every American taxpayer. This bill will shine light on ineffective federal programs to root out wasteful spending. Federal agencies are supposed to clearly identify ambitious, high-priority goals and assess their performance and effectiveness to evaluate its direct impact on the American people and the government. This will provide the needed information to make informed budgetary decisions.?

Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) urged opposition to the bill, arguing that the president already had the authority to establish such performance standards, and that it was therefore wasteful to spend millions of taxpayers? dollars on a program to implement those standards: ?This is not a good bill?.this bill is simply a series of mandates that codifies [enters into law] a management style that needs no legislation. This legislation does not create something that the president cannot and is not already doing. We, in Congress, want goal-setting?.As the bill is written today, basically, an agency sets its own goals, announces its own goals? This does not create a real requirement for performance-based program analysis?.If we are going to spend even $75 million on new mandates, we have a standard that has to be a standard of excellence, a standard that truly makes improvements, and a standard that in fact does not simply allow the president to do what he already has the power to do?.?

While a majority of members (212) voted in favor of this bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since this bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. The vote on the bill was 212-131. Voting ?yea? were 189 Democrats and 23 Republicans. 127 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation that would have  required federal government agencies to establish performance standards intended to help assess and improve the efficiency of those agencies.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 653
Dec 17, 2010
(H. J. Res 105) Legislation keeping government programs and agencies operating for three days to prevent the government from shutting down ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to legislation keeping government programs and agencies operating for three days to prevent the government from shutting down.

The federal government?s fiscal year ends on September 30. If Congress has not passed legislation setting funding levels for all programs and agencies by that date, the House and Senate must enact temporary ?continuing resolutions? (or ?CRs?) until a long-term funding bill is passed and signed into law by the president. In this case, the government would have shut down on Sunday, December 19 (the date at which the previous CR expired). This continuing resolution kept the government running through December 21. Such short-term measures were necessary because the Senate had not yet passed a long-term bill to fund government operations. Thus, while the House waited for the Senate to act, it passed this bill to keep the government running for three more days.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) argued the bill would ?allow government to continue its normal operations until midnight, on Tuesday, to give the Senate a chance to complete its deliberations.? Polis continued: ?I could take this opportunity to share the frustration of our colleagues at the inability of the Senate to complete its work in a timely manner; but in the spirit of the [holiday] season? I will simply say that we must pass this continuing resolution to allow the Senate to continue its important work and deliberations to create either a longer term continuing resolution or an omnibus appropriations package that will allow the regular business of government to keep the people of America safe to continue.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) criticized the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The underlying legislation is a CR to keep the government running until Tuesday. That is true. The Democrats provided no budget this year, and the President has not signed one appropriations bill into law this year. So this legislation and the rule is just another tactic to keep the government running until the majority can figure out its next priority. Well, I assure you it will be all about spending?.Republicans want to take spending levels back to 2008, which would save American taxpayers nearly $100 billion in the first year.?This country needs leaders who are willing to make tough financial decisions and fiscal decisions that will bring back our economy, stability, job growth--not just more of the same taxing and spending.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 184-159. Voting ?yea? were 184 Democrats. All 149 Republicans present and 10 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation keeping government programs and agencies operating for three days to prevent the government from shutting down.?


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 652
Dec 17, 2010
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 650
Dec 17, 2010
(H.R. 6523) Final passage of legislation authorizing $725 billion to be spent on Defense Department programs in 2011 ? including $159 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation authorizing $725 billion to be spent on Defense Department programs in 2011 (this legislation was known as the ?Defense Authorization bill?), including $159 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

This bill reflected a compromise between the House and the Senate. The House had passed its Defense Authorization bill seven months earlier. The Senate, however, never passed its own version. While all but six Republicans present voted in favor of this compromise bill, none praised the measure during debate on the House floor. Indeed, Republican members indicated they would vote for the bill reluctantly, because they believed its passage was critical to the safety of U.S. troops. They argued that it was highly inappropriate to consider such a major piece of legislation under suspension of the rules, which limits debate and prohibits members from offering amendments. They also argued that this compromise bill was inferior to the one passed by the House seven months earlier, which among other things, included a bigger pay raise for U.S. troops.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) echoed the sentiments of many Republicans: ?We stand here today 7 months after the House passed its version of the 2011 defense authorization bill because the leadership of the other body [the Senate] dithered instead of doing the right thing for all members of our armed services. As a result, the Senate has not passed its version of the defense authorization. Then in a last minute rush to get a defense bill, any defense bill, we stand on the floor today to debate for 40 minutes under suspension of the rules a 900-page bill?that is a stripped down, weakened version of what the House enacted in May. We may hear some good things about the bill, but let me remind members that this rush to have a bill has cost the men and women in uniform. This bill is stripping out key House provisions in the name of expediency?.Despite the omissions in the bill, I will reluctantly urge members to support the bill.?

A majority of Democrats also backed the Defense bill. Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) urged support for the bill, arguing its passage was vital to the well-being of American troops overseas: ?Most of you, like me, have spent time with our troops overseas. Their dedication, their courage, their devotion never cease to amaze me. Their service and sacrifice is matched only by that of their families who bear the same burden. Their sacrifice is, at times, almost unbearable. Yet they do it, and not for us but for the American people. However, we bear the awesome burden of repaying their sacrifice.?

A number of Democrats, however, voted against the measure. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) argued: ??We have the largest defense budget in the world. We cannot continue to spend as much on defense as the next 16 countries combined. We cannot continue to spend billions to protect West Germany from the Soviet Union when both ceased to exist 2 decades ago. Such policies are not fair to our military or to the taxpayer. While nothing is more important than providing the resources needed to keep our men and women in uniform safe, the bill is too rooted in the past and the unfortunate present operation in Afghanistan, which I've opposed for scaling up, when we should have been scaling down so that we can refine and refocus on programs that will make our country safer and more secure.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass this bill by a vote of 341-48. Voting ?yea? were 187 Democrats and 154 Republicans. 42 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 6 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing $725 billion to be spent on Defense Department programs in 2011, including $159 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y N Lost
Roll Call 647
Dec 16, 2010
(H.R. 4853) Final passage of legislation extending income tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for two years, and extending (for one year) unemployment compensation for laid-off workers who had exhausted their benefits

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, and extending (for one year) unemployment compensation for laid-off workers who had exhausted their benefits.

This bill reflected a compromise negotiated between President Obama and Republican leaders. Obama ? along with most congressional Democrats ? favored extending only those tax cuts which benefitted middle class Americans. Republicans had insisted on extending tax cuts for all Americans, including those individuals with incomes over $200,000 and couples with incomes over $250,000. They had also opposed extending unemployment compensation for laid-off workers who had used up their benefits. Thus, the compromise bill provided for a temporary, two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts ? as well as an extension of unemployment benefits for workers who had not yet received unemployment compensation for the maximum 99 weeks allowed under federal law Workers who had received unemployment compensation for more than 99 weeks were ineligible for further assistance under this bill.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) urged support for the bill: ?The Democratic majority in the House has made it crystal clear that we stand on the side of middle income families, of unemployed workers, of small businesses struggling in this difficult economy?. In order for the [Obama] administration to be able to include provisions that help lower and middle income families, it came at the price of assisting the very wealthy, the Republicans' priority. Their [the Republicans?] position has led to a package where the top six-tenths of 1 percent of the very wealthiest receive 20 percent of the benefits of the tax package [the bill being debated].?

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) urged support for the bill: ?Americans are suffering through the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression. This is not a time for political speeches or electoral posturing. This is a time to act responsibly, to do what is right, and to vote `yes.' Employers are begging us to pass this legislation. Small businesses and the National Federation of Independent Business are supporting the bill because they know they cannot afford a tax hike.?

Many Democrats (including most progressives) opposed this compromise bill. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) argued it was short-sighted, fiscally irresponsible, and would primarily benefit the wealthy: ?A vote on this agreement may or may not be good politics, but it is wrong. It continues the Washington tradition of ducking tough issues, making suboptimal choices, and trying to make every interest group happy?. Make no mistake, this vote means an exchange for a little temporary relief weighted in favor of those who need it the least. This bill means Americans will pay more in debt and interest, a sluggish economy, and costs of an unfair tax system. It's a bad bargain for the future of America's families.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 277-148. Voting ?yea? were 139 Democrats and 138 Republicans. 112 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 36 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation extending income tax cuts for two years, and extending unemployment compensation for laid-off workers who had exhausted their benefits.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
N N Lost
Roll Call 646
Dec 16, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4853
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 645
Dec 16, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 987 To protect girls in developing countries through the prevention of child marriage, and for other purposes.
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 644
Dec 16, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended: H RES 1766 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended

Y Y Won
Roll Call 643
Dec 16, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: H RES 1766 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 638
Dec 15, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment: H R 2965 Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell Repeal Act of 2010
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 635
Dec 15, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1764 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 629
Dec 14, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 3167 Census Oversight Efficiency and Management Reform Act of 2010
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 625
Dec 08, 2010
(H.R. 5281) Final passage of legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally.

Under the bill (which was known as the DREAM Act), such individuals must have arrived in the U.S. before the age of 15 and have lived in the United States for at least five years. They must also have been 29 or younger at the time of this bill?s enactment. The bill also required that they finish high school and undergo a medical examination.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) urged support for the bill: ?It [the underlying bill] is a bipartisan bill to address the plight of children who were brought to the United States as undocumented immigrants and grew up here?. they have to be less than 29 years old to even qualify. They must have lived in the United States at least for 5 years. They must have graduated from an American high school or be admitted to an institution of higher education??

Rep. Ed Pastor (D-AZ) urged support for the measure: ?The DREAM Act would create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented young people, who were brought to the U.S. as children, raised in this country, have excelled in our education systems, and have expressed a clear commitment to pursue higher education or military service.?

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) urged opposition to the bill: ?The DREAM Act is a nightmare for the American people. It insults American workers, American taxpayers, and anyone who believes in the rule of law. How can we consider amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants when just last Friday, the Department of Labor reported that unemployment in America jumped up to 9.8 percent??

Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) argued: ??Make no mistake, this bill is not the American Dream. This bill is the amnesty dream. This bill will give amnesty to nearly 2 million illegal immigrants right away, while providing a pathway to amnesty to encourage millions more illegal immigrants to enter our country.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 216-198. 208 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 8 Republicans voted ?yea.? 160 Republicans and 38 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally if they had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 15; had lived in the United States for at least five years; and fulfilled certain educational or military service requirements.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Immigration Law Reform
Y Y Won
Roll Call 623
Dec 08, 2010
(H.R. 5281) Legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally.

Under the bill (which was known as the DREAM Act), such individuals must have arrived in the U.S. before the age of 15 and have lived in the United States for at least five years. They must also have been 29 or younger at the time of this bill?s enactment. The bill also required that they finish high school and undergo a medical examination.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The young people covered under this bill are the children any parent would be proud of--our sons and daughters, our neighbors, our classmates, prom kings and queens, football players, and cheerleaders--who stayed in school, played by the rules, graduated, worked hard, and stayed out of trouble. They are the children of our great nation.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued that the underlying bill amounted to amnesty for illegal immigrants: ?I don't think there is anyone on our side of the aisle who isn't empathetic to the fact that the youth brought to America as children did not come here illegally of their own accord. I certainly feel that way. However, the majority of immigrants come to America because of what our nation stands for, which is rooted in our foundation--the cornerstone being our rule of law. In order to maintain our liberties and freedom, Congress must always respect and preserve the rule of law. We must exercise our principles in fairness, not inequity; and I would argue that amnesty is not fairness but a direct assault on the rule of law.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 211-208. 211 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?yea.? All 171 Republicans present and 37 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Immigration Law Reform
Y Y Won
Roll Call 622
Dec 08, 2010
(H.R. 3082) Final passage of legislation funding all government agencies and programs at existing funding levels (i.e., funding levels that were in place in 2010) through September 30, 2011, and implementing new food safety regulations

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation funding all government agencies and programs at existing funding levels (i.e., funding levels that were in place in 2010) through September 30, 2011. Such spending bills are known as ?continuing resolutions,? or ?CRs.? Democratic leaders also attached a food safety bill to this CR. The food safety bill, which had already passed the Senate, increased safety inspections at food processing plants and gave the federal government new authority to recall tainted food products. The CR also froze the salaries of civilian federal workers for two years.

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) argued that the CR was the product of compromises, many of which he did not like, yet argued that passage of the bill was the only responsible option. He blasted Republican opposition to the bill, and urged all members to support it: ?I hope it does not represent too great an `inconvenience' to those members of this body who are much more comfortable providing budget-busting tax gifts to the economic elite in this country rather than making even the tiniest government investment in programs that will help the lives of the unlucky?There are at least 50 decisions in this bill that I am flatly opposed to. There are many arguments in this bill that I have lost. But the fact is, sooner or later, if you're going to be responsible, you have to set aside your first preferences and simply do what is necessary in order to keep the government open so that Congress doesn't become the laughingstock of the country. The only responsible vote to cast on this proposition is an ``aye'' vote. I urge support for the resolution, with all of its shortcomings.?

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) replied that if Obey was so unhappy with the CR, than he should join Republicans in voting to defeat it: ??If both of us dislike it so much, Mr.Obey, and if we both voted `no,' maybe we could bring the turkey down and start all over again.? Lewis argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: ??I remain adamantly opposed to extending this CR for the balance of the fiscal year at Democrats' current levels, which are too high, or at the inflated levels proposed in this package?.none of us believe we should shut down the government, but I cannot and will not support the CR?because it simply spends too much??

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) urged support for the bill, and praised its food safety provisions: ? Some 5,000 Americans die every year of bad food, 300,000 go to the hospital, and 77 million get sick. This bill gives the Food and Drug Administration the funds, the authority that it needs to do the job that has to be done.?

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) urged opposition to the bill, and criticized the food safety measures. He specifically took issue with a provision authored by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) exempting small farms from regulations: ? The inclusion of what's called the Tester amendment in the Senate bill means that some farms, small farms along the borders between the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada would be exempt from some of the requirements of the bill.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 212-206. 212 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?yea.? All 171 Republicans present and 35 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation funding all government agencies and programs at existing funding levels (i.e., funding levels that were in place in 2010) through September 30, 2011, and implementing new food safety regulations.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Y Y Won
Roll Call 619
Dec 08, 2010
(H.R. 3082) Legislation funding all government agencies and programs at existing funding levels (i.e., funding levels that were in place in 2010) through September 30, 2011, and implementing new food safety regulations ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding all government agencies and programs at existing funding levels (i.e., funding levels that were in place in 2010) through September 30, 2011. Such spending bills are known as ?continuing resolutions,? or ?CRs.? Democratic leaders also attached a food safety bill to this CR. The food safety overhaul increased safety inspections at food processing plants and gave the federal government new authority to recall tainted food products. The CR also froze the salaries of civilian federal workers for two years.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the resolution (which set a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill) and the underlying legislation (the CR): ??Today the House will consider the?continuing resolution legislation that will fund the federal government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. Additionally, this bill contains the food safety bill?Both these measures need to be passed. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying CR: ??[The underlying bill] includes the food safety bill which has been attached to that CR. So it is not a clean bill?.This legislation, once again, continues to overspend and overregulate, a common theme over the last two Congresses?. This CR?continues the unsustainable high rate of spending passed by the Democrat majority, aided by, supported, and abetted by the president of the United States, our president, Barack Obama.?

McGovern shot back: ?I am sorry the gentleman is not for safer food safety measures, but let me just point out for the record that while the food supply in the United States is one of the safest in the world, each year about 76 million illnesses occur, more than 300,000 persons are hospitalized, and 5,000 die from food-borne illnesses.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 207-206. 207 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?yea.? All 169 Republicans present and 37 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation funding all government agencies and programs at existing funding levels through September 30, 2011, and implementing new food safety regulations.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Y Y Won
Roll Call 616
Dec 08, 2010
(H.R. 6495) Final passage of mine safety legislation that would have required additional inspections of mines, given federal regulators the authority to seek court orders to close mines deemed to be dangerous, and offered legal protection to mine employees who expose unsafe working conditions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have required additional inspections of mines, given federal regulators the authority to seek court orders to close mines deemed to be dangerous, and offered legal protection (known as ?whistleblower protection?) to mine employees who expose unsafe working conditions. Whistleblower protections shield employees from employer retaliation when they expose such conditions.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) urged support for the bill: ??The House today considers urgently needed legislation to address life-threatening gaps in our nation's mine safety laws. Despite progress made over several decades in mine safety, more than 600 miners have been killed on the job in the last 10 years?.After every major tragedy, promises are made by public officials to miners and their families--to the survivors--that timely action will be taken to make sure that this thing never happens again?.The Robert C. Byrd Mine Safety Protection Act is our chance to finally make a downpayment on that promise.? (The bill?s supporters named the legislation after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), who represented West Virginia mining communities for more than half a century in the U.S. Senate.)

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) urged opposition to the bill, arguing that the Democratic-backed bill was a rushed and irresponsible response to a problem they did not fully understand how to solve: ?I believe steps can be taken by federal and state regulators, mine operators, and miners, themselves, to reduce the dangers inherent for those who mine for natural resources that power our nation. That is why it is with deep regret that I oppose the legislation before us today. Once again, well-intended reforms addressing a vital issue are being rushed through a flawed process that results in a deeply flawed bill. This is not the way to govern?.it [the bill] seeks to create a solution to a problem we do not fully understand.?

The vote on the bill was 214-193. 213 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 166 Republicans and 27 Democrats voted ?nay.? While a majority of members voted in favor of this mine safety bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since the bill did not receive the required two-thirds majority, the measure failed.  As a result, the House rejected legislation that would have required additional inspections of mines, given federal regulators the authority to seek court orders to close mines deemed to be dangerous, and offered legal protection to mine employees who expose unsafe working conditions.? Democratic leaders, however, remained free to bring the bill up again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
LABOR RIGHTS Occupational Safety and Health
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 615
Dec 08, 2010
(H. Res. 1752) On a resolution allowing the House to bring up a ?rule? setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments -- to all legislation considered in the House of Representatives until December 18 -- on the same day it was passed by the House Rules Committee. This resolution was intended to expedite consideration of major legislation, including a bill extending expiring income tax cuts; legislation implementing stricter food safety regulations; a bill providing annual funding for the Defense Department; and legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution allowing the House to bring up a ?rule? setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments -- to all legislation considered in the House of Representatives until December 18 -- on the same day it was passed by the House Rules Committee.

According to procedural rules in the House, passage of a rule on the same day that the rule was passed by the Rules Committee requires a two-thirds majority vote rather than a simple majority vote. In an effort to circumvent the two-thirds majority requirement for ?same-day? consideration of a rule, Democratic leaders brought up a resolution that would waive that requirement and allow the rule to be passed by a simple majority.

This vote took place on December 8, 2010, less than one month before the end of this congressional session. Any bill not passed by both houses of Congress (and signed into law by the president) by the end of a congressional session automatically dies. Thus, Democrats used this ?same-day rule? to expedite consideration of major legislation which had still not cleared both houses of Congress.

Democrats indicated that this resolution would allow the House to bring up major legislation, including a bill to extending expiring income tax cuts; legislation implementing stricter food safety regulations; a bill providing annual funding for the Defense Department; and legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) urged support for the ?same day rule? resolution: ? Today?key legislation remains to be completed?This rule today is critical so that we can move forward to consider middle class tax cuts, the DREAM Act, food safety, defense authorization [the Defense spending bill], regardless of where members of this body stand on particular issues, and I think we owe it to our country to bring them forward in a timely manner for full consideration by this body.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) urged opposition to the measure: ?The rule before us provides for expedited same day consideration for all legislation brought forward until December 18?.It's really martial law rule because it closes down the process, does not allow members of Congress to review legislation, to really know what legislation that will be considered is about.?

The House agreed to this ?same-day rule? by a vote of 215-194. 215 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?yea.? 167 Republicans and 27 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to a resolution allowing the House to bring up a rule setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to major legislation, including bills to extend expiring tax cuts, provide annual funding for the Defense Department, impose new food safety regulations, and allow children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Immigration Law Reform
Y Y Won
Roll Call 611
Dec 08, 2010
(H.R. 5987) Final passage of legislation to provide seniors with a one-time $250 payment. Proponents of the bill argued such a payment was necessary because Social Security beneficiaries were not scheduled to receive a cost-of-living increase in their Social Security checks in 2011.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation to provide seniors with a one-time $250 payment. Proponents of the bill argued such a payment was necessary because Social Security beneficiaries were not scheduled to receive a cost-of-living increase in their Social Security checks in 2011.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for Social Security beneficiaries are determined by a formula that increases payments when the cost of everyday expenses rises. According to this formula, the cost of living did not increase in 2010. Therefore, Social Security beneficiaries were not scheduled to receive a COLA in 2011. Democrats brought this bill up for a vote, arguing that denying seniors increased financial assistance during a deep recession could harm their quality of life.

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) urged support for the bill: ??They [seniors] have their benefit levels flatlined at a time when they are encountering higher costs, reducing their quality of life experience, and disappointing them greatly about Social Security.  The bill before us would provide 54 million Americans with a $250 payment in lieu of COLA. Now, for those at the very bottom, this means a lot--about a $20 a month cost-of-living adjustment to help them with those higher costs.?

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) urged opposition to the bill: ?The COLA formula is designed to achieve a simple goal. Increases in consumer prices trigger an increase in Social Security benefits?.Since prices have remained short of the peak they reached back in 2008, the Social Security Administration announced there will not be a COLA in 2011...Though seniors are understandably disappointed, the COLA formula is working as intended.?

The vote on the bill was 254-153. 228 Democrats and 26 Republicans voted ?yea.? 141 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?nay.? While a majority of members voted in favor of this bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since the bill did not receive the required two-thirds majority, the measure failed. As a result, the House rejected legislation to provide seniors with a one-time $250 payment in lieu of a Social Security COLA. Democratic leaders, however, remained free to bring the bill up again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 607
Dec 02, 2010
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y N Lost
Roll Call 606
Dec 02, 2010
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 604
Dec 02, 2010
(H.R. 4853) Final passage of legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers,  but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire.

In 2011, the tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001 and 2003 were scheduled to expire. Democrats supported extending tax cuts for middle class taxpayers, arguing that middle-income earners should not face a tax hike during a recession. (This particular recession began in 2008, and had persisted for more than two years). Many Democrats, however, objected to extending tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans meanwhile, insisted that the Bush-era tax cuts be extended for all Americans. President Obama had urged Congress to pass legislation extending tax cuts only for middle class Americans.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) urged support for the bill: ?This is the moment to stand up and be counted on middle-income tax cuts. The Republicans want to continue to keep middle-income tax cuts hostage, hostage until it's combined with upper-income tax cuts. It's, in part, because they don't want to have to vote separately on tax cuts for the very wealthy.?

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) also argued in favor of the measure: ??We have to draw a line somewhere. We have to say the people who have done extremely well over the last 10 years thanks to the Bush tax cuts need to pay a little more. This won't kill jobs. We won't be crying crocodile tears for them. It's more important that we make sure that the vast majority of Americans have the income they need to drive this economy. That's where the business people, small and large, will prosper.?

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) urged opposition to the bill: ?The unemployment rate in October, the latest data available, was 9.6 percent. That marked 15 consecutive months we are at or above 9.5 percent unemployment in this country, the longest period since the Great Depression?.What's a Democrat's answer to the Great Recession? Increased taxes, but not just any taxes. Democrats in the bill before us today are targeting half of all small business income in the country. Democrats are targeting the very employers we need, hiring more workers, and buying more equipment, not paying more taxes.?

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) criticized the measure: ?They [the Democrats] have tried to spend their way into economic prosperity; it has failed. They have tried to borrow their way into national economic prosperity; it has failed?.Here today, again, another opportunity to tax our way into economic prosperity. It does not work. The American people have rejected this tired, old class warfare rhetoric. You cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator.?

The House passed the middle class tax cut bill by a vote of 234-188. 231 Democrats ? including the vast majority of progressives ? and 3 Republicans voted ?yea.? 168 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation extending tax cuts for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Won
Roll Call 603
Dec 02, 2010
(S. 3307) Final passage of legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school breakfasts and lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools. 

Under the bill, foster children would become automatically eligible for the school lunch program (in which students are provided with a free lunch subsidized by the federal government). In order to streamline the process of enrolling children in the school lunch program, the measure reduced the amount of paperwork required to sign up for free meals. The bill also established a grant program to increase participation among schools in the national school breakfast program.
 
The bill directed the Agriculture Department to establish nutritional standards for all food sold in schools ? including products in vending machines. The measure also implemented an organic food pilot program (to serve organic food in public schools).

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) urged support for the bill: ??Today I rise for our nation's children, for the poorest children in our country who are hungry and malnourished. I rise because children need our help. Child nutrition is not a political issue. It's not a partisan issue. It's a question of what's a moral thing to do for our children. It's about being on the right side of history and ensuring a healthy and productive future for our country. Our children will make and determine our future, and that is what is at stake.?

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) also argued in favor of the bill: ?As a nurse for over 30 years, I have seen firsthand the risks and illnesses that can result from obesity. Childhood obesity, diabetes, and heart disease are all on the rise in the United States. And one of the best tools we have to combat these illnesses is our ability to apply wholesome and healthy nutrition to children in our schools?Given the current harsh financial realities for many families in my district and throughout the nation, schools have an increasingly important role to play in providing children with nutritious food during their days.?

Rep. John Kline argued that an expansion of child nutrition programs was unaffordable: ?Each of us must make that choice as we cast our votes on the bill before us. Everyone recognizes the importance of extending child nutrition programs, but extending these programs does not mean expanding them. We could extend these programs and improve them with no added cost to taxpayers. We could listen to our constituents and do right by our children.?

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) criticized the measure: ?I'm a medical doctor, and I have spent almost four decades of practicing medicine concerned about child nutrition and about the health of my patients.?But this act is not about child nutrition.?This is about more government control. This is not about healthy children. It's about borrowing more money and putting our children in greater debt. It's not about creating a better environment for children in the schools. It's about more and more control from Washington, DC.?

The House passed this child nutrition bill by a vote of 264-157. 247 Democrats and 17 Republicans voted ?yea.? 153 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
Y Y Won
Roll Call 602
Dec 02, 2010
(S. 3307) On a motion to recommit with instructions (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) on a school lunch and child nutrition bill that would have required all employees of child care operations receiving funding under the bill to submit to criminal background checks.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions (on a school lunch and child nutrition bill) that would have required all employees of child care operations receiving funding under the bill to submit to criminal background checks. The motion to recommit also would have eliminated a provision in the bill that allowed the Agriculture Department to regulate the prices of paid school lunches for children with incomes over 185% of the federal poverty level.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

The motion to recommit also would have eliminated a provision in the bill that allowed the Agriculture Department to regulate the prices of paid school lunches (as opposed to free school lunches) for children with incomes over 185% of the federal poverty level.

Rep. John Kline (R-MN) urged support for the Republican motion to recommit: ?Allowing the federal government to create price mandates is a dangerous precedent and should not be set. By approving this motion to recommit, we can block this harmful tax on working families. We have thoroughly debated the broader objections to this legislation today, arguing against the spending and mandate, but that is not the debate we're having now. This motion to recommit is a modest pair of corrections that will make the bill better. It will make our children safer and protect working families, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) argued that Republicans offered this motion to recommit simply to kill the bill. (Since this vote occurred at the end of a congressional session, the Senate would likely not have had time to take up the bill if the House were to amend it. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives do not pass a bill by the end of a congressional session, it automatically dies.) Miller contended: ?They [the Republicans] opposed this legislation even though it passed unanimously on the floor of the Senate?they know that we're in the last days of this session, and if they can attach something to this legislation, they can kill this bill. They can kill the years of hard work that have gone into this legislation??

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 200-221. 170 Republicans and 30 Democrats voted ?yea.? 220 Democrats ?including a majority of progressives ? voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit on a school lunch and child nutrition bill. If the motion had passed, it would have required all employees of child care operations receiving funding under the bill to submit to criminal background checks. The motion to recommit also would have eliminated a provision in the bill that allowed the Agriculture Department to regulate the prices of paid school lunches for children with incomes over 185% of the federal poverty level.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
N N Won
Roll Call 597
Dec 02, 2010
(H.R. 4853) Legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers,  but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire.

In 2011, the tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001 and 2003 were scheduled to expire. Democrats supported extending tax cuts for middle class taxpayers, arguing that middle-income earners should not face a tax hike during a recession. (This particular recession began in 2008, and had persisted for more than two years). Many Democrats, however, objected to extending tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans meanwhile, insisted that the Bush-era tax cuts be extended for all Americans. President Obama had urged Congress to pass legislation extending tax cuts only for middle class Americans.

Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ??This is about fairness. We need to fight for working families and let the tax breaks for the wealthy expire so that they can start to pay their fair share of taxes. Today's vote on this bill will let the American people, the 98 percent who don't make $200,000 a year, including 323,000 families in Hawaii, know who is on their side fighting for them.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill, arguing Congress should vote to extend tax cuts for all Americans: ??I have an unemployment rate in part of the area I'm privileged to represent in Southern California, Mr. Speaker, that is in excess of 15 percent. We have a statewide unemployment rate in the largest state of the Union, the largest, most important state of the Union, the state of California, we have a 12 1/2 percent unemployment rate. People are hurting. And so to do anything other than ensure that we don't increase taxes on the people who are struggling to create jobs for our fellow Americans is something that we have a responsibility to do.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 213-203. 213 Democrats ? including all progressives present ? voted ?yea.? All 170 Republicans present and 33 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation extending tax cuts for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Won
Roll Call 596
Dec 02, 2010
(H.R. 4853) Legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers,  but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

In 2011, the tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001 and 2003 were scheduled to expire. Democrats supported extending tax cuts for middle class taxpayers, arguing that middle-income earners should not face a tax hike during a recession. (This particular recession began in 2008, and had persisted for more than two years). Many Democrats, however, objected to extending tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans meanwhile, insisted that the Bush-era tax cuts be extended for all Americans. President Obama had urged Congress to pass legislation extending tax cuts only for middle class Americans.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ??Today we have the opportunity to do the right thing and put American workers ahead of millionaires and billionaires?.Today we can focus on economic growth to help those who are suffering from this recession and to provide permanent, equitable tax relief for the middle class. These should not be controversial positions?.The economic growth that all Americans can share in ought to be a top priority for every elected official, and lowering the tax burden for working families shouldn't be any kind of a partisan fight.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The bottom line is, by resorting to legerdemain, we are going to end up increasing taxes on working Americans?.Any member of this House who votes in favor of this measure is voting to increase taxes on the men and women in this country who are out there saving, investing, and working to create jobs for our fellow Americans, and it is just plain wrong.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 224-186. 224 Democrats ? including all progressives present ? voted ?yea.? All 169 Republicans present and 17 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending tax cuts for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Won
Roll Call 593
Dec 01, 2010
(H. J. Res. 101) Final passage of legislation to keep government agencies and programs operating until December 18, 2010

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Government operations are generally funded by 12 annual spending bills, known as ?appropriations bills.? (For example, one annual spending bill funds Agriculture Department programs and operations, while another funds those of the Defense Departmen.)  Since none of those 12 bills had been enacted, a temporary measure ? known as a ?continuing resolution? or ?CR?  -- was needed to keep the government running on a short-term basis.

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) urged support for the measure: ??This legislation is one page long. It does only one thing: It changes the date so we can keep the government running from this Friday, December 3 to Saturday, December 18. Otherwise, the government would shut down.?

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) sharply criticized the measure: ??I cannot and will not support this CR because it continues unsustainable levels of spending established last year. At a time of historic deficits, record debt, and 10 percent unemployment, I believe we owe our constituents more than the status quo. Let's start cutting spending, Mr. Speaker, today.?

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) urged opposition to the legislation: ?Today's CR is nothing but a continuation of the culture of overspending, persistence of a broken process, and a refusal to make the tough decisions, end earmarks, and do the job we were sent here to do. As a result, our federal spending is off the charts. We are staring at another trillion-dollar budget deficit. Debts are stacking up over $13 trillion. Unemployment continues to hover around 10 percent, and congressional approval by the public remains at an all-time and dangerous low.?

Obey shot back: ?Let me simply say that I will take a lot of lectures from a lot of people on a lot of subjects, because I have made more than my share of mistakes in the years that I have served in this place. But the one thing that I will not take is lectures from the other [Republican] side about fiscal responsibility?. these are the folks who managed to turn $6 trillion in expected surpluses when Bill Clinton left office into a $1 trillion deficit. These are the same folks who insisted on passing two tax cuts primarily targeted at the wealthiest people in this country, all paid for with borrowed money.?
 
The House passed this legislation by a vote of 239-178. 237 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 170 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation to keep government agencies and programs operating until December 18, 2010.




MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 589
Dec 01, 2010
(H. J. Res. 101) Legislation to keep government agencies and programs operating until December 18, 2010 ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and  determining which amendments could be offered to legislation to keep government agencies and programs operating until December 18, 2010.

Government operations are generally funded by 12 annual spending bills, known as ?appropriations bills.? (For example, one annual spending bill funds Agriculture Department programs and operations, while another funds those of the Defense Department.)  Since none of those 12 bills had been enacted, a temporary measure was needed to keep the government running on a short-term basis.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ? I rise today in strong support of approving a continuing resolution to maintain a level and consistent funding stream for our federal government. It is one of our primary constitutional responsibilities as members of Congress to keep the federal government running through the passage of appropriations legislation. This continuing resolution will ensure that all necessary and vital functions of government will continue uninterrupted until both chambers of our legislature have completed their work. If we do not act now, Mr. Speaker, the federal government will effectively shut down this Friday, December 3. This continuing resolution is a short term, straightforward measure to keep the government running and get us through the next 2 weeks, until December 18, while bipartisan negotiations [on spending bills] continue in the House and the Senate.

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged opposition the resolution and the underlying legislation: ??It seems to me that as we look at the challenges that are lying ahead, the notion of saying we are going to continue funding at the levels that created a 91 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending [all spending that is unrelated to military operations, Medicare, and Social Security], that we're going to continue the funding levels that have created that obviously failed $787 billion?stimulus bill [which was passed by the Democratic Congress in 2009 in response to an economic crisis, and was signed into law by President Obama] which has been decried as having failed by people all across the political spectrum?That is why I'm going to urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to oppose this measure. I believe that we can do better.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 236-172. 236 Democrats voted ?yea.? 166 Republicans and6 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation to keep government agencies and programs operating until December 18, 2010.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 588
Dec 01, 2010
(S. 3307) Legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school breakfasts and lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools.

Under the bill, foster children would become automatically eligible for the school lunch program (in which students are provided with a free lunch subsidized by the federal government).  In order to streamline the process of enrolling children in the school lunch program, the measure reduced the amount of paperwork required to sign up for free meals. The bill also established a grant program to increase participation among schools in the national school breakfast program.

The bill directed the Agriculture Department to establish nutritional standards for all food sold in schools ? including products in vending machines. The measure also implements an organic food pilot program (to serve organic food in public schools).

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Childhood hunger and poor nutrition are two of the greatest public health challenges--and yes, education challenges--that face our country. Nearly one-third of American children are overweight or obese, and many of those who are overweight or obese also suffer from malnutrition. This number has been on the rise nationally as well as in my home state of Colorado?.Our schools should be our first defense against childhood obesity and unhealthy nutrition habits that stay with kids as they mature into adults and even have an intergenerational effect across their lives. While hunger affects people of all ages, it is particularly devastating for children.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) criticized the legislation for using unspent funding that had been allocated for food stamps in the stimulus bill (which was enacted in February, 2009 in response to an economic crisis): ?In order to pay for the new programs in this legislation, the congressional majority decided to use previously appropriated funding intended for the Food Stamp Program. The Food Stamp funds were provided under the so-called stimulus legislation, so it's as though the majority is admitting that taxpayer dollars were incorrectly spent, and they are now using those stimulus funds to pay for these programs.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 230-174. 229 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 162 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school breakfasts and lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Preventing Obesity
Y Y Won
Roll Call 587
Dec 01, 2010
(S. 3307) Legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school breakfasts and lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

Under the bill, foster children would become automatically eligible for the school lunch program (in which students are provided with a free lunch subsidized by the federal government).  In order to streamline the process of enrolling children in the school lunch program, the measure reduced the amount of paperwork required to sign up for free meals. The bill also established a grant program to increase participation among schools in the national school breakfast program.


The bill directed the Agriculture Department to establish nutritional standards for all food sold in schools ? including products in vending machines. The measure also implemented an organic food pilot program (to serve organic food in public schools).

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Some of my friends on the other side will say that they want no children in our country to go hungry?.Here's their opportunity to demonstrate that their concern for the hungry in this country is more than just lip service?.I understand the politics here. It's pretty simple. If the President's for it, my Republican friends are against it. But I would ask them and I would plead with them to check those politics at the door just this once. Please don't sacrifice an opportunity to improve the lives of millions of our children on the altar of partisan politics. The need to act is clear. Our moral obligation is clear. Our children are getting sicker and sicker and sicker. If kids don't have enough nutritious food to eat they don't learn.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill: ?I think that all of us in this House, certainly an overwhelming majority of the membership of the House, would support--I certainly do--the continuation and reauthorization of reduced and free school food programs. The bill before us unfortunately does not improve upon the current situation in that regard. In fact, the bipartisan National Governors Association has outlined several problems that they have with this underlying legislation, and I was reading some hours ago their objections. Governors Ritter of Colorado and Rell of Connecticut highlighted new certification and monitoring mandates that will be forced on states by this legislation in order for the states to be able to continue their important participation in these programs.? (The provisions to which Diaz-Balart refers require states to certify that their public schools are in compliance with the bill?s nutritional requirements.)

The House agreed the previous question motion by a vote of 232-180. 232 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 169 Republicans present and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Preventing Obesity
Absent Y Won
Roll Call 584
Nov 30, 2010
(H.R. 4783) Final passage of legislation approving settlements in discrimination lawsuits brought against the federal government by African American and Native American farmers, and extending a cash assistance program for poor families for 6 months

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation approving settlements in discrimination lawsuits brought against the federal government by African American and Native American farmers. The bill also extended for six months the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which provides cash assistance to America?s poorest families. This bill had already passed the Senate. Thus, House passage cleared the measure for President Obama?s signature.

The bill provided $1.15 billion to compensate African American farmers who had brought a class action lawsuit against the Agriculture Department for discrimination. In addition, the measure provided $3.4 billion to settle the class action lawsuit brought against the Interior Department by Native American farmers.

Rep Nick Rahall (D-WV) urged support for the bill: ??Today, we are considering a measure which will settle over a combined century of litigation. The bill will bring to closure some shameful acts undertaken by the United States, and it will allow several communities to move forward in rebuilding their communities and their trust in the United States.?

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) argued: ?Today the House has an opportunity to bring an end to two historic injustices. We can do so by approving the settlement in the Pigford [the lawsuit brought against the government by African American farmers] and Cobell class action lawsuits [the lawsuit brought by Native Americans], helping to make amends to African American farmers and more than 300,000 Native Americans?.Few people in this Nation have been treated as poorly by their Nation as have African Americans and Native Americans. This was a continuing injustice that should have been addressed decades ago and, indeed, of course, should not have happened.?

Rep. Tom McClintock urged opposition to the bill, arguing it was unfair to American taxpayers: ??There is no doubt that Americans of African descent and Native Americans have suffered grave injustices over the years at the hands of this government, and they deserve justice--no more and no less; but if we are excessive in our zeal to do justice to one group, we end up necessarily doing injustice to others. That is the concern that is raised in this bill. Legal settlements--and that is what this bill purports to be--should be settled on legal grounds, but there is a serious question? as to whether these settlements are in the interest of justice or in the interest of all the people of our land.?

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) argued the settlement with black farmers was a back-door attempt to pass slavery reparations legislation: ??We know?[that what] started out to be in the aftermath of the Civil War, a promise from the federal government that there would be 40 acres for African Americans, newly freed slaves, provided by the federal government, by either federally owned land or southern land that had been confiscated by the Union, and there would be a rented mule to go along with that, or a loaned mule. That has been the promise of slavery reparations. Of course, it didn't come to pass?.Pigford?allowed for those who had a legitimate claim of discrimination to file that claim. Many who didn't have legitimate claims also filed claims?.this has become a modern-day reparations component, and it's wrong.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 256-152. 240 Democrats and 16 Republicans voted ?yea.? 149 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation approving settlements in discrimination lawsuits brought against the federal government by African American and Native American farmers, and extending a cash assistance program for poor families for 6 months.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 583
Nov 30, 2010
(H.R. 4783) Legislation approving settlements in discrimination lawsuits brought against the federal government by African American and Native American farmers, and extending a cash assistance program for poor families for 6 months ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation approving settlements in discrimination lawsuits brought against the federal government by African American and Native American farmers. The bill also extended for six months the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which provides cash assistance to America?s poorest families.

The bill provided $1.15 billion to compensate African American farmers who had brought a class action lawsuit against the Agriculture Department for discrimination. In addition, the measure provided $3.4 billion to settle the class action lawsuit brought against the Interior Department by Native American farmers.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Passing this measure will bring closure for hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been mistreated or had their rights violated by the government?.Another critical provision in this bill is the extension of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, also known as TANF. This comes at a time when so many Americans are struggling financially and are due to lose the support of this program if the House does not act.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued that, in the case of the settlement with black farmers, the number of discrimination claims had risen dramatically since 1997? an indication, she contended, that some of those claims were fraudulent.  She said: ?Alarmingly, when this case was originally brought forward in 1997, it was then estimated that 2,000 farmers may have suffered from discrimination by the USDA. Today, while the number widely varies, it is estimated that approximately 65,000 potential claims exist.? With respect to the settlement with Native American farmers, she contended that the Obama administration had not proved that ?these settlement amounts represent a net benefit to taxpayers as compared to the consequences and costs of litigation.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 223-168. 221 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 159 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation approving settlements in discrimination lawsuits brought against the federal government by African American and Native American farmers, and extending a cash assistance program for poor families for 6 months.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 579
Nov 18, 2010
(H.R. 6419) Final passage of legislation extending unemployment compensation for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation extending unemployment compensation for laid-off workers whose benefits have expired. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) urged support for the bill: ?I don't see how we can go home for Thanksgiving when, as a result of failure of benefits, hundreds of thousands of people may not have a turkey on their table because they can't afford it and the next week may not have the moneys they need to meet their daily needs. [This was one of the last votes taken in the House prior to the Thanksgiving recess.] This should be a bipartisan effort?.These are people laid off, people who have been looking for work, people who cannot find work. For every job, at least five people are looking for employment for that job.?

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) urged members to oppose the bill, arguing that the cost of extending unemployment insurance should be offset by cutting government spending on other programs: ?The American people know it isn't right to add these costs to our already overdrawn national credit card. We all want to help those in need, but the American people also know that someone has to pay when government spends money, and it shouldn't be our children and our grandchildren?.So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this bill today. Instead, let's work together to quickly pass a bill to extend federal unemployment benefits while finding a responsible way to pay for it.?

The vote on this bill was 258-154. 237 Democrats and 21 Republicans voted ?yea.? 143 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? While a majority of members voted in favor of the bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since this bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. As a result, the House rejected legislation extending unemployment compensation for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired. Democratic leaders, however, remained free to bring up the bill again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 578
Nov 18, 2010
(H.R. 1722) Final passage of legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home).

The bill would also have required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees. The House first passed this ?telework? bill on July 14, 2010, after Republicans successfully amended the measure to prohibit federal employees from engaging in union or collective bargaining activities while telecommuting. The Senate then took up that bill, and removed the anti-union language before passing the measure. This vote was on final passage of the Senate-passed legislation (which did not include the restriction on union activities).

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) urged support for the measure: ??Despite the evolving nature of the way the Federal Government conducts its affairs, telework, which allows an employee to regularly perform work in a remote location, continues to be woefully underutilized by federal agencies. Private and public sector employers that offer telework consistently experience increased productivity and retention rates, thereby lowering an employer's operating costs?.Given that the federal government owns or leases over 8,600 individual buildings and spends upwards of $500 billion as a landlord annually, this legislation will translate into real-world savings in the near future.?

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) urged support for the bill: ?Telework is an important and cost-effective component of efforts to reduce congestion, greenhouse gas pollution, and smog?.Reducing greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a reduction in ground level ozone in our region, which is critically important to protect the health of our region's seniors and other residents suffering from respiratory ailments or asthma.?

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) argued the bill would not guard against abuse of telecommuting policies: ?This bill lacks the safeguard so that somebody can basically take a Blackberry and a notebook, disappear forever and be almost unaccountable as to whether they ever did any of their core work while doing their union organizing and running activity. That's not in the best interest of the taxpayers. It's not what the last election was about.?

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) criticized the Democratic majority for bringing up the bill without the anti-union language: ?How will we obtain the trust of the American people who are struggling every day in this economy if we allow Federal employees to participate in union activities while on official time, give them benefits when they're delinquent on their taxes, and increase spending in Federal agencies trying to make this flawed teleworking system work??
 
The House passed the telecommuting bill by a vote of 254-142. 240 Democrats and 14 Republicans voted ?yea.? 149 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute ? thus clearing the bill for President Obama?s signature.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Won
Roll Call 577
Nov 18, 2010
(H.R. 1722) Legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home) ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home).

The bill would also have required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees. The House first passed this ?telework? bill on July 14, 2010, after Republicans successfully amended the measure to prohibit federal employees from engaging in union or collective bargaining activities while telecommuting. The Senate then took up that bill, and removed the anti-union language before passing the measure. This vote was on the Senate-passed legislation (which did not include the restriction on union activities).

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation: ?I have often heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak eloquently of how much more efficient the private sector is and about the need for government to take more cues from business. Telecommuting could not be a better example of this. There is no reason that the federal government should not make full use of the perpetual advances being made in mobile technologies to ensure that our government's workforce functions as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) sharply criticized the underlying bill, arguing it was part of a larger agenda to grow the size of the federal government: ?The liberal Democrat elites have found the solution that has evaded them for so long. It is not to keep tax rates for small businesses from rising. It is not to look at ways to cut spending so that more capital is available to the private sector. It is not pushing for improved trade agreements that will increase exports and help restore our balance of trade. It is not to shrink the size and number of Federal regulations that are slowing job creation in the private sector. No. Madam Speaker and ladies and gentlemen, they bring us an opportunity to reinvigorate America's strength by spending $30 million more to make it easier for Federal employees to work from home.? [The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of implementing this telework legislation would be approximately $30 million over five years.]

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 235-171. 234 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 167 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home).


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Absent Y Won
Roll Call 576
Nov 18, 2010
(H.R. 1722) Legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from places other than office, such as one?s home) ? On bringing to a final vote a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from places other than office, such as one?s home).

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

The bill would also have required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees. The House first passed this ?telework? bill on July 14, 2010, after Republicans successfully amended the measure to prohibit federal employees from engaging in union or collective bargaining activities while telecommuting. The Senate then took up that bill, and removed the anti-union language before passing the measure. This vote was on the Senate-passed legislation (which did not include the restriction on union activities).

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation: ?Telecommuting?helps to reduce traffic congestion. Not only does this save gas and emissions, but it decreases rush-hour traffic for all residents of the D.C. metro area, whether they work for the federal government or in the private sector. In the past, some have argued that telecommuting just allows lazy government employees to sit at home and pretend to work. That's simply not the case.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) sharply criticized the underlying bill: ?If we accept as truth liberal claims that unemployment is the exclusive issue of concern to all voters, one must wonder what the liberals plan to do about the stalled economy now that the voters have forced them to refocus. The answer to reducing the unemployment rate: pass flawed legislation that makes it easier for federal employees to stay at home and get paid for work.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 239-171. 239 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 168 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Won
Roll Call 573
Nov 17, 2010
(H.R. 3808) On overriding the president?s veto of legislation requiring courts to recognize out-of-state notaries (notaries performed outside of the state where the court is located)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on overriding the president?s veto of legislation requiring courts to recognize out-of-state notaries (notaries performed outside of the state where the court is located). Most Democrats supported sustaining the president?s veto of the bill (and thus killing the bill), while Republicans favored overriding his veto (which would have passed the bill over the president?s objections).

While the notaries bill was initially non-controversial, many Democrats became concerned that it might inadvertently lead to improper home mortgage foreclosures.  Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) argued: ?Improperly performed notarizations were reportedly a major factor in circumventing the legal protections afforded to citizens in foreclosure--notarizations in the absence of the person signing the document or without that person's signature or sometimes even forged notary signatures. So we are taking a fresh look at the notarization bill. There were concerns that it could have the unintended effect of facilitating improprieties in mortgage foreclosures?The President took the responsible course in refusing to sign this bill into law so that we could give it a careful and fresh examination in light of these concerns.?

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) argued that the Democrats? concerns were misguided, and that the legislation would in no way enable fraudulent home foreclosures: ?News accounts have detailed stories of fraudulent activity involving affidavits used to rid banks of bad mortgage inventories. I support any effort to combat that activity, but this situation does not involve H.R. 3808 [the underlying bill]. The bill applies only to `any lawful notarization made by a licensed notary public.' There is nothing in its language that pertains to fraudulent acts of notarization?.We should override the veto and support the legitimate purpose of H.R. 3808.?

The House sustained the president?s veto by a vote of 185-235. A ?yea? vote was a vote in favor of overriding the president?s veto (most Republicans? preferred position). A ?nay? vote (most Democrats? preferred position) was a vote against overriding the veto (and thus, in favor of sustaining the veto). 169 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted ?yea.? 230 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 5 Republicans voted ?nay. As a result, the House voted to sustain President Obama?s veto of legislation requiring courts to recognize out-of-state notaries.


HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Won
Roll Call 572
Nov 17, 2010
(H. Con. Res 332) On a resolution providing for an adjournment of the two houses of Congress for the traditional Thanksgiving recess. Republicans opposed this resolution because Democrats had not scheduled a vote on extending all of the income tax cuts enacted under the first Bush administration.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution providing for an adjournment of the two houses of Congress for the traditional Thanksgiving recess. (This particular recess typically lasts for one week ? the week of Thanksgiving.)

The minority party typically opposes adjournment resolutions as a symbolic protest against the manner in which the majority party (in this case, Democrats) are running the House ? or as a protest against the majority?s legislative agenda. Under House rules, adjournment resolutions are not debatable. Thus, no members spoke in opposition to the resolution. 

However, Republican members had sharply criticized the Democratic majority earlier that morning for failing to schedule a vote during the ?lame duck? session of Congress on extending all of the income tax cuts enacted under the first Bush administration. (A ?lame duck session? refers to a session of Congress occurring after an election, but before the newly elected Congress is sworn into office. This particular lame duck session took place after the 2010 midterm elections, in which Republicans won enough seats to regain control of the House of Representatives.)

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) argued: ?The American people said in deafening terms that they are tired of the borrowing and the spending and the bailouts and the takeovers and the tax increases of the recent past. They voted for change. That's why it's so remarkable, Mr. Speaker, that this Congress is poised to allow one of the largest tax increases in American history to take effect in January of this year?.It is absolutely imperative, if Congress accomplishes nothing else in this lame duck, that we take immediate action to make permanent all of the current tax rates.?

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) argued that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for top income earners should be allowed to expire: ?We are going to have to decide whether or not to indebt the American people another $700 billion to extend benefits, tax benefits, for the richest 1 percent of the country. Before we go too far in feeling sorry for that 1 percent, consider this: From 2001 to 2006, 53 percent of all gains, total gains, in income in this country went to that 1 percent?.Heed the words of the Roman priest Plutarch, who once wrote: An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.?

The House agreed to the adjournment resolution by a vote of 234-184. 223 Democrats and 11 Republicans voted ?yea.? 163 Republicans and 21 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to a resolution allowing Congress to adjourn for the traditional Thanksgiving recess.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Won
Roll Call 564
Sep 29, 2010
(H.R. 1682) Final passage of legislation (known as a ?continuing resolution? or ?CR?) to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010. (Such measures are known as a ?continuing resolutions? or ?CRs.?) Democratic leaders brought up this bill in the House of Representatives shortly before adjourning in advance of the 2010 midterm elections.

[Congress generally votes on 12 separate spending bills (referred to as ?appropriations bills?) each year. These bills fund the federal government?s various agencies and departments (such as the Education Department, the Agriculture Department, etc.) and most government programs. Since Congress had not passed any of these 12 bills, legislation to fund government operations on a short-term basis was required ? or the government would have shut down.]

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) urged support for the short term funding bill (referred to as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?): ??This continuing resolution is designed to keep the government open and running. We have an obligation to do this. We've got enough problems in the economy right now without adding to uncertainty. The Senate passed this continuing resolution by a vote of 69-30. The House ought to pass it. It is a relatively straightforward and unadorned CR which simply keeps the government open for 64 days.?

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible, and urged members to oppose it: ?This Continuing Resolution would have been the Democrat majority's last hope of telling voters that they're listening to the public's concern about out-of-control spending--and yet, one more time, they have turned a deaf ear.?While I recognize the need to keep the government running in the absence of any spending bills being enacted, I cannot and will not support this CR because it continues unsustainable and unrestrained levels of spending established last year.?

The House passed the short-term funding bill by a vote of 228-194. 227 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 172 Republicans and 22 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 563
Sep 29, 2010
(H.R. 512) Final passage of legislation prohibiting chief state election officials (state officials charged with supervising state and federal elections) ? including secretaries of state -- from taking an active role in campaigns for federal elections over which they have supervisory authority

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation prohibiting chief state election officials (state officials charged with supervising state and federal elections) ? including secretaries of state -- from taking an active role in federal campaigns for elections over which they have supervisory authority. (For example, if a state official were responsible for supervising an election for U.S. Senate, he or she would be prohibited from taking in active role in any campaign for that U.S. Senate seat.) The bill did not, however, prohibit state election officials from taking an active role in campaigns for state offices.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) urged support for the bill: ??This isn't a partisan issue. It's an issue of preserving the American people's faith and the integrity of our democracy. This bill will finally close the door on inherent conflict of interest. It certainly won't solve everything, but it will help prevent future controversies.?

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) urged opposition to the bill: ??We should proceed with great caution before depriving any individual state?of their full rights as citizens to participate in the electoral process?.The bill does prohibit the chief state election administrator from taking an active role in a political campaign of any federal office. And while this bill places significant restrictions on the ability of secretaries of State to participate in the political process, it does so, in my judgment, without producing any justification why such a drastic action is warranted.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass this bill by a vote of 296-129. 251 Democrats and 45 Republicans voted ?yea.? 128 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation prohibiting chief state election officials from taking an active role in federal campaigns for elections over which they have supervisory authority.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Fair Elections
Y Y Won
Roll Call 561
Sep 29, 2010
(S. 3729) Final passage of legislation authorizing $59 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) over three years

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass of legislation authorizing $59 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) over three years. The bill also authorized NASA to carry out another Space Shuttle mission to the International Space Station during that time period. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) argued that while the Senate-passed bill was imperfect, it was the only chance to enact NASA-related legislation before the midterm elections in November, 2010: ?For the sake of providing a degree of certainty, stability, and clarity to the NASA workforce and the larger space community, I felt it was better to consider a flawed bill than no bill at all?Thus, despite its flaws, I will vote to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill.?

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) urged support for the bill: ?While the bill before us today is far from perfect, it offers clear direction to an agency that is floundering and sets us on the path toward maintaining America's leadership in space.?

A slight majority of progressives opposed the bill, and argued it did not do enough to prevent NASA employees from layoffs. (NASA had recently cut its workforce as a result of reductions in funding for research and development. This bill blocked such layoffs for one year. Progressives supported a longer moratorium on such layoffs.) Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) argued: ?I believe that provisions in this bill under consideration today leave NASA employees vulnerable in the long-term and could force the agency to continue down the unsustainable path it currently finds itself on.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the NASA bill by a vote of 304-118. 185 Democrats and 119 Republicans voted ?yea.? 64 Democrats ? including a slight majorityof progressives ? and 54 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing $59 billion for NASA over three years. The Senate had already passed this bill. Thus, House passage cleared the measure for President Obama?s signature.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y N Lost
Roll Call 560
Sep 29, 2010
(H.R. 1682) Legislation (known as a ?continuing resolution,? or ?CR?) to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010 ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010. (Such measures are known as a ?continuing resolutions,? or ?CRs.?) Democratic leaders brought up this bill in the House of Representatives shortly before adjourning in advance of the 2010 midterm elections.

 [Congress generally votes on 12 separate spending bills (referred to as ?appropriations bills?) each year. These bills fund the federal government?s various agencies and departments (such as the Education Department, the Agriculture Department, etc.) and most government programs. Since Congress had not passed any of these 12 bills, legislation to fund government operations on a short-term basis was required.]

The minority party (in the case, Republicans) generally opposes short term funding bills, and argues that such measures amount to admission by the majority party that it cannot govern. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) warned Republicans not to ?demagogue? the bill and urged support for the legislation: ??We are here tonight to?to maintain a level and consistent funding stream for the government. It is an easy issue to demagogue, and it is my hope that everybody will work together now and quickly move this bill to passage and to the President's desk.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Apparently, the House is wrapping up its business tonight, adjourning early for the campaign season. Our final act will be the passage of this continuing resolution, made necessary by this majority's many, many failures?. They [the Democratic majority] did not complete work on a single appropriations bill. And to make matters worse, they are leaving town with a tax hike looming for the American people?.this is not a record of which to be proud.?

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the short-term funding bill by a vote of 233-191. 233 Democrats voted ?yea.? 172 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on Legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 559
Sep 29, 2010
(H.R. 1682) Legislation (known as a ?continuing resolution,? or ?CR?) to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010 ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010. (Such measures are known as a ?continuing resolutions,? or ?CRs.?) If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.Democratic leaders brought up this bill in the House of Representatives shortly before adjourning in advance of the 2010 midterm elections.

 [Congress generally votes on 12 separate spending bills each year. These bills fund the federal government?s various agencies and departments (such as the Education Department, the Agriculture Department, etc.) and most government programs. Since Congress had not passed any of these 12 bills, legislation to fund government operations on a short-term basis was required.]

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) urged support for the resolution, and argued that Congress almost always has to use short-term funding bills (known as ?continuing resolutions,? or a ?CR?) to keep the government operating:
?No one should be surprised with the CR. With the exception of?1989, 1995 and 1997, one continuing resolution at least has been enacted for each?year since 1955. In the 12 years that Republicans controlled the House, CRs were enacted 84 separate times. As in previous years, we are extending funding with a CR??

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged members to oppose the previous question motion. If the motion was defeated, Dreier indicated he would seek to amend the resolution (which set a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the short-term funding bill) to allow a vote on a Republican proposal to reduce government spending to 2008 levels: ?We can have a vote on a responsible level of spending, sending a powerful signal that we will work together to get our fiscal house in order? if we are successful in defeating the previous question, we will offer a?[proposal to return] to the 2008 spending levels.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 240-186. 240 Democrats voted ?yea.? 173 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010 (and did not proceed to a vote on a Republican proposal to reduce government spending to 2008 levels).


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 558
Sep 29, 2010
(H.R. 2701) Final passage of legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. Such agencies include (among others) the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The funding levels provided by the bill for these agencies are unknown because their budgets are classified ? meaning they are not available to the general public.

The bill did not contain two provisions, which were strongly favored by Republicans included in an earlier version of the legislation. The first of those provisions prohibited the use of intelligence funding to bring prisoners from Guantanamo [the detention facility where the U.S. government had held suspected terrorists] to the United States. The second prohibited the granting of Miranda rights [the rights that police officers must explain to criminal suspects in the United States, such as the ?right to remain silent?] to suspected terrorists.

Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, urged members to support it: ?Authorization bills  [bills that ?authorize? money to be spent on certain programs ? in the case, intelligence programs] are critical to the smooth functioning of the intelligence community. We face innovative and aggressive adversaries, and the intelligence community needs the flexibility to adapt. But the authorities and institutions of the intelligence community are, to a large extent, set by statute. Only acts of Congress--traditionally in the form of authorization bills--can give the community the tools it needs to keep America safe.?

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) also urged passage of the intelligence bill: ?There is no higher responsibility than we have when we raise our hands in this Chamber [the House of Representatives] to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the laws thereof. Clearly, one of our major responsibilities is to protect America from adversaries, whether they be domestic or foreign, and in that process have an intelligence community that has the capability of ferreting out those who would harm this country and its people?.?


Rep. Mac Thornberry urged opposition to the bill: ?This bill does nothing to prevent Guantanamo detainees from being brought here to the mainland of the United States, and yet tomorrow, the end of the fiscal year, tomorrow, all of the existing statutory prohibitions on bringing those terrorists here to the mainland expire. This bill was an opportunity to do something about that, and yet it does nothing.?

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) also criticized the bill: ?Tomorrow we are going to allow Guantanamo detainees to be transferred to the U.S.?It doesn't take a rocket scientist to say, That's an awful idea. And Americans say, ?Don't do it.? There's a better way. This bill rejects that notion and goes to the very heart of why Americans are concerned about the direction of how we pursue terrorism in these days and in the days ahead.?

The House passed the intelligence authorization bill by a vote of 244-181. 243 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 172 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. The Senate had already passed this legislation. Thus, House passage cleared the bill for President Obama?s signature.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
Y Y Won
Roll Call 555
Sep 29, 2010
(H.R. 6160) Final passage of legislation directing the Energy Department to develop technology to guarantee a long-term supply of ?rare earth elements? (17 periodic table elements which have proved critical to a number of technologies, such as windmill systems, hybrid cars, and computer disk drives), of which China controlled 97% of the world?s current supply and had frozen exports.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rule and pass legislation directing the Energy Department to develop technology to guarantee a long-term supply of ?rare earth elements? (17 periodic table elements which have proved critical to a number of technologies, such as windmill systems, hybrid cars, and computer disc drives), of which China controlled 97% of the world?s current supply and had frozen exports. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

The bill authorized $10 million to be spent on rare earth materials research activities in 2011, and $15 million per year during the 2012-2015 period. The bill also authorized the Energy Department to make loan guarantees intended to spur investment in rare earth technology.

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) urged support for the bill: ?Rare earths are an essential component of technologies in a wide array of emerging and established industries. And, for everything from oil refining to hybrid cars, wind turbines to weapon systems, computer monitors to disk drives, the future demand for rare earths is only expected to grow. However, despite the U.S. at one time being the leader in this field, China now controls 97 percent of the global market. Making matters more urgent, China has begun limiting production and export of rare earths. This is clearly an untenable position for the U.S.?

While no Republicans expressed explicit opposition to the bill, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) voiced Republican concerns over the loan guarantees, arguing that government loan guarantees are inappropriate if such loans are already available within the private sector: ?With respect to commercial supply needs, taxpayer subsidies in the form of loan guarantees should be restricted to those areas not undertaken by the private sector.? The official website of House Republicans also stated Republican sentiment towards the bill, arguing the bill would ?increase spending, and provide taxpayer subsidized loans to private companies that are associated with the commercial use of rare earth materials.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the rare earths bill by a vote of 325-98. 251 Democrats and 74 Republicans voted ?yea.? 97 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing $70 million to be spent on rare earth materials research activities through 2015, and authorizing the Energy Department to make loan guarantees intended to spur investment in rare earth technology.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Won
Roll Call 550
Sep 29, 2010
(H.R. 847) Final passage of legislation establishing a new health care program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation establishing a new health care program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. A number of rescue workers developed respiratory diseases as a result of toxic chemicals at the site of the attacks.

To pay for the cost of the rescue workers? medical care, the bill required U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations to pay taxes on income earned in the U.S. Democrats contended this simply helped to ensure proper tax withholdings, while many Republicans argued it would prove to be a ?job-killing tax.?

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) urged support for the bill and made a direct appeal to Republican members: ?Now let me appeal to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I understand that some may have a problem with the offset [the tax on foreign corporations], even though it is not aimed at U.S. companies and is simply designed to improve withholding of taxes that are legally due?.But I have to ask this: Just consider for a moment what we are talking about. Balance that tax rate against the needs of our 9/11 heroes, needs that are so great, so raw, and so obvious, and let our moral obligation to the heroes of 9/11, our obligation, as Lincoln said, `to care for him who shall have borne the battle,' prevail. Let us do the honorable thing and vote for this bill?.I will be voting today for the firefighters, for the police, for the first responders, for the survivors of the attacks. I urge every Member of the house to do the same.?

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) also urged support for the bill: ? An estimated 36,000 Americans have received treatment for illnesses as a direct result of 9/11. Those who are suffering come from all of our 50 States and 428 of the 435 congressional districts nationwide were represented at 9/11....Thousands of people lost their lives 9 years ago, but thousands and thousands more lost their health. This is not an entitlement. This is a responsibility to take care of those who took care of us when our country was attacked.?

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) urged opposition to the bill: ??The bill would impose a $7.4 billion tax hike on U.S. businesses that happen to be headquartered overseas but that create good, high-paying American jobs right here at home in communities across this great country. These?companies provide significant employment in the United States, with many of these jobs in the manufacturing sector?.With the unemployment rate hovering near 10 percent and businesses across the country continuing to struggle to meet payroll, now is the worst possible time for a tax hike on employers that will cost us more jobs.?

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) argued that the fund established by the bill to pay for medical care for affected rescue workers amounted to ?a huge $8.4 billion slush fund paid for by taxpayers that is open to abuse, fraud, and waste.? He urged members to oppose the measure: ?Why does Congress continue to overreach and consider taxpayers to be their personal slush fund? There is no excuse for this kind of legislation, and I hope thoughtful Members will want to oppose the bill.?

The House passed the 9/11 rescue workers health bill by a vote of 268-160. 251 Democrats and17 Republicans voted ?yea.? 157 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation establishing a new health care program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 549
Sep 29, 2010
(H.R. 847) On a motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) that would have eliminated a tax on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations (which had not paid taxes on income earned in the U.S.), and cut payments to medical providers treating 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have eliminated a tax on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations (which had not paid taxes on income earned in the U.S.), and cut payments to medical providers treating  9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.) 

The motion to recommit was offered to a bill establishing a new health care program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. To pay for the cost of the rescue workers? medical care, the bill required U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations to pay taxes on income earned in the U.S. Democrats contended this simply amounted to closing a tax loophole, while many Republicans argued it would prove to be a ?job-killing tax.?

Rep. Christopher Lee (R-NY) urged support for the motion to recommit: ?I?m a new member of Congress. I'm from New York. I spent my entire career in the private sector before coming here, not in politics, focused on growing jobs in the manufacturing sector, and I can tell you firsthand these taxes will kill jobs in the United States. These are taxes on new jobs. By passing this motion to recommit, we can remove the harmful job-killing tax hikes and do what's right for these 9/11 heroes and leave the politics aside.?

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) urged support opposition to the motion to recommit: ?This legislation [the underlying bill] is designed to provide health care services for the heroes of 9/11, the policemen and the firemen who didn't know what would be in store for them when they went into the World Trade Center. Many of them are suffering from the health consequences of their activities, and we have an obligation to provide the services that they need. What does this motion to recommit do? It would, first of all, reduce payments to health care providers, making it harder for those people to get access to hospitals to treat them. But the worst thing about this motion to recommit is that it strikes a pay-for [the ?pay-for? refers to the tax on subsidiaries of foreign corporations] that's been passed three times already in the House??

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 185-244. 171 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?yea.? 240 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have eliminated a tax on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations (which had not paid taxes on income earned in the U.S.), and cut payments to medical providers treating 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
N N Won
Roll Call 548
Sep 29, 2010
(H.R. 847, H.R. 2701, H.R. 2378) Legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; separate legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies; as well as a third bill that would enable the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to all three bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to three separate bills. Those three bills included H.R. 847, which established a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; H.R. 2701, a bill, which authorized annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies; and H.R. 2378, which enable the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) urged support for the resolution and the 9/11 rescue workers health bill: ?The attacks caused all kinds of terrible health problems that are unique to 9/11. 9/11 responders have received a lot of awards and praise, but what they tell me is what they really need is their health care. And this bill provides health care to all who need it--monitoring for those who were exposed to the deadly toxins, and assistance for the survivors of the attacks.?

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-NY) urged support for the intelligence bill: ?I know that the intelligence community is the first line of defense against terrorists, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, and other rogue elements who wish to do us harm here at home and across the globe. This legislation? is an opportunity for the Congress to guide the 16 agencies of the intelligence community [these include the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), etc.] while making significant strides in improving oversight of the intelligence community.?

H.R. 2378, which enabled the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies, attracted bipartisan support. Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) urged support for that bill: ?This legislation provides another weapon in our trade arsenal to empower trade enforcement officials to confront unfair trade practices by China and others. If you want to stop Chinese imports coming in at predatory prices and give our manufacturers and farmers the chance to fairly compete, then support the currency reform bill.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) argued the intelligence bill omitted Republican-backed policies, including a prohibition on using intelligence funding to bring prisoners from Guantanamo [the detention facility where the U.S. government had held suspected terrorists] to the United States. He also criticized the Democrats for omitting a Republican-supported provision that prohibited the granting of Miranda rights [the rights that police officers must explain to criminal suspects in the United States, such as the ?right to remain silent?] to suspected terrorists. Diaz-Balart said: ?The underlying bill contains changes [from the original House bill, which included the prohibitions described above] that were negotiated with no House Republican input....the majority wishes to rush to the exit to be back in their districts campaigning, but we should not pass a bill that hurts the intelligence community in the process.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 234-183. 233 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 169 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; separate legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies; as well as a third bill that would enable the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies. The intelligence bill had already passed the Senate. Thus, House passage cleared the measure for President Obama?s signature.]


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
Y Y Won
Roll Call 547
Sep 29, 2010
(H.R. 847, H.R. 2701, H.R. 2378) Legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; separate legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies; as well as a third bill that would enable the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies (such tariffs were intended to make U.S. exports more competitive) ? On bringing to a final vote a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to all three bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to three separate bills. (If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.) Those three bills included H.R. 847, which established a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; H.R. 2701, which authorized annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies; and H.R. 2378, which enabled the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies. (Those tariffs were intended to make U.S. exports more competitive.)

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bills: ?I strongly urge my colleagues, whether they be Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, northern or southern, eastern or western, to vote `yes' on the previous question and to vote `yes' on the rule [the ?rule? refers to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments can be offered] and vote `yes' on the [9/11 workers health] bill. Those who stood up for our country in the wake of 9/11 are now counting on each of us to stand up for them. Another important measure of this rule allows for the consideration of H.R. 2378? which is necessary to level the international playing field so that United States manufacturers can fairly compete with our trading partners. China is, without a doubt, undercutting our nation's industrial base by devaluing its currency and dumping products into our markets, and we must do something about it.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) urged opposition the resolution, arguing the intelligence bill omitted Republican-backed policies: ?The legislation?removes the prohibition on using intelligence funding to bring prisoners from Guantanamo [the detention facility where the U.S. government had held suspected terrorists] to the United States, and it excludes?[a provision] that would prohibit the granting of Miranda rights [the rights that police officers must explain to criminal suspects in the United States, such as the ?right to remain silent?] to foreign terrorists captured overseas.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 235-183. 235 Democrats voted ?yea.? 171 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; separate legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies; as well as a third bill that would enable the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
Y Y Won
Roll Call 546
Sep 29, 2010
(H Con Res 321) Passage of a resolution providing for an adjournment of the two houses of Congress for the traditional pre-midterm election recess (which typically begins in October and lasts into November)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution providing for an adjournment of the two houses of Congress for the traditional pre-midterm election recess (which typically begins in October and lasts into November).

The minority party typically opposes adjournment resolutions as a symbolic protest against the manner in which the majority party (in this case, Democrats) are running the House ? or as a protest against the majority?s legislative agenda. Under House rules, adjournment resolutions are not debatable. Thus, no members spoke in opposition to the resolution.

However, Republican members had sharply criticized the Democratic majority earlier that morning for adjourning for the midterm elections without voting on an extension of income tax cuts enacted under the first Bush administration. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) argued: ?Democrats in Congress won't tell the American people how much they're going to raise their taxes. They're going to wait till after the election when we come back into session. And Democrats in Congress won't tell the American people how they're going to spend their money.?

Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA) argued that an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts would mainly benefit the wealthy: ?A recent analysis shows?Since 2004, those earning $10,000 have received $335 in total tax benefits. And next year they can look forward to an additional $5 if we extend the Bush tax cuts. Now, for someone earning more than $7 million, we will note that they have enjoyed more than $2 million in tax benefits since 2004. And next year they can look forward to $339,000 in tax cuts if we extend the tax cut system that President Bush offered as-is.?

The House agreed to the adjournment resolution by a vote of 210-209.  210 Democrats voted ?yea.? 170 Republicans and 39 Democrats voted ?nay.?  As a result, the House agreed to a resolution allowing the House to adjourn for the pre-midterm election recess.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Won
Roll Call 539
Sep 23, 2010
(H.R. 5297) Final passage of legislation establishing a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.

[The House of Representatives had already passed a small business loan bill in June 2010. The Senate amended that bill and sent it back to the House. House Democratic leaders then decided to bring up the Senate-passed bill.]

Specifically, this bill established a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less. The loan fund was aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers. As passed by the Senate, the bill also provided $1.5 billion to states to administer small business loan programs at the state level. The measure also allowed small businesses to use government loans provided by the Small Business Administration to refinance existing debt.

Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL) urged support for the bill: ?The Small Business Jobs Act [the bill being debated] is one of the most important bills this year to support our economic recovery. During the small business federal resource seminars that I hold in my district, community business owners have told me again and again that lack of access to affordable credit remains their greatest obstacle to business recovery, expansion and diversification. This critical and timely bill will help bridge that gap.?

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) argued the bill would help small businesses recover from the recession that began in 2008: ?Throughout the two-year recession, we saw banks stop providing credit, and small businesses shedding jobs and closing their doors?.today we will pass a comprehensive small business job creation measure to allow small businesses to lead this recovery as they have aptly done in the past.?

Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) opposed the bill: ?Small business owners aren't looking for more government intervention and more wasteful spending. They are looking for some certainty. Small business owners are looking for a commitment from Washington leaders that their taxes are going to stay the same. They need a commitment that they won't be bombarded with more job-killing regulations. Most of all, they need to feel confident that they can hire new workers and can invest in their businesses without the fear that next week, next month or even next year, Washington is going to turn its back on them.?

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) also opposed the bill: ??Another day, another opportunity to borrow $30 billion, much of it from the Chinese, and send the bill to our children and our grandchildren?.The American people are asking, what part of `broke' doesn't Congress understand? They don't get it.?

The House passed the small business bill by a vote of 237-187. 236 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 174 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation (thus clearing it for the president?s signature) establishing a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less, providing $1.5 billion to states to administer small business loan programs at the state level, and allowing small businesses to use government loans provided by the Small Business Administration to refinance existing debt.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Helping Small Business
Y Y Won
Roll Call 538
Sep 23, 2010
(H.R. 4823) Final passage of legislation preventing land exchanges (in which the federal government trades publicly owned land with states, local governments, or private entities) within 160,00 acres of the Coconino National Forest in Arizona

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation establishing the ?Sedona-Red Rock National Scenic Area? on 160,000 acres of land in the Coconino National Forest in Arizona. Designating that land as a ?scenic area? prevents land exchanges (in which the federal government trades publicly owned land with states, local governments, or private entities) on those acres.

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) argued the bill would create jobs in her district at no cost to taxpayers: ??This is a low-cost jobs project. There is no cost to this. It is a project that I have been looking for that creates jobs that requires federal action, not Federal spending. It's appalling, but not surprising, that my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose a low-cost jobs project. They clearly do not understand what's happening to the American people who do not have a job.?

Rep. Doc Hastings argued that the ?scenic area? designation had no basis in current law. Thus, he contended, the bill would lead to frivolous litigation and more federal bureaucracy: ??I have concerns about how this ``National Scenic Area'' designation will affect the safety, welfare, and economic livelihoods of those who live and work within this 160,000-acre proposal?.there is no underlying act [law] for national scenic areas?[the bill] is silent on everything but the fact that land exchanges are prohibited. This sort of vague and open-ended delegation of authority is an invitation to litigation and bureaucratic overreach.?

The vote on this bill was 244-174. All 246 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted ?yea.? 160 Republicans voted ?nay.? While a majority of members voted in favor of this bill, motions to suspend the rules require a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Since this legislation did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed.  As a result, the House rejected legislation preventing land exchanges within 160,00 acres of the Coconino National Forest in Arizona. Democratic leaders, however, remained free to bring the bill up again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 537
Sep 23, 2010
(H.R. 5110) Final passage of legislation authorizing the National Park Service to add 415 acres to the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument in Coolidge, Arizona.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation authorizing the National Park Service to add 415 acres to the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument in Coolidge, Arizona.  (Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.) The monument consists of preserved pre-historic structures built by a Native American community that resided in the area during the early 13th century.

Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) urged support for the legislation: ??Given the value of the resources involved, this should be an easy decision. It would be a shame if political gamesmanship and partisan bickering allowed these pieces of our past, the jobs that would be created, and the hard work of the people of this part of Arizona to be lost forever.?

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) argued the legislation was fiscally irresponsible and could infringe upon the rights of private property owners in the area where additional acreage would be added to the monument: ?First, this bill represents wasteful and unnecessary spending at a time of exploding federal debt. Second, it lacks needed protection for private property rights. Third, it expands the already bloated federal government at a time when our priority should be on jobs and economic growth, not the growth of government.?

The vote on the Casa Grande Ruins bill was 244-174. 242 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 172 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted ?nay.? While a majority of members voted in favor of this bill, motions to suspend the rules require a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Since this bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. As a result, the House rejected legislation authorizing the National Park Service to add 415 acres to the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument in Coolidge, Arizona. Democratic leaders, however, remained free to bring the bill up again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 536
Sep 23, 2010
(H.R. 5297) Legislation establishing a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less ?On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.

[The House of Representatives had already passed a small business loan bill in June 2010. The Senate amended that bill and sent it back to the House. House Democratic leaders then decided to bring up the Senate-passed bill.]

Specifically, this bill established a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less. The loan fund was aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers. As passed by the Senate, the bill also provided $1.5 billion to states to administer small business loan programs at the state level. The measure also allowed small businesses to use government loans provided by the Small Business Administration to refinance existing debt.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation: ?As we invest in our small businesses, we forge a path toward economic prosperity for so many Americans--not only for small business owners, but for those who will be employed by these companies. Improving small business access to capital will foster innovation and encourage the development of new products and services to carry our country forward. Simply put?we have to act now. It's the right thing to do. All of my colleagues who have gone home and talked to their constituents, and particularly to small business owners, know that this issue of extending credit is a big deal. They want us to help, and that's what this bill is about.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) compared the bill to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- a law enacted in response to the 2008 economic crisis. (TARP, which many conservatives opposed, was intended to thaw the frozen lending market, thus making loans available to businesses.) Instead, Diaz-Balart contended that House should extend income tax cuts enacted under the second Bush administration in 2001 and 2003: ?We on the minority side, the Republicans, believe that lowering taxes on small businesses would do far more to help create jobs and lead us out of this recession. One hundred days from today, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will expire and every American taxpayer will see tax increases at exactly the wrong time. Instead of taking clear, concrete action to reduce the tax burden on small businesses, the majority brings us junior TARP today.?

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the small business bill by a vote of 226-186. 226 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 170 Republicans present and 16 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Helping Small Business
Y Y Won
Roll Call 535
Sep 23, 2010
(H.R. 5297) Legislation establishing a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. 

[The House of Representatives had already passed a small business loan bill in June 2010. The Senate amended that bill and sent it back to the House. House Democratic leaders then decided to bring up the Senate-passed bill.]

Specifically, this bill established a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less. The loan fund was aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers.  As passed by the Senate, the bill also provided $1.5 billion to states to administer small business loan programs at the state level. The measure also allowed small businesses to use government loans provided by the Small Business Administration to refinance existing debt.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution and the underlying small business bill: ?Today, the House delivers on a promise it made to small businesses. With the passage of this bill, small businesses, the backbone of our economy, will be given the tools and relief they need to expand their companies, to create more jobs and to help this Nation recover from the worst economic recession in decades?.They [small businesses] can't wait, and we have an obligation to act swiftly to pass this bill today to make good on our promise to reward innovation, to loosen outdated limits on lending, and to encourage entrepreneurs to go to the SBA [Small Business Administration] for help in starting and building their own businesses.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) argued the legislation was fiscally irresponsible and compared it to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- a law enacted in response to the 2008 economic crisis. (TARP, which many conservatives opposed, was intended to thaw the frozen lending market, thus making loans available to businesses.) Diaz-Balart said: ?The underlying legislation establishes a $30 billion fund managed by the Treasury Department in an effort to increase lending from small banks to small businesses. The majority claims that this fund will move quickly to inject capital into the marketplace. What we have today before us is junior TARP?.It's kind of a rehash of the 700-or-so-billion-dollar fund that was also supposed to make credit available for businesses. I was proud to oppose TARP then, and I am proud to oppose junior TARP today.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 230-181. 230 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 170 Republicans present and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Helping Small Business
Y Y Won
Roll Call 534
Sep 23, 2010
On a motion to table (kill) an effort to appeal a ruling by the Speaker of the House of Representatives that a resolution pledging not to hold a ?lame-duck? session of Congress after the 2010 midterm elections violated House rules. (Lame-duck sessions are held after an election but before the newly elected Congress is sworn into office.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Shortly before the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans were trying to prevent a ?lame-duck? session of Congress. (Lame-duck sessions are held after an election but before the newly elected Congress is sworn into office.) Republican members of the House of Representatives offered a resolution pledging not to hold a lame-duck session after the election.  The Speaker of the House ruled that the Republicans? resolution violated House rules. Republicans made a motion to appeal the Speaker?s ruling. Democrats then made a motion to table (kill) that appeal.

Specifically, the resolution stated that ?the Democrat majority has all but announced plans to use any lame-duck Congress to advance currently unattainable, partisan policies that are widely unpopular with the American people or that further increase the national debt against the will of most Americans.? The resolution also stated that the House ?pledges not to assemble on or between the dates of November 2, 2010 [election day] and January 3, 2011, [the date at which the newly elected Congress is sworn into office] except in the case of an unforeseen, sudden emergency requiring immediate action from Congress.?

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) argued in favor of his resolution: ??the intent of the majority is very clear. They want to spend more, they want to tax more, they want to borrow more, and they wish to harm more job creation in this lame duck session. And the American people don't want this. To positively represent our constituents, I urge the Speaker to allow this resolution to be considered.?

Such resolutions ? known as ?privileged resolutions? ? are only permissible under House rules if they affect ?the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, or the integrity of its proceedings? of the House. If the Speaker rules that such a resolution does not meet these criteria, it is in violation of House rules and cannot be debated or voted on.

The Speaker ruled that the resolution failed to meet the criteria described above, and therefore violated House rules. Price appealed the Speaker?s ruling. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) then made a motion to table (kill) Price?s appeal.

The House voted to table (kill) Price?s appeal of the Speaker?s ruling by a vote of 236-172. 235 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 166 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House tabled (killed) an effort to appeal a ruling by the Speaker of the House that a resolution pledging not to hold a ?lame-duck? session of Congress after the 2010 midterm elections violated House rules. This vote, in effect, killed the Republicans? resolution.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 532
Sep 22, 2010
(H.R. 5131) Final Passage of legislation creating a new national park (the ?Coltsville National Historic Park?) in Hartford, Connecticut

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation creating a new national park in Hartford, Connecticut.  (Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.)  This park, the ?Coltsville National Historic Park,? would be established where the Colt Fire Arms Company was once located in Hartford. (The Colt Firearms Company, founded in 1836, was a major small arms manufacturer during the Civil War, as well as World Wars I and II.)

Rep. John Larson (D-CT), the author of the bill, urged members to support it: ?Unlike a lot of people out West who have spacious land, we are limited. This would be Connecticut's only national park because of its historic significance and also because of its economic significance. Hartford is the fourth poorest city in the nation.?

Larson acknowledged that establishing a national park in a densely populated area such as Hartford would pose challenges, but contended they could be addressed: ??Any time you are in an urban area, you are going to enter into different property rights concerns than you would in an area which is less congested? The point is this: between all of the participants, including the Governor of the State, our economic development commission, the city of Hartford?and the more than 88 property owners [who owned property where the park was going to be established]?all are welcoming this with great pride and with the understanding of what this will mean to their city??

Still, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) argued that the bill still raised concerns with respect to private property rights: ?Regardless of the will of these property owners, this legislation would create federal boundaries around their property and raise serious questions about whether their property rights are being violated.? Hastings also argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: ?The American public is pleading for this Congress to stop out-of-control spending. While the concept and the intent behind this proposal may have merit, and I think it does have merit, we need to also acknowledge that the taxpayers will be on the hook for millions of dollars in rehabilitation costs just to prepare this site for visitors??

214 Democrats and one Republican voted ?yea.? 168 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted ?nay.? While a majority of members voted in favor of the bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since this bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. As a result, the House rejected legislation establishing a new national park in Hartford, Connecticut. However, Democratic leaders remained free to bring the bill up again under a different procedure requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 530
Sep 16, 2010
(H.R. 4785) Final passage of legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities, and requiring those utilities (which were recipients of government loans) to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was vote on final passage of legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities. Those utilities would then be required to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations. The bill authorized $993 million to be spent on this program.

Rep. Tim Holden (D-PA) urged support for the bill: ?H.R. 4785 [the underlying bill] authorizes USDA's [the Agriculture Department?s] rural utility service to make interest-free loans to eligible entities. These entities will use these funds to make low-interest loans to rural consumers allowing them to implement energy-efficient measures on their property?. The upfront costs to make energy-efficient upgrades are often beyond the reach of most consumers.?H.R. 4785 is an opportunity to meet these challenges and enact policy that we know will reduce energy costs and consumption and improve the quality of life in our rural communities.?

Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-NC) also praised the legislation: ?The recession [which began in 2008 and continued well into 2010] has had a significant impact on the home construction and services industry, which has experienced unemployment rates of 27 percent.?Home energy retrofit [?home energy retrofitting? refers to home improvements that make existing buildings more energy efficient] can provide, and it will provide, significant employment opportunities for construction workers while boosting domestic manufacturing?.Home energy efficiency retrofits can also cut the nation's energy use, saving consumers money and cutting pollution.?This legislation, Mr. Chairman, presents an opportunity for all of us to work together to save energy and create jobs.?

Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) urged opposition to the bill, arguing it ?would require the government, through USDA, to front nearly a billion dollars to rural electric cooperatives so that they can, in return, make what might potentially be risky loans to their customers for energy-efficiency projects in their homes?.Energy efficiency is an important step in an overall energy plan. But creating a new government funded program is not the solution.?

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) argued that while the energy efficiency loan program amounted to sound public policy, it was fiscally irresponsible given the country?s budget deficits: ? I would point out that 2 years ago the federal debt was a little under $6 trillion. We have added almost $3 trillion to it in the last 2 years. I can't see that there is much net improvement that has happened to our economy with the expenditure of that much money, the addition of that much money to the debt?.With these kinds of deficits, I think we need to think as a body, Is this a program that is absolutely essential and is it worth adding more to the public debt to pass this program? And with all due respect, while this is a good program, it is not a program that I think we should add to our children's and our grandchildren's debt.?

The House passed the energy efficiency loan legislation by a vote of 240-172. 234 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted ?yea.? 167 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities, and requiring those utilities (which were recipients of government loans) to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 527
Sep 16, 2010
(H.R. 4785) Legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities, and requiring those utilities (which were recipients of government loans) to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities. Those utilities would then be required to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations. The bill authorized $993 million to be spent on this program.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation: ??Not only will?[the legislation] result in more Americans jobs; it will lower families' and farms' utility bills. This is particularly important in rural areas where customers are facing increasing costs for electric power. Rural electric co-ops are facing a growing demand for electric power at a time when they are constrained from building new generation capacity.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) argued the bill would fail to create jobs: ?They've come forward with another bill to deal with weatherization that they say will be a job creator. Well, the policies that we've seen over the past 20 months have killed jobs?.We should be reducing the tax and regulatory burden on working Americans and job creators to ensure that we can, as early as possible, have that kind of success.?

The House agreed this resolution by a vote of 225-188. 223 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 171 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities, and requiring those utilities (which were recipients of government loans) to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 526
Sep 16, 2010
(H.R. 4785) Legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities, and requiring those utilities ( which were recipients of government loans) to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities. Those utilities would then be required to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations. The bill authorized $993 million to be spent on this program.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.    

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?This is a good, cost-effective bill?. [it] will create high-skilled, high-wage manufacturing and construction jobs while delivering energy savings to millions of Americans by providing access to capital and energy-efficient technologies.?

McGovern also argued: ?The truth is that more than 92 percent of energy efficiency products are manufactured right here in the United States of America. We are talking about insulation, windows, doors and water heaters. That's why this is so important. A family or a business will not only hire someone to install these energy efficiency products, but these products will be made in our backyard right here in our own country. Make it in America. That's what Democrats want. That's what we stand for.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued the legislation was fiscally irresponsible: ?Even though we have all had the opportunity to meet with our constituents in our districts over the past 6 weeks [during Congress? summer recess], it's clear that the ruling Democratic elite still do not seem to get it?.The fact is we cannot afford, nor do we need, these new government programs, especially at a time when we have an unprecedented deficit and return on this spending is questionable at best.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 226-186. 226 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- voted ?yea.? 171 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities, and requiring those utilities (which were recipients of government loans) to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 518
Aug 10, 2010
(H.R. 1586) Final passage of legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees.

The federal government and state governments fund Medicaid jointly. Unlike the federal government, however, almost all states are required by their constitutions to balance their budgets. During economic downturns, states often cut Medicaid funding in order to prevent a budget deficit ? thus leaving many low-income people without health insurance coverage. This bill was intended to give states sufficient funding to prevent such Medicaid cuts. The measure also provided states with funding to prevent layoffs of teachers at public schools, as well as other government employees such as policemen, firefighters, and nurses. Proponents of the bill estimated that it would preserve over 300,000 jobs.

Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI) urged members to support the bill: ?Today, we can either sit frozen in the ice of our own indifference, as Franklin Roosevelt once said, or we can take action to help states meet their safety net obligations and to protect our children's education by keeping teachers in the classroom while we continue to claw our way back from the most devastating economic crisis since the Great Depression?. Our Nation's kids are getting ready to go back to school. They need this help now, inadequate though it is. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' to give it to them. It's the least we should do.?

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) also urged support for the measure: ?This will provide critical relief for the States and local governments. This is a vote for jobs, for education, for health care?This will help the states avoid the massive cuts in Medicaid eligibility payments and payments to [medical] providers.?

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) argued the bill amounted to a bailout of state governments: ?States across America have as their number one responsibility the education of our young. If the States cannot allocate their own spending in order to carry out that top responsibility, we will never solve the problem with a bailout from Uncle Sam. A multibillion-dollar bailout today will set the stage for nationalized education tomorrow. That will surely push our economy over the cliff of bankruptcy.?

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) argued the bill would produce no economic benefit, and that school districts did not need the funding provided by the bill: ??This bill ignores a simple truth: government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy that is not first taken out of the same economy?.Nor is this necessary to save teaching jobs. A school board faced with the choice between a couple of good teachers and an overpaid bureaucrat is probably going to keep the teachers and fire the bureaucrat. But this bill says it doesn't have to make that choice.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 247-161. 245 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 158 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage and layoffs of teachers and government employees. Since the Senate had already passed the bill, the House?s action cleared the measure for the president?s signature.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 517
Aug 10, 2010
(H.R. 1586) Legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to this bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees.

The federal government and state governments fund Medicaid jointly. Unlike the federal government, however, almost all states are required by their constitutions to balance their budgets. During economic downturns, states often cut Medicaid funding in order to prevent a budget deficit ? thus leaving many low-income people without health insurance coverage. This bill was intended to give states sufficient funding to prevent such Medicaid cuts. The measure also provided states with funding to prevent layoffs of teachers at public schools, as well as other government employees such as policemen, firefighters, and nurses. Proponents of the bill estimated that it would preserve over 300,000 jobs.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation: ??The vote we will take today is a vote for preserving jobs in America and a vote against sending them overseas. It will be a vote for keeping jobs in our country by saving the jobs of over 140,000 teachers, 700 them in my home State of Maine.  Allowing for further cuts in teachers' jobs would be devastating, not only to our children but also to our local economies in Maine and across the country. The loss of 700 jobs in my State means 700 fewer paychecks being spent at a local grocery or hardware store on the goods and services that support our local economy.?

Rep. John Kline (R-MN) derided the legislation as a ?bailout? for states and argued it would merely postpone difficult budgetary decisions: ?At best, inflating state education spending for another year will kick the can down the road, merely postponing the tough decisions and allowing States to overextend themselves for another year. At worst, another bailout will make states more dependent on the federal government and more susceptible to Washington's political whims.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 229-173. 229 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 157 Republicans present and 16 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage and layoffs of teachers and government employees.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 516
Aug 10, 2010
(H.R. 1586) Legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to this bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.   

The federal government and state governments fund Medicaid jointly. Unlike the federal government, however, almost all states are required by their constitutions to balance their budgets. During economic downturns, states often cut Medicaid funding in order to prevent a budget deficit ? thus leaving many low-income people without health insurance coverage. This bill was intended to give states sufficient funding to prevent such Medicaid cuts. The measure also provided states with funding to prevent layoffs of teachers at public schools, as well as other government employees such as policemen, firefighters, and nurses. Proponents of the bill estimated that it would preserve over 300,000 jobs.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?We are here today to extend a lifeline to teachers in classrooms across the country to ensure that students and our future are not mortgaged by a weak economy that has forced states into drastic cutbacks?.This legislation saves or creates 310,000 American jobs, specifically for teachers, police officers, firefighters, and nurses. In Colorado, this bill will save the jobs of 2,600 teachers?.absent the passage of this bill, class sizes will be larger for students across the state, and we will be mortgaging our future because of the current recession.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) criticized the Democratic majority for bringing up a bill that increased federal spending, also noting that the Democratic leadership had interrupted the traditional August recess to schedule a vote on the legislation: ?I would like to say?that this special emergency session called unexpectedly just after a week of the district work period to pass another $26.1 billion in spending is, in fact, Washington, D.C. at its absolute worst. Everything that Americans have come to hate about their government, about the way their government works--the waste, the ineptitude, the cynicism, the lack of accountability, the utter disregard for the concerns of taxpayers--is all very vividly on display right here today.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 244-164. 244 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 160 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage and layoffs of teachers and government employees.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 515
Aug 10, 2010
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 514
Jul 30, 2010
(H.R. 5982) Final passage of legislation repealing a provision of major health care legislation enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation repealing a provision of major health care legislation enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise. (The provision was included in the health care bill to help raise tax revenue to pay for an expansion of insurance coverage.) The provision was widely viewed by members of both parties as overly burdensome for small businesses. The bill also prohibited businesses from receiving refunds from the U.S. Treasury for taxes paid to foreign governments on income that was never reported in the United States.

Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) urged support for the measure: ?This legislation repeals the new 1099 reporting requirements that impose a flood of new tax paperwork on small businesses. This bill evidences our commitment to listening to our constituents and acting to resolve their legitimate concerns.?I have heard from numerous constituents, farmers, manufacturers and other small businesses, about this issue. Repealing these requirements is critical to protecting small businesses and family farms from having to mail hundreds of forms to vendors each year. H.R. 5982 is fully paid for by eliminating $11.6 billion in tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.?

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) urged opposition to the bill based on the foreign tax provisions: ? Now, if you have U.S. companies that are trying to compete against foreign-owned companies in a very complex economic environment and if U.S. companies are subject to double taxation, you can call it a loophole. I call it hurting American competitiveness. The bottom line is we want a Tax Code that promotes private sector job growth.?

Although a majority of members voted in favor of the bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since the bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. The vote on this bill was 241-154. 239 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 153 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation repealing a provision of major health care legislation enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise. Democratic leaders, however, remained free to bring up the bill again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 513
Jul 30, 2010
(H.R.3534) Final passage of legislation imposing new safety regulations on companies engaging in oil drilling, repealing the $75 million cap on oil companies? liabilities relating to oil spills, and requiring oil companies to pay royalties on oil that was discharged from a well (including spilled oil)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation imposing new safety regulations on companies engaging in oil drilling repealing the $75 million cap on oil companies? liabilities relating to oil spills, and requiring oil companies to pay royalties on oil that was discharged from a well (including spilled oil). Democrats brought up this bill in response to the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast region of the United States.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) urged support for the bill: ?This legislation is aimed at shedding light on longstanding inadequacies in the management of our Federal oil and gas resources and to address the lessons learned in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster [the oil drilling rig that exploded, thus causing the oil spill]?. It directly responds to the Deepwater Horizon disaster while also looking forward and attempting to prevent the next catastrophe. It will create strong new safety standards for offshore drilling and the revolving door between government and industry.?

Rep. Henry Waxman also urged members to support the measure: ?This legislation puts an end to this culture of complacency?.It is too late to stop the explosion and blowout on the Deepwater Horizon. But, with this legislation, we can hold the appropriate parties accountable and make sure that this type of catastrophic blowout never happens again.?

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) argued: ?While this bill will cost billions?the real toll is the potential lost jobs because of the actions of this bill. American jobs will be lost, and many will be sent overseas because of this bill. Why is this being done, I wonder, to the people of the gulf coast? The gulf coast has already taken a terrible economic hit. By what measures? do they deserve this Democrat Congress taking action on a bill that will inflict even greater economic pain and suffering??

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) argued that new regulations would not prevent another disaster, and contended the bill was doomed to be a failure: ?The problem is not a lack of bureaucracy. The problem is a tangled mess of rigid regulations, political posturing, contradictory edicts, and administrative incompetence that produced an emergency response worthy of the Keystone Kops. More of the same is not the answer. My advice to this administration and its congressional majority is this: If you can't lead and won't follow, then get out of the way.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of  209-193. 207 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 154 Republicans and 39 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation imposing new safety regulations on companies engaging in oil drilling, repealing the $75 million cap on oil companies? liabilities relating to oil spills, and requiring oil companies to pay royalties on oil that was discharged from a well.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 512
Jul 30, 2010
(H.R. 3534) On a motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) that would have ended a moratorium on offshore oil drilling in the Gulf Coast area of the United States

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have ended a moratorium on offshore oil drilling in the Gulf Coast area of the United States. The motion to recommit was offered on legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling.  The Obama administration imposed the oil drilling moratorium in response to the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast states.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) urged support for the motion to recommit: ??With millions of American families out of work, Republicans will fight for American energy workers and their jobs. The question is will Democrats fight alongside us? The drilling moratorium is killing American energy jobs now. It needs to end now. The rigs are already leaving overseas. So are the jobs, equipment, and the capital. Workers are being laid off, small businesses are struggling to survive, and they won't.?It [the vote on the motion to recommit] is the only vote on this floor where each lawmaker can stand up and fight for these American energy workers right now.?

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) urged opposition to the motion to recommit: ??The fact is we need new safety requirements, and we cannot lift any moratoria in any domestic production of energy without ensuring that the new safety requirements are met. In this pending legislation, we do that. We don't just trust what the industry gives the oil rig safety inspectors. We say you have to verify. The safety inspectors have to verify what previously had just been given to them by the [oil] industry to submit as a final safety report.?

The House rejected to the motion to recommit by a vote of 166-239. 149 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted ?yea.? 228 Democrats and 11 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit (on legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) that would have ended a moratorium on offshore oil drilling in the Gulf Coast area of the United States.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Won
Roll Call 511
Jul 30, 2010
(H.R. 3534) On an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) that removed a moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf Coast region of the United States for companies that meet safety standards issued by the Secretary of the Interior

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) by Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) that removed a moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf Coast region of the United States for companies that meet safety standards issued by the Secretary of the Interior. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had put the moratorium in place following the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast states.

Melancon urged support for his amendment: ?The tragedy [the BP oil spill]?opened our eyes to the need for tougher safety regulations for offshore drilling, to the need to strengthen the enforcement of both new and existing laws, and to the need to protect workers who report their companies' dangerous and even illegal practices to regulators so that we can stop another accident before it happens. Yet an indiscriminate blanket moratorium punishes the innocent along with the guilty for the actions and the poor judgment of one reckless company.?

Rep. Charlies Boustany (R-LA) argued the amendment did not really end the oil drilling moratorium, since Melancon?s proposal allowed the Interior Secretary to make the final decision on whether to grant drilling permits to companies who meet safety standards. (In other words, the secretary could choose to deny an oil company a permit even if they met the met the Interior Department?s safety standards.) Boustany argued: ?I'm afraid that this amendment doesn't fully address the issue. It doesn't address the current moratorium, whereby we are hemorrhaging jobs.?the problem we have is ?[that the amendment] continues to allow the Secretary this wide latitude ? [with respect to] the normal permitting process. So we have a real problem with this?.It's not the kind of policy that we need.?

The House agreed to Melancon?s amendment by a vote of 216-195. 213 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 3 Republicans voted ?yea.? 156 Republicans and 39 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) that removed a moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf Coast region of the United States for companies that meet safety standards issued by the Secretary of the Interior.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
LABOR RIGHTS Occupational Safety and Health
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Won
Roll Call 510
Jul 30, 2010
(H.R. 3534) On an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) allowing the Natural Resources Damages Fund (a fund established to protect and restore natural resources on federal land) to be used for acquiring additional natural resources (meaning new federal land) as a remedy for environmental destruction in cases where the damaged resource is unlikely to be restored

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) on behalf of Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT, who wrote the amendment) allowing the Natural Resources Damages Fund (a fund established to protect and restore natural resources on federal land) to be used for acquiring additional natural resources (meaning new federal land) as a remedy for environmental destruction in cases where the damaged resource is unlikely to be restored. The amendment also provided that the Natural Resources Damages fund use remedies for environmental destruction that restore entire damaged ecosystems, rather than address damage in specific locations.

Oberstar urged support for the amendment: ?The Himes amendment, which I offer on his behalf, emphasizes that acquisition of a natural equivalent resource can be an acceptable alternative to restoration or rehabilitation. Consistent with current law, the acquisition of an equivalent natural resource should be used only when restoration is likely to be?The second part of the amendment will ensure that natural resource damage assessments and implementation emphasize restoring the entire damaged ecosystem rather than dealing simply with specific, discrete segments thereof. The gulf coast is such a unique resource with countless species of fish, shellfish, marine life, wildlife, all integrated, and it really needs to be treated as an overall cohesive ecosystem.?

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) urged opposition to the amendment, arguing the Natural Resource Damages Fund should not be used for the acquisition of new federal land: ?The fundamental goal of the Natural Resources Damages Act [the law that created the Natural Resources Damages Fund]? is to ensure the protection and restoration of all resources on federal lands?.This includes restoration of damages caused by fires, invasive species, oil spills, ship groundings and vandalism. What this amendment attempts to do is to shift funds from the restoration of our national parks and national wildlife refuges to the purchase of? [new federal] land?.I am always weary when I see we are taking another fund and using that to acquire even an extension of federal lands.?

The House agreed to the Himes/Oberstar amendment by a vote of 258-149. 243 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted ?yea.? 144 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) allowing the Natural Resources Damages Fund to be used for acquiring additional natural resources as a remedy for environmental destruction in cases where the damaged resource is unlikely to be restored.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 507
Jul 30, 2010
(H.R.3534) On an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) requiring oil companies to pay royalties on oil that was discharged from a well (including spilled oil), and requiring a study of the effects of oil and gas drilling on marine mammals

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) making a number of changes to an oil drilling regulation bill, including requiring oil companies to pay royalties on oil that was discharged from a well (including spilled oil), and requiring a study of the effects of oil and gas drilling on marine mammals.

Rahall, the chairman of the committee that drafted the underlying bill (which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling), urged support for the amendment: ?It [the amendment] holds CEOs more accountable for the actions of their companies. It ensures that, even when you spill the public's oil, you still pay the royalties that are due to the American people, and it also leads to a more accurate collection of royalties for natural gas.?These are noncontroversial, good government, and good policy provisions. I urge my colleagues to support them.?

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) urged opposition to the amendment, arguing that it included proposals that had never been considered by the Natural Resources Committee ? the committee responsible for legislation relating to oil drilling regulation: ?Inside this lengthy amendment are a number of significant changes to oil and gas policies, royalties, collections, and studies. That might be fine, but I am not aware that any of these provisions have been subject to hearings in our Committee on Natural Resources, and I think that we should certainly have a better understanding of the impacts before we pass this on the House floor.?

 Hastings also noted that the amendment ?includes a cumulative impact [study]of oil and gas on marine mammals,? a proposal that Hastings described as ?insidious.? Hastings said: ?Now I don't know exactly--and I don't think anybody really knows--how to measure what those impacts are?I think it would be good for us, from the standpoint of making policy, to know the full impact of that. And, really, the only way you can know the full impact of that is to have hearings on this subject. To my knowledge, we [the House Natural Resources Committee] have not had any hearings on that.?

The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 250-161. 238 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted ?yea.? 148 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) requiring oil companies to pay royalties on oil that was discharged from a well (including spilled oil), and requiring a study of the effects of oil and gas drilling on marine mammals.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 506
Jul 30, 2010
(H.R. 5851) Final passage of legislation prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials [these employees are known as ?whistleblowers]. The bill allowed employees to file a complaint (accusing their employers of discrimination) with the Labor Department within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory action. Democrats brought up this bill in response to the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast region of the United States.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, urged members to support it: ?No worker should ever have to choose between his or her life and their livelihood, but that's a decision these workers face?.this bill is narrowly tailored and will protect offshore workers who call for a timeout for safety?.Specifically, H.R. 5851 [the whistleblower protection bill] will prohibit discrimination against employees who report violations of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. It protects workers who report injuries or unsafe conditions to an employer or the government, and protects workers who refuse to perform on the assigned task when there is a reasonable belief of injury or spill.?

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) also urged support for the bill: ?Now, following the Gulf of Mexico disaster, it is clearer than ever that providing strong protections to offshore oil and gas workers would be a positive step in encouraging workers to speak out about work safety and health issues at the worksite. Obviously, inspectors cannot be at all workplaces at all times, and so the system relies on willingness of employees to come forward, because these employees, these workers, know their worksite better than anyone else. Yet too many workers fear doing so because they fear repercussions. They don't fear imagined repercussions; they fear real ones.?

Rep. John Kline (R-MN) argued the bill would create a new layer of bureaucracy that would lead to legal confusion with respect to whistleblower protection law: ?H.R. 5851 creates a brand-new whistleblower framework for any individual directly or indirectly involved with a company that drills on the Outer Continental Shelf. We all agree on the need to clarify protections for workers on the rigs, but what about other workers, those who are already covered by other law? H.R. 5851 adds a new layer of legal processes, deadlines, and remedies for workers who are already covered. It creates legal confusion, particularly for those workers who would now be covered by parallel and possibly conflicting statutes.?

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) urged opposition to the bill: ??What we've gotten from this [Democratic] majority is an unserious response, a political response more interested in taking advantage of the latest crisis?.With this Congress, all the serious policy issues are secondary to the politics. Instead, what we get is a bill that establishes a whole new bureaucracy, a whole new whistleblower framework for a specific class of workers.?

The House passed this whistleblower protection bill by a vote of 315-93. 247 Democrats and 68 Republicans voted ?yea.? 92 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
LABOR RIGHTS Occupational Safety and Health
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Won
Roll Call 505
Jul 30, 2010
(H.R. 5851) On a motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) that would have eliminated new protocols requiring the Labor Department to investigate all complaints by oil company employees who claim they have been discriminated against for reporting safety concerns.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have eliminated new protocols requiring the Labor Department to investigate all complaints by oil company employees who claim they have been discriminated against for reporting safety concerns [these employees are known as ?whistleblowers]. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.  The motion to recommit was offered to legislation prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials.

The motion to recommit would have replaced the whistleblower protection bill?s new protocols for filing complaints with a less stringent procedure allowing the Labor Secretary to conduct an investigation of the complaint if the secretary deems such an investigation ?appropriate.? In addition, the underlying bill allowed employees to file a complaint (accusing their employers of discrimination) with the Labor Department within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory action. The Republican motion to recommit would have required such complaints to be made within 30 days.

Rep. John Kline (R-MN) argued the motion to recommit merely extended legally established whistleblower protections to oil workers, and would create less legal uncertainty than creating a new regulatory framework specifically for employees of oil companies: ?The Democrats' bill creates confusion. Our approach gives certainty. The Democrats' bill creates legal conflict. Our approach has established case law. The Democrats' bill will take time to implement and understand. Our approach will provide immediate protections in a manner Federal authorities and workers already know and understand.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) urged opposition to the motion to recommit: ?I would strongly urge you to reject the Republican motion to recommit. What we have before us today in the legislation that I am offering [the underlying whistleblower protection bill]?is an effort to provide the level of protection that these offshore oil workers on the rigs on the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States of America are entitled to. What the Republicans are suggesting is that a law that was written in 1970 is good enough for these workers. Let's understand the environment in which these workers are working. They're working on the most expensive oil rigs in the history of the world. They're making the most complex drills in the history of the world. They're using the most complex technology in the history of the world, and they're doing it in constant motion on top of the seas as they drill for these resources.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 171-234. All 161 Republicans present and 10 Democrats voted ?yea.?  234 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit on a whistleblower protection bill that would have eliminated new protocols requiring the Labor Department to investigate all complaints by oil company employees who claim they have been discriminated against for reporting safety concerns. If it had passed, the motion to recommit would have replaced those protocols with a less stringent procedure allowing the Labor Secretary to conduct an investigation of the complaint if the secretary deems such an investigation ?appropriate.?


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
LABOR RIGHTS Occupational Safety and Health
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Won
Roll Call 500
Jul 30, 2010
(H.R. 3534, H.R. 5851) Legislation imposing new safety regulations on companies engaging in oil drilling and repealing the $75 million cap on oil companies? liabilities relating to oil spills, as well as separate legislation prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials.? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation (H.R. 3534) imposing new safety regulations on companies engaging in oil drilling, and repealing the $75 million cap on oil companies? liabilities relating to oil spills. The resolution also limited debate and amendments on separate legislation (H.R. 5851) prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials. Democrats brought up both bills in response to the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast region of the United States.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution, as well as both of the underlying bills: ?Today, we are considering two bills that will help address some of our most egregious problems. This bill will provide protection for whistleblowers who alert the government to dangerous violations of federal law. Nobody should be forced to choose between his or her job and reporting unsafe conditions. It will also improve the leasing process, making sure all companies follow the environmental and safety rules, and it will ensure royalties are paid on all oil drilled or spilled.?

Rep. Pete Sessions urged opposition to the resolution as well as both underlying bills: ?Today, we are discussing two bills that are reactions to the gulf oil spill crisis. While reforms are clearly needed to make the American offshore drilling safer and cleaner, today's legislation requires new blanket regulations without a good sense of, I think, what the problem was and what the facts say. The investigation of events [relating to the BP oil spill] should be completed so that Congress can act intelligently and correctly. The focus should be on permanently stopping the leak, on cleaning up the oil, on assisting gulf coast communities, on holding BP accountable, and on finding the cause of the disaster. We ought to wait until we get that.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 220-194. 220 Democrats voted ?yea.? 220 Democrats voted ?yea.? 165 Republicans and 29 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation repealing the $75 million cap on oil companies? liabilities relating to oil spills, as well as separate legislation prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 499
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 5850) Final passage of legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs operated by the departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development in 2011

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs operated by the departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development in 2011. The $67 billion total included $45 billion for highway infrastructure, over $11 billion for public transportation investments, and $2.5 billion for repairs in public housing.

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) urged support for the bill: ?Specifically within transportation, investments are targeted to areas that will create skilled jobs immediately and build the infrastructure that underpins future economic growth. The fact remains that our transportation network has great investment needs with aging highways, bridges, and transit systems, and an air traffic control system in desperate need of modernization. It is my belief that we can no longer defer investments in our transportation systems, which provide the foundation for our nation's economy.?

Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI) also encouraged members to support the bill: ??Vulnerable populations affected by the economic downturn, such as the homeless, the elderly and the disabled, are? supported in this bill through programs such as funding for section 8 housing vouchers [housing vouchers for low-income people]?.Low-income individuals have disproportionately been affected by this economic crisis. We need to focus instead on the right kind of affordable housing for seniors, the disabled and the homeless. That's what this bill does, and I urge support of it.?

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) blasted the bill: ?The truth is, as I look at this extraordinary piece of legislation and I think of a $1.47 trillion deficit this year, this massive spending bill just seems to be emblematic of the fact that this majority just doesn't get it. They don't understand that the American people are bone weary of deficits and debt and spending as usual. And they long for leadership in Washington, D.C., that's willing to play it straight, make the hard choices.?

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) also urged members to oppose the bill: ?The nation's debt is the biggest threat to U.S. national security. Yet the Democratic majority brings a bill to this floor spending 38 percent more on THUD [transportation, housing, and urban development] than just 3 years ago?.We are truly at a tipping point which is why the American people are saying: what part of broke don't you understand? No nation can borrow, spend or bail out its way to economic prosperity. This bill needs to be rejected.?

The House passed the transportation and housing bill by a vote of 251-167. Voting ?yea? were 237 Democrats and 14 Republicans. 154 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs operated by the departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development in 2011.


ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 498
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $150,000 for the construction of a children's playground in Yauco, Puerto Rico

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $150,000 for the construction of a children's playground in Yauco, Puerto Rico.

Flake urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment would prohibit $150,000 from being spent on the construction of a child's playground. Now I am the father of five children. I understand the importance of having a place for kids to play. Believe me, kids need to let loose and expend some energy somewhere. But federal spending has been let loose, far too loose, so loose that we have this year a $1.4 trillion deficit. We are borrowing 42 cents on every dollar that we spend.  When we are doing this, we can't just all of a sudden say we are going to build playgrounds anywhere as a model for economic development or anything else. We can't continue to spend money this way.?

Del. Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico) urged opposition to the amendment: ?I requested $150,000 to purchase equipment for a community and recreational park for low-income children in Yauco, Puerto Rico, a city in the southwestern part of the island?.There currently is no recreational park in Yauco, which is home to approximately 50,000 residents, has a poverty rate of 56 percent and has an unemployment rate of over 17 percent. Furthermore, although there are over 75,000 children in Puerto Rico, I am advised that there is not a single recreational park in the entire southwestern region of Puerto Rico that is?accessible to children with disabilities.?

The House rejected Flake?s amendment by a vote of 159-264. 146 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?yea.? 243 Democrats and 21 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $150,000 for the construction of a children's playground in Yauco, Puerto Rico.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
N N Won
Roll Call 497
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for the restoration of the Darwin Martin House in Buffalo, NY, which was designed by famous American architect Frank Lloyd Wright

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for the restoration of the Darwin Martin House in Buffalo, NY, which was designed by famous American architect Frank Lloyd Wright.

Flake urged support for his amendment: ?There are a lot of historic buildings around the country, a lot of them, that need a lot of restoration. My own home needs a lot of it. A lot of people are losing their homes. Those homes need a lot of restoration. A lot of them are losing them because of the Federal Government's spending ways. Yet here we are designating one project to receive a million dollars?.We have a deficit of $1.47 trillion. We have a debt of $13.2 trillion. How in the world can we continue to do this, to earmark money for projects like this, when we have that kind of deficit and we have that kind of debt??

Rep. Brian Higgins (N-NY) urged opposition to the bill: ?The Darwin Martin House in Buffalo is one of Frank Lloyd Wright's singular architectural masterpieces and is currently undergoing an ambitious project to restore it from a period of neglect to its original grandeur. The reason for its inclusion in the bill before us today is because restoration of the Martin House is important to the economic future of Buffalo and western New York. The Martin House currently attracts tourists from all over the world. This investment will help create 200 jobs and $18 million in annual economic activity for a million-dollar investment.?

The House rejected Flake?s amendment by a vote of 165-258. 151 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?yea.? 242 Democrats and 16 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for the restoration of the Darwin Martin House in Buffalo, NY.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 496
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for an economic revitalization project in downtown Tacoma, Washington

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for an economic revitalization project in downtown Tacoma, Washington (known as the ?Downtown Tacoma Streetscapes Improvement Project?).

Flake urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment would prohibit a million dollars going to the downtown Tacoma streetscape improvements in Tacoma, Washington, and reduce spending in the bill by a commensurate amount?.There are a lot of cities around the country that need streetscapes, a lot of them that are probably deserving. But why in the world did we choose this one??

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) urged opposition to the amendment: ?The Downtown Tacoma Streetscapes Improvement Project is a vital economic recovery tool for the City of Tacoma. The Tacoma area has an unemployment rate of 9 percent. In addition, the largest downtown employer has recently announced their plans to move. In response, the community came together and created a revitalization plan to redevelop the downtown corridor. The overall plan is estimated to create 500 new jobs and help transform the local economy?.this is an important economic development project in my district, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask that the Members vote against it.?

The House rejected Flake?s amendment by a vote of 157-267. 148 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?yea.? 247 Democrats and 20 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for an economic revitalization project in downtown Tacoma, Washington.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 495
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for a bicycle path in North Smithfield and Woonsocket, Rhode Island

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for a bicycle path in North Smithfield and Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

Flake urged support for his amendment: ?I love biking. I will go home this weekend and bike. But why in the world should the taxpayers at the Federal level be on the hook for an earmark for a bike path in Rhode Island? Why did we just choose this one? That's part of the problem of this system of earmarking that we have.?

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) urged opposition to the amendment: ?In case people don't understand, there is a public health epidemic. It's called diabetes. It's called lack of exercise. I think we actually ought to be encouraging people to be outdoors. It is a public health issue. We will be paying for this public health problem if people don't exercise. But this gentleman seems to dismiss the cost of a bike path.?

The House rejected Flake?s amendment by a vote of 163-260. 151 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?yea.? 243 Democrats and 17 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for a bicycle path in North Smithfield and Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


ENVIRONMENT Encouragement of Walking and Bicycling as Alternative Means of Transportation
N N Won
Roll Call 494
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut federal funding for rail transportation by $1.2 billion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut federal funding for rail transportation by $1.2 billion.

Flake urged support for the amendment: ?The U.S. Department of Transportation calculates that the average Amtrak passenger receives a $210 Federal subsidy for their [train] ticket.?In fact, the federal government says that it could actually save money by buying a plane ticket for every passenger on some of the worst performing routes, like that from Orlando to L.A., for example. This has been going on for a long, long time, and we're always told that Amtrak will be self-sufficient just around the corner, or that something else will happen; and it simply never does.?

Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) urged opposition to the amendment: ?I encourage my colleagues to oppose this terrible amendment. Rail in America is experiencing a renaissance that we haven't seen in 50 years?.In fact, in 2009 Amtrak welcomed aboard over 27 million passengers, the second largest annual total in Amtrak history. An average of more than 74,000 passengers ride more than 300 Amtrak trains per day. And with gridlocked roadways and ever increasing prices in gas, ridership will only increase.?

The House rejected Flake?s amendment by a vote of 129-293. 123 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted ?yea.? 250 Democrats and 43 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut federal funding for rail transportation by $1.2 billion.


ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
N N Won
Roll Call 493
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to a transportation, housing, and urban affairs bill that would have cut $18.6 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to a transportation, housing, and urban affairs bill that would have cut $18.6 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. (The amendment was intended to reduce funding for those two departments to 2008 levels.)

Jordan urged support for his amendment: ?My amendment is real simple. It says this bill should go back and we should spend it at 2008 baseline levels. After all, a lot of families are living on something less. A lot of families have had to live on what they were functioning on in 2008. A lot of small businesses are functioning on what they had to in 2008. Why in the heck can't the Federal Government do the same thing??

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) urged opposition to the amendment: ?We are now coming out of this recession. If an amendment were implemented, such as the one the gentleman from Ohio has proposed, it would send us right back into the recession. We cannot do this?.Is this a deliberate effort to put us back into a double-dip recession [in which the economy enters a recession, recovers, and then enters a recession again ? thus ?double dipping?) that would be so similar to the Great Depression??

The House rejected Jordan?s amendment by a vote of 159-265. 152 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted ?yea.? 250 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut $18.6 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.


ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 492
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to a transportation, housing, and urban affairs bill that would have cut $10.5 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) to a transportation, housing, and urban affairs bill that would have cut $10.5 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.

Neugebauer urged support for his amendment: ?Our national debt is $13 trillion today. We are headed to $20 trillion. We are headed to having debt almost equal to 90 percent of our total economy?.let?s give the American people a break. Let's give them their $10 billion back. A lot of people say, well, it's just $10 billion; but that's the problem around here. People don't take money seriously because it's not real money to them because we are charging it to our children and our grandchildren.?

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) urged opposition to the amendment: ?As the amendment is written?it is a straight across-the-board amendment of a couple of billion dollars difference from the one that was offered by Mr. Culberson [an amendment which would have cut $12.4 billion from the bill] earlier and has been defeated by roll call vote in the last round of roll calls.? Earlier, Olver had argued against across-the-board cuts, saying: ??This is about the worst kind of amendment that you can have, because it provides no indication of priorities whatsoever. It just cuts everything in the whole government an equal percentage amount and gives no priority indication whatsoever.?

The House rejected the Neugebauer amendment by a vote of 177-247. 165 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?yea.? 244 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut $10.5 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.


ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 491
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 847) Final Passage of legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) urged support for the bill: ?On 9/11, roughly 3,000 people lost their lives, but thousands and thousands lost their health because they rushed in to save others. To date, the Federal Government has identified more than 20,000 individuals who have health problems as a direct result of the attacks. Caring for those who are suffering is a national responsibility. Every single State, 428 of the 435 congressional districts have someone enrolled in the Federal World Trade Center Health Registry because they were near Ground Zero or worked at Ground Zero.?

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) criticized the Democratic majority for bringing up the bill under suspension of the rules, which prohibits amendments. He argued that Democrats used this process in order to avoid voting on a Republican amendment that would have prohibited the bill?s funds from being used by illegal immigrants. King characterized the process as ?a cruel hoax and a charade.? He also said: ?Everyone also knows that this bill would pass with a clear majority if the Democrat leadership would allow it to come to the floor under the regular procedures of the House. The reason H.R. 847 is not being brought up under regular order is because the majority party is petrified of having its members face a potential vote on illegal immigration. You can blame it on the Republicans?but the reality is you could pass this bill if you wanted to. You are in control. You have the power. You have the responsibility.?

While a majority of members voted in favor of the bill, the measure failed to receive the two-thirds majority vote required for passage under suspension of the rules. Thus, the bill was rejected. The vote on the bill was 255-159. 243 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted ?yea.? 155 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Democratic leaders, however, could bring up the bill again under a different procedure requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.


HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 490
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to a transportation, housing, and urban affairs bill that would have cut $12.4 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on amendment by Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) that would have cut $12.4 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. The amendment applied an ?across-the-board? 18% cut to all programs funded by the bill.
Culberson urged support for his amendment: ?The burden that these levels of debt and deficit will impose on our kids will undoubtedly result in massive tax increases, dramatic cuts in social programs. And every chance we get, Mr. Chairman, on every bill, we want to try to do what we can to save money. And so my amendment today would cut the total spending level in this bill by 18 percent.?

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) urged members to oppose the amendment: ?I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Actually this is about the worst kind of amendment that you can have, because it provides no indication of priorities whatsoever. It just cuts everything in the whole government an equal percentage amount and gives no priority indication whatsoever?. Fiscal prudence simply cannot mean turning hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes, eliminating almost a quarter of a million jobs, and creating real transportation safety concerns.?

The House rejected Culberson?s amendment by a vote of 169-252. 156 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?yea.? 240 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut $12.4 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.


ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 489
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut $1.8 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut $1.8 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.

Latham urged support for his amendment: ?We're going to have a $1.47 trillion deficit this year. Forty-three cents on every dollar that we're spending is borrowed money, and our kids, our grandchildren are going to have to pay for it--or our great-great-grandchildren, the way we're going--and it simply is not sustainable?. And if we can't do it here on this very small amendment on this huge bill, we're never going to save our fiscal future for our kids and our grandchildren.?

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) urged members to oppose the amendment: ?This amendment would result in cuts to a number of programs that are critical to creating jobs, increasing transportation safety, and restoring support to programs serving vulnerable Americans across the country.?This funding [which Latham sought to cut] would have a positive impact on the economy, create thousands of jobs, and occur over a several-year period, thereby serving as a slow release remedy to keep the recovery going as it ought to do.?

The House rejected Latham?s amendment by a vote of 197-225. 167 Republicans and 30 Democrats voted ?yea.? 224 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut $1.8 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.


ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 488
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 5850) On an amendment that would have eliminated a $40 million initiative for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide technical assistance for states, cities, and nonprofit organizations for using HUD funding effectively

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment (to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation) that would have eliminated a $40 million initiative for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide technical assistance for states, cities, and nonprofit organizations for using HUD funding effectively.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), the author of the amendment, urged members to support it: ?Now, let me get this straight. We're going to spend $40 million, money that we don't have, to train communities on how they can spend our money. I would think that if we are going to send money to a community that we would know what the money is for, that the community would know what it's for, and that spending $40 million to train them on how to spend our money is a giant waste of time. I urge my colleagues to support the elimination of the Transformation Initiative and save our kids and grandkids $40 million.?

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) urge opposition to the amendment: ?The bill before us includes $40 million for HUD to provide technical assistance to nonprofit organizations, cities, States on how to use HUD funding efficiently and effectively. The amendment removes every penny, every penny, of this technical assistance funding from HUD. It is a meat axe amendment. Cutting funding for technical assistance does nothing but make the programs less effective?In fact, technical assistance is the only way that communities can increase their capacity and improve program delivery to their vulnerable populations who need assistance.?

The House rejected Boehner?s amendment by a vote of 206-217. 165 Republicans and 41 Democrats voted ?yea.? 214 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 3 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to a transportation and housing bill that would have eliminated a $40 million initiative for HUD to provide technical assistance for states, cities, and nonprofit organizations for using HUD funding effectively.


HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
N N Won
Roll Call 486
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 5893) Legislation providing roughly $9 billion in infrastructure investment programs (programs intended to create jobs through the construction of things like roads and bridges) and approximately $3.5 billion for employment assistance programs for low-income families ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation providing approximately $9 billion for infrastructure investment programs (programs intended to create jobs through the construction of things like roads and bridges) and $3.5 billion for employment assistance programs for low-income families. The measure also eliminated approximately $11 billion in tax breaks for U.S. companies with overseas operations. (As of press time, no official cost estimate for this bill had been released. Thus, these rough estimates for the measure?s expenditures were based on information made available from the committee that drafted the bill.)

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) argued the underlying bill ?creates and protects American jobs through increased investment in infrastructure and by closing tax loopholes that enable companies to move their operations offshore. This is another piece of legislation to add to the long list of bills that Democrats have passed this Congress to spur opportunities to support American jobs, American manufacturing, and American families. Democrats are helping Americans dig out of the worst recession in decades. ?

Rep. Virginia Foxx criticized Democrats for prohibiting amendments to the bill, and also criticized the bill itself: ?Although we've grown accustomed to this type of process under the reign of the current liberal Democrat majority, their arrogance and contempt for institutional integrity never ceases to shock and amaze us?.Let's be clear about what this bill does?We are spending more of taxpayers' money on plans that will kill private-sector jobs. We know we have the largest deficit in history, and we need to stop this spending.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 233-182. 233 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 169 Republicans present and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing roughly $9 billion in infrastructure investment programs and approximately $3.5 billion for employment assistance programs for low-income families.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 485
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 5850) Legislation providing approximately $67 billion for programs operated by the departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development in 2011 ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing approximately $67 billion for programs relating to transportation, housing, and urban development in 2011.

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) praised the underlying transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation: ?Included in H.R. 5850 [the transportation and housing bill] is $45.2 billion to improve and repair our Nation's aging highway infrastructure. The bill includes more than $11.3 billion for the Federal Transit Administration, which will support bus and rail projects, and an estimated 20,000 additional jobs for transit workers nationwide. This not only provides more transportation options to Americans during tough economic times, it also decreases traffic congestion, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gas emissions, and makes our roads safer for commuters.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) argued that limiting amendments to the underlying bill was an example of the Democratic majority ?moving in the direction of more restrictions, more control, less liberty, and less opportunity?.By tradition, appropriations have been sacrosanct when it comes to the amendment process?.But now it has tragically?become the norm for us to shut down the opportunity for the American people?to be heard through their elected representatives, denying both Democrats and Republicans alike the opportunity to participate.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 231-185. 231 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 168 Republicans present and 17 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs relating to transportation, housing, and urban development in 2011.


ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 484
Jul 29, 2010
(H.R. 5850) Legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs relating to transportation, housing, and urban development in 2011 ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs relating to transportation, housing, and urban development in 2011.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.  

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) praised the underlying transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation: ?I rise?in strong support of H.R. 5850 [the transportation and housing bill]? because housing and transportation are two areas that must be priorities, especially in tough economic times such as we are in, because we get the double return on our investment. As we have seen with the recovery bill, investment in infrastructure not only generates economic recovery by putting people back to work, but those construction jobs strengthen our transportation system and improve our housing stock. They make our roads safer, our bridges safer for our families and our friends and our constituents to travel on.?

Republicans generally focused their remarks on the resolution limiting amendments to the bill, rather than the bill itself. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) criticized the Democratic majority for limiting amendments to the bill: ?Always throughout the history of the Republic, appropriations bills have been brought forth under open rules [allowing for unlimited amendments]?. sometimes the process of debate on appropriations bills got unruly and long and frustrating. But that's the way democracy's supposed to work?. this process is unjust and it's unnecessary?It's a colossal mistake that the majority will come to regret.?

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 236-179. Voting ?yea? were 236 Democrats. All 167 Republicans present and 12 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs relating to transportation, housing, and urban development in 2011.


ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 483
Jul 29, 2010
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 481
Jul 28, 2010
(H.R. 5822) On an amendment to a Veterans Affairs Department funding bill that would have increased funding for veterans? cemeteries by $7 million and cut funding for military base construction projects by $7 million

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) that would have increased funding for veterans? cemeteries by $7 million and cut funding for military base construction projects by $7 million.

Garrett urged support for the amendment: ?This amendment would increase the amount of funding for grants for construction of States veterans cemeteries by $7 million while reducing funding for grants for construction of minor projects by an equal amount. The VA provides funding for State veterans cemeteries through the grants for construction of State veterans cemeteries program?.This is not an earmark program. It is a competitive ranking process?.the appropriations bill we are considering today provides only $46 million for grants for construction of State veterans? cemeteries.?

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) urged members to oppose the amendment: ?This amendment would adversely affect veterans in my district by shifting funding away from priority construction projects, such as the?extended stay unit in Butler, Pennsylvania. That facility is a vital source of shelter and rehabilitation for homeless veterans in western Pennsylvania, and I will not allow its upkeep and improvement to be compromised by this type of unwise amendment.?

The House rejected the Garrett amendment by a vote of 128-296. 108 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted yea.? 234 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 62 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to a Veterans Affairs Department funding bill that would have increased funding for veterans? cemeteries by $7 million and cut funding for military base construction projects by $7 million.




WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Won
Roll Call 480
Jul 28, 2010
(H.R. 5822) On an amendment to a Veterans Affairs Department funding bill that prohibited the measure?s funds from being used to transfer detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison to a facility in the United States

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)  to a Veterans Affairs Department funding bill that prohibited the measure?s funds from being used to transfer detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison to a facility in the United States. Since 2001, the federal government had held suspected terrorists at a detention center in Guantanamo Bay.

Gingrey urged support for his amendment: ??Transferring the detainees to the United States could eventually lead to their release on American soil, which would put our own citizens at risk. It could create significant immigration issues as aliens could become eligible for asylum or other forms of immigration-related relief from removal. It most certainly would make any facility where they are held a terrorist target.?

No members spoke in opposition to the amendment. 69 House Democrats, however ? including most progressives ? voted ?nay.? Calls to Democratic offices seeking an explanation for their votes were not returned.    

Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX), a key supporter of the veterans? bill, said: ?I do want to clarify that there is no funding in this bill of any type to fund any kind of facility to house detainees from Guantanamo. Having said that, I would be glad to support the gentleman's amendment.?

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), a staunch ally of the Obama administration and a supporter of closing the Guantanamo Bay facility, said this in 2009, as quoted by ABC News: "If we can safely hold these individuals, I believe we can safely hold any Guantanamo detainees who need to be held?no [terrorist] prisoner has ever escaped in the United States, period. Republicans also claim the administration wants to release terrorists in our communities, some kind of work release, walking around situation for terrorists. What an incredible charge, and patently false. President Obama has made clear that Guantanamo will be closed in a manner consistent with our national security."

A July 21 article in Roll Call entitled ?Guantánamo Debate Has Gone Silent on Capitol Hill,? made note of the Democrats? hesitancy to address Guantanamo. The article quoted House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) as saying: ?That?s [Guantanamo] not an issue being discussed very broadly. I think that you?re not going to see it discussed very broadly in the near term.?

The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 353-69. 182 Democrats and all 171 Republicans present voted ?yea.? 69 Democrats voted ?nay. As a result, the House agreed to an amendment to a Veterans Affairs Department funding bill that prohibited the measure?s funds from being used to transfer detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison to a facility in the United States.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD People in Jails and Prisons
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y N Lost
Roll Call 479
Jul 28, 2010
(H.R. 5827) Final passage of legislation ensuring that individuals filing for bankruptcy do not have to relinquish firearms as part of the bankruptcy proceedings

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation ensuring that individuals filing for bankruptcy do not have to relinquish firearms as part of the bankruptcy proceedings. (Current law required such individuals to turn over personal assets ? including guns ? to bankruptcy trustees).

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH), the author of the legislation, urged members to support the bill: ?Since 2005, debtors who file bankruptcy could retain household goods such as radios, TVs, VCRs and linens, but not firearms. Currently, bankruptcy for gun owners not only means the seizure of family heirlooms, but perhaps the inability for them to protect their own family. This means that families who file bankruptcy are left without this constitutionally provided right. H.R. 5827 [the bankruptcy/firearms bill] ensures a person who files for bankruptcy will not lose a treasured family heirloom or sporting equipment passed down from one generation to the next.?

 Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) also urged members to support the measure: ?The Bankruptcy Code already exempts a variety of other basic items like linens and household goods that a debtor needs during a bankruptcy case to live a modest life and reorganize his or her financial affairs. The bill confirms that a debtor can maintain his or her own safety while the bankruptcy case is pending. The bankruptcy exemption we are creating today is consistent with the principles embodied in the Second Amendment.?

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) urged members to oppose the bill: ?I sympathize greatly with individuals and families who are facing a bankruptcy. But as part of a bankruptcy proceeding, personal assets are turned over to bankruptcy trustees. The trustees collect assets--cars, boats, and so on?. What is special about guns, though, that they should have a special carve-out?... Furthermore, studies have shown that the presence of guns in households, especially those experiencing bankruptcy, enhances the risk of suicide, or even worse, murder-suicide.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass this bill by a vote of 307-113. 168 Republicans and 139 Democrats voted ?yea.? 112 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 1 Republican ? voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation ensuring that individuals filing for bankruptcy do not have to relinquish firearms as part of the bankruptcy proceedings.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Gun Control
N N Lost
Roll Call 476
Jul 28, 2010
(H.R. 5822) Legislation providing approximately $121 billion for veterans programs in 2011 ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill providing approximately $121 billion for veterans programs in 2011. The $121 billion total included funding for veterans? medical care, assistance for homeless veterans, and the maintenance of veterans? medical facilities. In addition to the veterans funding, the bill provided nearly $19 billion for military base construction projects in 2011.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ??For more than 9 years our country has been engaged in two conflicts halfway around the world. The number of wounded military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan has put a financial strain on the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA expects to treat more than 6.1 million patients in 2011, including more than 439,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan?.I am very proud of what this bill does for our Nation's veterans. Their service has earned them world-class health care and benefits, and Congress has a moral obligation to provide the best benefits possible.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) criticized the Democratic majority for limiting amendments to the bill, arguing that annual spending measures ? known as ?appropriations? bills ? had traditionally been brought up under a process allowing for unlimited amendments: ?The Congress' constitutional obligation [to pass annual appropriations bills]?has traditionally manifested itself in an open appropriations process. That process allows every member of the House to propose any amendments?to the 12 appropriations bills. That's the way it's been done, certainly since I've been here, and I know for decades and decades and generations before.?

Still, Diaz-Balart urged support for the underlying veterans bill: ?The underlying legislation continues our commitment to the brave men and women who sacrifice so much to keep the nation safe, supporting our service members on base, deployed abroad, and to care for them when they come home.?

The House agreed to resolution by a vote of 243-178. 243 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 171 Republicans present and 7 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing approximately $121 billion for veterans programs and nearly $19 billion for military base construction projects in 2011.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
Y Y Won
Roll Call 474
Jul 27, 2010
(H.R. 4899) Final passage of legislation providing $59 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation providing $59 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) urged support for the bill: ?Those of us here in Congress cannot lose sight of the broader perspective. Our brave military men and women and their civilian counterparts are in the midst of a tough fight that is critical to U.S. national security. Cutting off their funding in the middle of that fight is tantamount to abandonment. I have confidence that? our troops will succeed in Afghanistan if given the time, space, and resources they need to complete their mission.?

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) also urged support for the measure: ??Today we take a vital step toward fulfilling one of Congress' most basic and important responsibilities. We will provide the men and women of the United States military with the resources they need to carry out their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, missions for which they are risking their lives.?

Rep. David Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, expressed sentiment shared by many progressives on the war in Afghanistan. Still, he argued that as the chairman, it was his duty to bring the bill to the House floor: ?I have a?conflicting obligation on this matter. As chairman of the committee, I have an obligation to this House to bring this war supplemental before the House to allow this institution to work its will. But I also have the obligation of my conscience to indicate by my individual vote my profound skepticism that this action will accomplish much more than to serve as a recruiting incentive for those who most want to do us ill.?

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) also urged opposition to the bill: ?I believe in this Nation, and I believe in our soldiers. I salute them. And I believe it is time to bring them home with honors. They are our heroes. They have done what they needed to do in Afghanistan?.It's time now to bring them home with honor.  Vote "no'' on this supplemental [war-funding bill].

The House passed the war-funding bill by a vote of 308-114. 160 Republicans and 148 Democrats voted ?yea.? 102 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 12 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation providing $59 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure had already passed the Senate. Thus, House passage cleared the measure for the president?s signature.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 473
Jul 27, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 301 Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Pakistan
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N Y Lost
Roll Call 470
Jul 27, 2010
(H. Con. Res 301) Legislation directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Pakistan ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the measure

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation directing the president to withdraw U.S. troops from Pakistan. The United States had been carrying out military operations in Pakistan as part of its ongoing anti-terrorism efforts. (The Taliban and other militant groups had been operating out of Pakistan as well as Afghanistan.)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the sponsor of the resolution, urged members to support it. He argued that American involvement in Pakistan would prove fruitless if the Pakistani government did not take steps to fight extremists within its own country: ??Americans are increasingly weary of this costly war. If Mr. Obama cannot persuade Islamabad to cut its ties to, and then aggressively fight, the extremists in Pakistan, there is no hope of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) argued that by passing a measure requiring the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Pakistan, Congress could undermine the war effort: ?...For the sake of our troops in Afghanistan and for the sake of stability and security in a critical region, we must remain engaged with the democratically elected government in Islamabad. This engagement takes a number of different forms. While we have no combat troops in Pakistan, our military commanders have been building relationships with their Pakistani counterparts. Particularly, as Pakistan continues to go on the offensive against insurgent groups in the tribal border region, the technical advisory role of our military is a very limited yet a very important one.?

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the Pakistan measure by a vote of 222-196. 217 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- and 5 Republicans voted ?yea.? 165 Republicans and 31 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Pakistan.


WAR & PEACE Arms Controls Treaties
Y Y Won
Roll Call 467
Jul 26, 2010
(H.R. 1320) Final passage of legislation barring members of federal advisory committees (which make policy recommendations to federal government agencies) from being appointed based on their political affiliation, and requiring those committees to provide transcripts of their meetings and disclose information relating to members? conflicts of interest

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation barring members of federal advisory committees from being appointed based on their political affiliation. The bill also required advisory committees to provide transcripts of their meetings and disclose information relating to members? conflicts of interest. Federal advisory committees are comprised of policy experts from the public (government) and private sectors. They make policy recommendations to federal government agencies.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.
 
Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) urged support for the bill: ?Advisory committees provide the President and agencies with expert advice on complex issues. Current examples include the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that was established to advise the President on policies to achieve fiscal sustainability and the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill....[The bill] will shed light on who is advising the government, how they are advising the government, and what they are saying. I urge any colleagues to support this important open-government legislation.?

No members spoke in opposition to the bill, yet most Republicans (124) voted against the measure. A website run by House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), however, expressed Republican sentiment about federal advisory committees ? and recommended that Congress cut $170 million in funding for those committees over five years by consolidating them: ?In 2008, the Federal government spent $342 million on 917 active Federal Advisory Committees. These committees had nearly 64,000 total members. Many of these committees are duplicative. For example, the National Endowment for the Arts spent $1.3 million on two separate advisory panels, both of which makes recommendations to the NEA [National Endowment for the Arts] chairman?. Consolidating existing advisory committees and with a goal of reducing overall funding by 10% would save taxpayers $34 million next year and $170 million over five years.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules by a vote of 250-124. 223 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted ?yea.? 124 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation barring members of federal advisory committees from being appointed based on their political affiliation, and requiring those committees to provide transcripts of their meetings and disclose information relating to members? conflicts of interest.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Won
Roll Call 466
Jul 22, 2010
(H.R. 1264) Legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, wind coverage ?would be offered at a premium sufficient to cover the future expected cost of that coverage.? In other words, the program would be financially ?self-sustaining,? and would not add to the federal budget deficit.

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) urged support for the bill, and implied that measure?s opponents were simply in the pocket of the insurance industry: ?If I was a shill for the insurance industry, and apparently we have our share on the floor today, I would do everything but talk about what the insurance industry did to south Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina?What we are proposing is a program that?would allow people to?pay for a wind option. That way if they come home to nothing, if they come home to a substantially destroyed house, it doesn't matter if the wind did it, it doesn't matter if the water did it; the fact is they built their house the way they were supposed to, they built it in a place that was safe, they paid their premiums, and they are going to get paid.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) argued that if the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was expanded to cover wind damage, it would assume additional liability that would be passed onto taxpayers: ?Transferring these liabilities from the private sector to the NFIP would be fiscally irresponsible. The NFIP currently owes the U.S. Treasury over $18 billion--yet we're going to give them some more, we're going to empower them some more--the amount that it's been forced to borrow from the American taxpayers to pay claims and expenses in excess of the premiums collected.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 228-183. 227 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 166 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Natural Disasters
Y Y Won
Roll Call 465
Jul 22, 2010
(H.R. 1264) Legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.    

According to the Congressional Budget Office, wind coverage ?would be offered at a premium sufficient to cover the future expected cost of that coverage.? In other words, the program would be financially ?self-sustaining,? and would not add to the federal budget deficit.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) argued the legislation was necessary because, in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, insurance companies had ?engaged in a maddening shell game with homeowners about their coverage? and refused to cover damage they claimed was due to wind and not flooding. Slaughter argued: ?The apparent loophole in coverage made it very difficult for many families to rebuild in the months and years after the storm. The same problem has cropped up after other hurricanes or large storms have struck over the years?. The bill creates a new program within the National Flood Insurance Program to purchase both flood and wind storm insurance under one multi-peril policy, or to purchase wind storm coverage to supplement their already existing flood insurance.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) urged opposition to the resolution as well as the underlying legislation: ??We're here today to discuss H.R. 1264, which would expand the National Flood Insurance Program, known as NFIP, to include wind storm insurance coverage. But once again today, based upon the agenda that this Democratic majority has, it would create a massive new government program to offer government-paid coverage backed with taxpayer dollars. And while this legislation may be well-intended, I have no doubt that it would have a crushing impact on a very fragile U.S. job market that would add billions to the federal deficit.?

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 234-179. 234 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 168 Republicans present and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Natural Disasters
Y Y Won
Roll Call 463
Jul 22, 2010
(H.R. 4213) Final passage of legislation extending unemployment insurance through December 5, 2010 for laid-off workers who had been jobless for more than six months

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending unemployment insurance through December 5, 2010 for laid-off workers who had been jobless for more than six months.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) urged support for the bill and sharply criticized Republicans for opposing assistance for laid-off workers: ?The opposition to this legislation has been disingenuous, cruel and out of touch. Many of the unemployed people in my district spent years working hard, paying their bills, and contributing to their communities. Through no fault of their own, they found themselves out of work?.my Republican friends ought to take responsibility for their role in precipitating this economic disaster?The least they could do is vote with the Majority to minimize some of the pain they caused. For the sake of human decency for our fellow citizens, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.?

Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) also urged support for the bill: ?Nearly 15 million Americans are out of work. Of these 15 million, 46 percent have been out of work for more than six months. In recent months, there have been at least five unemployed workers for every job opening. These are proud, working Americans who have already been victimized by the state of our nation's economy. Why are we victimizing them again by denying them this crucial lifeline??

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible because it was ?not paid for? ? meaning it would add to the federal budget deficit: ?This latest unemployment insurance extender bill fails to do what the American people want us to do. Instead, the Democratic approach adds another $34 billion to the already staggering $13 trillion national debt. And that's not because we have a shortage of ineffective, inefficient, wasteful spending that we could cut to offset what's needed to pay for this. We want to do this, but we want to do what the American people want us to do--and that is to pay for it.?

Rep. Jeb Henslaring (R-TX) also urged opposition to the bill: ?Ultimately, the people in America don't want more unemployment checks. They want more paychecks?. The debate is, are you going to pay for the unemployment insurance, or are you going to take the burden and put it on our children and grandchildren yet again? That is unconscionable, unsustainable, and it ought to be immoral.?

The House passed the unemployment insurance bill by a vote of 272-152. 241 Democrats and 31 Republicans voted ?yea.? 142 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers who had been jobless for more than six months. Since the Senate had already passed the bill, the House?s action cleared legislation for President Obama?s signature. 


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
Y Y Won
Roll Call 461
Jul 22, 2010
(H.R. 4213) Legislation extending unemployment insurance through December 5, 2010 for laid-off workers who had been jobless for more than six months ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance through December 5, 2010 for laid-off workers who had been jobless for more than six months.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) argued the legislation ?ensures that much-needed Federal assistance continues to reach the millions of Americans struggling to find a job, trying to keep their homes and doing the best they can to provide for their families.? Hastings also chastised Republicans for seeking to block relief for those who were out of work: ?While the other party is content with giving themselves a pat on the back for every roadblock they throw in front of the Democratic bill, I remind my colleagues that they are playing with the livelihoods of countless, hardworking Americans. What is merely a political win for them is, in reality, another family that can't make rent, can't send their kids to college, or can't pay their medical bills.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) criticized the legislation because it was ?not paid for? ? meaning it increased the federal budget deficit: ?Republicans know that we must reduce the deficit, and if the underlying bill had been paid for, Republicans would have gladly supported it, but it is not. Undoubtedly, the American people are suffering from the actions of this Democrat-controlled Congress. We go home every weekend and our constituents tell us that their concerns are both jobs and the debt. In fact, they tell us every weekend they are frightened to death for the future of this country. I've never had constituents tell me that before this year.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 237-180. 236 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 170 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers who had been jobless for more than six months.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
Y Y Won
Roll Call 458
Jul 21, 2010
(H. Res. 1537) Legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers -- On a resolution allowing the House to bring up a ?rule? setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to the bill on the same day it was passed by the House Rules Committee

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution allowing the House to bring up a ?rule? --- setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers -- on the same day it was passed by the Rules Committee.  (Before legislation can be considered in the House, agreement must be reached on a ?rule? setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments can be offered on a particular bill -- and these rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee.) According to procedural rules in the House, passage of a rule on the same day that the rule was passed by the Rules Committee requires a two-thirds majority vote rather than a simple majority vote. In an effort to circumvent the two-thirds majority requirement for same day consideration of a rule governing debate on the unemployment insurance bill, Democratic leaders brought up a resolution which would waive that requirement and allow the rule to be passed by a simple majority.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) urged support for the ?same-day? resolution: ? This would allow for the same-day consideration of any resolution reported through the legislative day of July 23, 2010, relating to consideration or disposition of a measure addressing unemployment compensation?.the Restoration of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010 [the unemployment insurance bill] ensures that absolutely essential funds continue to reach the millions of American citizens struggling to find a job, keep their homes, and provide for their families.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) urged opposition to the same-day resolution: ?I rise in opposition to this same-day rule on unemployment insurance? Painting Republicans as being unfeeling and uncaring about those who have lost their jobs is inappropriate. We are very concerned with those people, and we want to do everything that we can to help them. But putting us more and more into debt and increasing the deficit is not going to do that. And our colleagues across the aisle should have learned that by now with their very, very bad policies.?

The House passed the resolution by a vote of 233-185. 233 Democrats voted ?yea.? 170 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to a resolution allowing the House to bring up a rule setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers on the same day it was passed by the Rules Committee.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
Y Y Won
Roll Call 455
Jul 21, 2010
(H.R. 725) Final passage of legislation providing training for Native American law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute domestic and sexual violence. The bill also permitted any federal law enforcement officer to investigate sales of counterfeit Indian art products (current law allowed only Federal Bureau of Investigation officials to investigate such sales).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation providing training for Native American law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute domestic and sexual violence. The bill also permitted any federal law enforcement officer to investigate sales of counterfeit Indian art products. Current law allowed only Federal Bureau of Investigation officials to investigate such sales.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) urged support for the bill: ?This bill?would improve prosecution of unlawful misrepresentation and counterfeiting of American Indian jewelry, pottery, baskets, rugs, and other items...[and] would address the profound public safety needs and provide the additional law enforcement and criminal justice resources sorely needed on Indian reservations across the country.?
 
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) argued that Republicans supported the substance of the bill but would oppose it because Democrats had brought up the measure under suspension of the rules -- which prohibits amendments and limits debate time: ?There is considerable bipartisan support for what this bill aims to do, and yet today it is being considered before the House using a process and procedure that elicits opposition. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: The objections that I will express today are focused squarely on the matter in which the House leaders have chosen to have this bill debated?.The process being used today [suspension of the rules] to consider this legislation is normally reserved for bills such as naming post offices and congratulating sports teams on winning championships. Addressing crimes against Indians deserves to be considered in a much more serious, thorough process.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill by a vote of 326-92. All 248 Democrats and 78 Republicans voted ?yea.? 92 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation providing training for Native American law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute domestic and sexual violence ? and permitting any federal law enforcement officer to investigate sales of counterfeit Indian art products.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Women?s Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Assisting Crime Impacted Communities
Y Y Won
Roll Call 447
Jul 15, 2010
(H.R.5114) Passage of legislation authorizing $476 million for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation authorizing $476 million for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners. (Coverage is provided to property owners in communities that agree to adopt practices intended to reduce the risk of future flooding.)

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) spoke in favor of the bill: ??There is nothing more devastating, more heartbreaking than for individual families to lose their homes and all of their possessions. And if there ever was a time that the role of government plays its most important role, it is to come to their rescue immediately, quickly, and help them to recapture their lives as quickly and to make sure that they have the insurance that is needed.?

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) argued the bill ?helps us to stabilize the housing market. There are many persons who seek to buy homes who have not been able to buy homes because the flood insurance was not available, yet required, to make the purchase. ?

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) argued the bill would widen the country?s social safety net in an irresponsible manner: ?I wish we would leave, given the state of the national debt, I wish we would leave the safety net where it currently is?
This bill adds to the tab. And the Congressional Budget Office has projected this bill will increase spending by roughly a half-billion dollars over 10 years. Even by Washington standards, I hope we still consider that to be significant funding.?

Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) argued the bill was unfair to states that did not experience flooding: ??In Michigan, we actually look down at the water. We don't look up at the water. And we are very sympathetic?to areas of other parts of the country that are prone to floods, that are prone to hurricanes, et cetera. We appreciate the challenges that they face, but I don't think it's fair that citizens in a State like Michigan have to pay for those kinds of things.?
 
The House passed the flood insurance bill by a vote of 329-90. 244 Democrats and 85 Republicans voted ?yea.? 89 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing $476 million for the National Flood Insurance Program.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Natural Disasters
Y Y Won
Roll Call 446
Jul 15, 2010
(H.R. 5114) On a motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) that would have eliminated an outreach program intended to educate property owners about how the National Flood Insurance Program (which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit (on a flood insurance bill) that would have eliminated an outreach program intended to educate property owners about how the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP -- which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners).

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.  

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) argued the NFIP outreach program was duplicative since the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) already carried out an outreach program. Since the flood program operates within FEMA, Hensarling argued that it did not need a separate outreach initiative: ??The motion to recommit today is a simple one. It says today, right here, right now, this body will decline to create?a new FEMA outreach program on top of the FEMA outreach program that is already in place?.What we are saying is there is an opportunity right here, right now not to create yet another duplicative program and add to the debt burden.?

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) argued that an outreach initiative that was specific to the flood insurance program was necessary, and that the general FEMA outreach program was not sufficient: ?I am very surprised that the members on the opposite side of the aisle would try and deny to their constituents the basic kind of information and services that we should all be responsible for. We should be able to say to our constituents not only do you have a right to this information, but we are going to give you some help?. these are simply outreach activities that must be dealt with. These are outreach activities that our constituents deserve.?

The House rejected Hensarling?s motion to recommit by a vote of 191-229. 172 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted ?yea.? 227 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have have eliminated an outreach program intended to educate property owners about how the National Flood Insurance Program.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Natural Disasters
N N Won
Roll Call 443
Jul 15, 2010
(H.R. 5114) Legislation authorizing $476 million for the National Flood Insurance Program, which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing $476 million for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners. (Coverage is provided to property owners in communities that agree to adopt practices intended to reduce the risk of future flooding.)

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Floods have been, and continue to be, one of the most destructive and costly natural hazards to my hometown of Sacramento and to other communities throughout the country. The NFIP is a valuable tool in addressing the losses incurred due to these disasters, and mitigating against future disasters. The program ensures that families have access to affordable flood insurance, while making certain that their safety is protected.?

While Democrats? remarks exclusively focused on the bill, Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) ? the only Republican to speak on this resolution ? criticized the Democratic majority for making allowing more Democratic amendments than Republican amendments: ?So today we will consider three minority and eight majority amendments, plus another 10 majority amendments included in the manager's amendment. That's quite a contrast. It's especially unfortunate when you consider we were told that the process was going to change, that it wasn't going to be this way. The distinguished Speaker promised the American people that her party would run the most open and bipartisan Congress in history. Yet week after week, the majority continues to block an open process.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 239-182. 238 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 174 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing $476 million through 2015 on the National Flood Insurance Program.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Natural Disasters
Y Y Won
Roll Call 441
Jul 14, 2010
(H.R. 1722) Final passage of legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home), and designating an official to supervise telecommuting programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). The bill also required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees. 

Republicans had succeeded in making a number of changes to the bill through a motion to recommit. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.) As a result of that motion to recommit having been passed, the bill the bill prohibited employees from engaging in collective bargaining activities while telecommuting. In addition, the measure required the head of each federal agency to certify that telecommuting or ?teleworking? (working from home) policies would save the agency money before allowing employees to telecommute. The measure also prohibited federal employees from downloading pornography while telecommuting. Employees who were delinquent on their taxes, or who had been disciplined for poor work performance, would be barred from telecommuting.

(By including anti-pornography and anti-tax delinquency provisions in the motion to recommit, Republicans were able to gain the support for more than half of all House Democrats ? even though most Democrats generally oppose restrictions on collective bargaining.)

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) urged support for the bill: ??Despite the evolving nature of the way the federal government conducts its affairs, telework, which allows an employee to regularly perform work from a remote location other than their usual workplace, continues to be underutilized by Federal agencies. Experience has consistently demonstrated that the private and public sector employers who utilize telework experience increased productivity and retention rates.?

Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) also praised the measure: ?The private sector is doing this [allowing employees to telecommute], and they're recruiting people, using this as an opportunity for more flexible work arrangements. The Federal workforce should be doing the same thing. It will help to improve productivity and morale among the workforce. Those agencies that have taken full advantage of teleworking have shown that productivity has been enhanced within their agency.?

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) was the only member to speak in opposition to the bill. Issa, however, was the member who offered the motion to recommit described above. After the motion to recommit passed, he voted in favor of the bill (as he had vowed to do if and only if the motion to recommit passed). Thus, no Republican who voted against the bill spoke against it during debate. However, the House Republican cloakroom (run by House Minority Leader John Boehner) released a ?statement of Republican policy? on the measure, which charged the bill would ?mandate a new telework bureaucracy across the Federal government, designed in large part to quash any managerial opposition to teleworking.?

The statement also read: ??House Republicans are concerned that Congress would place a priority on legislation that attempts to alter policies for employed Federal workers rather than focus on legislation necessary to help the thousands of Americans who are looking for any employment.?

The House passed the bill by a vote of 290-131. 245 Democrats and 45 Republicans voted ?yea.? 129 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home), and designating an official to supervise telecommuting programs. 


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Won
Roll Call 440
Jul 14, 2010
(H.R. 1722) On a motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) requiring the head of each federal agency to certify that telecommuting policies would save the agency money before allowing employees to telecommute. The motion to recommit also prohibited federal employees from downloading pornography while telecommuting.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit on a telecommuting bill requiring the head of each federal agency to certify that telecommuting or ?teleworking? (working from home) policies would save the agency money before allowing employees to telecommute. The motion to recommit also prohibited federal employees from downloading pornography while telecommuting. Employees who were delinquent on their taxes, or who had been disciplined for poor work performance, would be barred from telecommuting. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited employees from engaging in collective bargaining activities while telecommuting.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. 

(The underlying bill required federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). The bill also required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees.)

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) urged support for the motion to recommit: ??If adopted, this motion will require that each agency must certify to the Office of Personnel Management that the agency's telework program will save money, rather than increase spending. Furthermore, teleworking privileges will not be granted to employees that have been disciplined for poor work performance and behavior, such as viewing pornography on work computers, having a record of being absent without permission, or who are delinquent in paying their taxes. ?

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) argued that agencies could not be expected to certify savings (from telecommuting) since the Appropriations Committee had not yet informed them of their annual budget for the following year. (Without knowing their budget allotments, agencies could not be expected to make such a certification.) In addition, he argued that while agencies would need to spend money to implement telecommuting policies, they would eventually save money. Thus, to expect immediate savings would be unreasonable, he contended: ?[The motion to recommit] creates a level of impossibility for us to demonstrate savings when we don't know how much money is going to be used in implementing this measure. That will be decided by the appropriators. And, as well, we realize that to set this up, in order to establish the teleworking protocols, there will be an expenditure to begin with, but the savings will result at a later time.?

Lynch also objected to the restriction on collective bargaining: ?I do want to say that prohibiting collective bargaining activity while teleworking is also a question of possible violation with other statutes that I believe may be infringed upon by this motion.?

Lynch also indicated that Democratic members would not be pressured to vote with their party on the motion, saying: ??I would understand and respect the members' rights to vote as they might on this measure.?

The House agreed to the motion to recommit by a vote of 303-119. All 174 Republicans and 129 Democrats vote ?yea.? 119 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to a motion to recommit on a telecommuting bill requiring the head of each federal agency to certify that telecommuting policies would save the agency money before allowing employees to telecommute. The motion to recommit also prohibited federal employees from downloading pornography while telecommuting.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Lost
Roll Call 438
Jul 14, 2010
(H.R. 1722) Legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home), and designating an official to supervise telecommuting programs -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). The bill also required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees.

[The House first voted on this bill on May 6 under suspension of the rules. (Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.) While a majority of members supported the telecommuting bill, the measure did not receive a two-thirds majority vote required under suspension of the rules. Thus, Democratic leaders chose to bring the bill up again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage].

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?With today's mobile technology, we can do better to ensure that Federal employees can effectively telecommute regardless of weather conditions?.Telecommuting also helps to reduce traffic congestion.?Now, some may argue that telecommuting will just allow lazy employees to sit at home and pretend to work. That's simply not the case. This bill requires agencies to establish a telecommuting policy that authorizes employees to telecommute to the maximum amount possible only to the extent that it doesn't diminish employee performance or agency operations.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-VA) accused the Democrats of supporting the bill only to help government employee unions (which are generally Democratic allies): ?While government employees and their union handlers might be satisfied with the liberal Democrat jobs agenda, try asking the small business men forced to close their doors or the 7 million private business employees who've lost their jobs since the liberal Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and want to get back to work. This is the wrong bill at the wrong time.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 238-180. 237 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 171 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute, and designating an official to supervise telecommuting programs.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Won
Roll Call 437
Jul 14, 2010
(H.R. 1722) Legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home), and designating an official to supervise telecommuting programs -- On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). The bill also required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.   

[The House first voted on this bill on May 6 under suspension of the rules. (Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.) While a majority of members supported the telecommuting bill, the measure did not receive a two-thirds majority vote required under suspension of the rules. Thus, Democratic leaders chose to bring the bill up again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.]

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Even in this July heat, it is hard to forget the historic snowfall that blanketed the Washington region this past winter. OMB [the Office of Management and Budget] estimated that for each day the federal government was shut down during the storms, the government lost $71 million worth of productivity. Had some agencies not allowed their employees to telecommute, the cost of lost productivity would have been $100 million.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued the bill would only help members of government employee unions: ??It's my sad duty to come before you yet again today to speak in opposition to spending this House's valuable time to consider a bill that would do absolutely nothing to respond to the very real concerns facing Americans every day. Here we are with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, the largest deficit in our history, and the national debt at almost $14 trillion. The response of the liberal Democratic leadership? A bill making it easier for federal employees to stay at home to work and creating more government union jobs.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 232-184. 232 Democrats voted ?yea.? 173 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute, and designating an official to supervise telecommuting programs.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Won
Roll Call 435
Jul 13, 2010
(H.R. 4438) Passage of legislation expanding the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park by 151 acres in Bexar and Wilson counties in Texas

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation expanding the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park by 151 acres in Bexar and Wilson counties in Texas.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) urged support for the bill:  ?The need to prepare for this growth is clear. Just last year alone, in 2009, the park had a record-breaking year of visitations with over 1.7 million people visiting the park, a 35 percent increase over 2008 levels. This legislation ensures that future generations will be able to walk along the river and see the city through the eyes of its past inhabitants as they look upon these historic structures and learn about the people that settled the region.?

Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) argued the measure was fiscally irresponsible: ?The stated purpose of this bill is to expand the park by an additional 151 acres?.the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] cost estimate is fairly precise, $4 million?.The current level of Federal spending is too high to rubber-stamp the flood of plans to expand our government's property holdings?.I urge my colleagues to exercise some fiscal restraint here today, support property rights, and oppose this bill.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill by a vote of 264-114. 225 Democrats and 39 Republicans voted ?yea.? 113 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation expanding the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park by 151 acres in Bexar and Wilson counties.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 433
Jul 01, 2010
(H.R. 4899) On an amendment (to a war funding bill) that would have required the president to submit to Congress by April 4, 2011 a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment (to a war funding bill) that would have required the president to submit to Congress by April 4, 2011 a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. President Obama had stated his intention to begin a withdrawal of troops by July 2011. If the president were to adopt a new policy that did not begin withdrawing troops by that date, the amendment would have required him to obtain approval from Congress.

Rep. David Obey urged support for the amendment: ?Now, last December the President indicated that it was his intention to follow a policy which would begin to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan beginning in July of 2011. This amendment is meant to simply buttress that commitment?What this amendment also says is, if the administration decides to follow a different policy by, for instance, extending that date, then they cannot do that unless the Congress explicitly votes to allow the funds to be used for that purpose.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) urged opposition to the amendment: ??We are a nation at war. We have soldiers and Marines deployed halfway around the world. Many of them are in combat at this very hour facing a dangerous enemy. And yet we find ourselves here tonight questioning the very mission we've asked our troops to execute. What message does that send to them if they're watching us? ?What message does it send to our enemies, people who would launch deadly attacks in our homeland as they've done in their homeland each and every day at an early opportunity.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 162-260. 153 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- and 9 Republicans voted ?yea.? 162 Republicans and 98 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result the House rejected an amendment to a war-funding bill that would have required the president to submit to Congress by April 4, 2011 a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The amendment would also have required the president to obtain approval from Congress for any change in Afghanistan policy that does not require a withdrawal of U.S. troops to begin by July 2011.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 432
Jul 01, 2010
(H.R. 4899) On an amendment that would have required the president to use Afghanistan war funding exclusively for withdrawing U.S. troops from that country. The amendment was offered to a war-funding bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was an amendment offered by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) with other members that would have required the president to use Afghanistan war funds exclusively for the purposes of withdrawing U.S. troops from that country. The amendment was offered to a war-funding bill.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) urged support for the amendment: ?My amendment?would prevent any escalation or any ongoing combat operation in Afghanistan and limit the funding to the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops and military contractors from Afghanistan. It is critical to understand that this amendment would provide for the safety of our troops, civilian personnel, and contractors while troop withdrawal takes place. It does not allow funding for ongoing combat operations or for this escalation. It is not a cut-and-run amendment. It would not leave our troops stranded in harm's way.?

Republicans criticized Lee?s amendment, as well as other amendments to limit military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) said: ?I am opposed to all of these amendments that we are considering because none of them do anything to support our troops in the field, which is what this bill is supposed to be all about. These amendments are not good, and it's just a real shame that we are not considering the needs of our troops who are deployed, to provide what it is that they need in order to accomplish the mission that we sent them to accomplish and to protect themselves while they're doing it.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 100-321. 93 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- and 7 Republicans voted ?yea.? 164 Republicans and 157 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to a war-funding bill that would have required the president to use Afghanistan war funds exclusively for the purposes of withdrawing U.S. troops from that country.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 430
Jul 01, 2010
(H.R. 4899) On an amendment to war funding legislation providing $37 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $10 billion for an ?Education Jobs Fund? to prevent teacher layoffs, $5 billion for Pell Grants, and $700 million for border security enforcement

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment to war funding legislation providing $37 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $10 billion for an ?Education Jobs Fund? to prevent teacher layoffs. It also provided $5 billion for Pell Grants for low-income college students and $700 million for border security enforcement.

The Democratic leadership had devised a strategy for bringing up a Senate-passed war funding bill, which divided the bill into 5 different ?amendments? (a parliamentary procedure known as ?division of the question?). This particular amendment contained war funding, education funding, and funds for border security. (Other amendments included restrictions on Iraq and Afghanistan war funds). This strategy allowed liberal and anti-war members of the Democratic caucus to vote against funding for military operations they opposed ? and vote in favor of the restrictions on war funding described above. (For example, a member could vote against the amendment containing $37 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but vote in favor of an amendment requiring the president to submit to Congress a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan.)

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) urged support for this amendment, and particularly cited the need for the education jobs fund: ?We now bring before the House a bill which reflects what we've been asked to do by a great many Members. It attempts to provide a much smaller aid package to keep those teachers on the job, about $10 billion; and it contains a few other small items, including almost $5 billion in additional Pell Grants funds for some 87,000 students who are going to need them badly?.I think people need to ask themselves one question: Are they interested in simply standing by and allowing teachers to be fired?or are they willing to do something about it??

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) criticized the process by which Democratic leaders brought up the bill, and argued all provisions not relating to war funding ought to have been removed from the measure: ?I urge my colleagues on both sides, particularly my friends in the majority who are truly concerned about the ever-escalating rates of growth of spending, to reject these amendments and reject this Fourth of July spending spree. Let's support our troops, pass a clean version of the supplemental on a broad, bipartisan basis, and get this package to the Commander in Chief. Our men and women in harm's way deserve no less.?

A number of Democrats also opposed the measure?s war funding. Rep Chellie Pingree (D-ME) said: ?I rise in opposition to the $37 billion in this bill for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I oppose this war funding, and I believe that our presence in Afghanistan is not strengthening our national security. Instead of spending this money on a war that doesn't make us any safer, I believe we should be reducing the deficit and investing here at home.?

The House passed this amendment by a vote of 239-182. 236 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 3 Republicans voted ?yea.? 167 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed this section of the war-funding bill, which provided $37 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $10 billion for an education jobs fund to prevent teacher layoffs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 428
Jul 01, 2010
(H.R. 4899) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing $37 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $10 billion to help local school districts prevent teacher layoffs, and $208 million for border security enforcement

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing $37 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $10 billion to help local school districts prevent teacher layoffs, and $208 million for border security enforcement.

Specifically, the resolution allowed the House to bring up a Senate-passed bill providing $37 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resolution then divided the Senate measure (a parliamentary procedure known as ?division of the question?) into five different ?amendments.? The first amendment provided $1 billion to expand access to summer jobs for those between the ages of 14 and 24. In addition the amendment provides $1.2 billion to pay claimants in a lawsuit in which African American farmers had sued the Agriculture Department for discrimination. (The claimants had charged that the Agriculture Department had wrongfully denied their applications for loans.) This amendment was to be ?considered? passed once the House passed the resolution.

The resolution then provided that recorded votes would occur on the remaining four amendments. The second of five amendments contained the Senate bill?s war funding described above, and also provided $10 billion for an ?Education Jobs Fund? to prevent teacher layoffs, $5 billion for Pell Grants to help low-income students pay for college, and $700 million for border security enforcement. The third amendment would have eliminated all funding for military operations in Afghanistan. The fourth amendment would have restricted funding for military operations in Afghanistan, allowing those funds to be used only for withdrawing U.S. troops from that country. The fifth amendment required the president to submit to Congress by April 4, 2011 a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

The process allowed liberal and anti-war members of the Democratic caucus to cast votes expressing their opposition to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars (as opposed to forcing them to cast a single up-or-down vote on funding for those wars).

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation, while acknowledging that the resolution provided for a convoluted process for voting on the bill: ?This is a difficult rule. It is a difficult rule because it deals with an extraordinarily important subject?It deals, as I said, with the lives and welfare of our young people. It deals with the security of this nation. It deals with the safety of our people.?I rise in support of this rule because I think that the very difficult line of trying to give every Member the opportunity to reflect their point of view, which, of course, in a body of 435 people is very difficult, but I think this rule attempts to do that.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) argued that including provisions in the bill unrelated to war funding could put American troops in jeopardy: ??I believe fully that if we were to have that up-or-down vote, that a bipartisan majority, a bipartisan majority in this House would in fact vote to complete the work, ensure that our men and women in uniform have all the resources that they need to proceed, and then we will have done our job?.I am going to urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule for numerous reasons, the most important of which at this moment is to ensure that our men and women in uniform get what they need as soon as possible.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 215-210. 215 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?yea.? 172 Republicans and 38 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing $37 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $10 billion to help local school districts prevent teacher layoffs, and $208 million for border security enforcement.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 423
Jul 01, 2010
(H.R. 5618) Passage of legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired. Specifically, the bill extended unemployment insurance for six months for workers who had exhausted their benefits.

Democratic leaders had brought up the bill earlier in the week under a process known as suspension of the rules. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. While a majority of members voted in favor of the bill, it failed to receive the two-thirds majority vote required for passage under suspension of the rules. Thus, the Democratic leadership decided to bring the bill up again under a process requiring only simple majority vote.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) urged support for the unemployment insurance extension: ?This is support that is going to hardworking Americans who have played by the rules, paid into the system, and maybe were making $50,000, $60,000 a year a few weeks ago. These people who spend every day looking for work and have sent out hundreds of resumes, many of which are not even responded to, they paid for this by paying taxes in the past. And with five people competing for every available job, they simply cannot find work, no matter how qualified and educated they are, in the worst economy in 70 years.?

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) strongly refuted the notion that unemployment insurance discourages the jobless from working for work: ?The average unemployment insurance in this country is about $300 a week. That is about half of the previous wage on average, and for a family of four, that average check is only 74 percent of the poverty level. That should refute the notion that those who are unemployed, who have no benefits, who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, are not looking for work.?

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) urged opposition to the bill because it would increase the deficit: ?Let me be clear: I support and Republicans have supported extending unemployment benefits, but we must not do so at a cost to the deficit, to the economy, and to future generations. Our inability to get our fiscal house in order isn't just damaging future generations; it is wreaking havoc on job creation today.?

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) made similar remarks: ?Now what does this bill do? It's $34 billion to extend the unemployment benefits. But it's not paid for. The American people want these policies paid for?. More debt, more uncertainty, more unemployment, higher taxes. The American people deserve better.?

The House passed the unemployment extension bill by a vote of 270-153. 241 Democrats and 29 Republicans voted ?yea.? 142 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation extending unemployment insurance for six months for workers who had exhausted their benefits.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
Y Y Won
Roll Call 422
Jul 01, 2010
(H.R. 5618) On an amendment that would have required that unspent funds from the economic stimulus bill enacted in February, 2009 be used to pay for legislation extending unemployment insurance ? On a motion to table (kill) an effort to appeal the Speaker?s ruling that the amendment violated House rules

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an effort to appeal the Speaker?s ruling that a motion to recommit on an unemployment insurance extension bill violated House rules. The motion to recommit would have required that unspent funds from the economic stimulus bill enacted in February 2009 be used to pay for legislation extending unemployment insurance. (The economic stimulus measure was enacted in response to the financial crisis in 2009.)

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) urged support for the motion to recommit: ?We know that the stimulus hasn't worked. In its wake, nearly 3 million private-sector jobs were lost, unemployed soared to 10 percent nationwide, and 48 out of 50 States lost jobs. So this motion to recommit pays for the $34 billion in Federal unemployment costs by cutting that much in unspent stimulus spending.?

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) argued that the motion to recommit violated House rules since it was unrelated to the unemployment bill: ?This is not a germane amendment. Also what it is, is an effort to use emergency funds targeted to create jobs to fund emergency unemployment insurance.?

The Speaker ruled in Levin?s favor, agreeing that the motion to recommit violated House rules. Camp then appealed the Speaker?s ruling. Levin then made a motion to table (kill) Camp?s appeal.

The House tabled Camp?s appeal by a vote of 220-196. 220 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?yea.? 169 Republicans and 27 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House tabled Camp?s appeal of the Speaker?s ruling that a motion to recommit (that would have required that unspent funds from the economic stimulus bill enacted in February, 2009 be used to pay for legislation extending unemployment insurance) violated House rules.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 418
Jul 01, 2010
(H.R. 5618) Legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired ? on the resolution setting a time limit for floor debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for floor debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired. Specifically, the bill extended unemployment insurance for six months for workers who had exhausted their benefits.

Democratic leaders had brought up the bill earlier in the week under a process known as suspension of the rules. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. While a majority of members voted in favor of the bill, it failed to receive the two-thirds majority vote required for passage under suspension of the rules. Thus, the Democratic leadership decided to bring the bill up again under a process requiring only simple majority vote.

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ??Never before in our history has Congress allowed extended unemployment benefits to lapse when the unemployment rate was anywhere close to 10 percent; yet here we are again trying to extend this critical program to keep food on the table for millions of households, including millions of American children across this great Nation simply because the other [Republican] side of the aisle repeatedly can only say `no.'

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) urged opposition the measure because it increased the deficit: ??Republicans want to reduce the deficit; and if the underlying bill had been offset with reduced spending elsewhere, Republicans would have supported it?. Congress cannot continue this spending spree. We're simply living beyond our means, and I fear the consequences of our actions are not far off.?

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the unemployment insurance extension bill by a vote of 231-189. 231 Democrats voted ?yea.? 175 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
Y Y Won
Roll Call 413
Jun 30, 2010
(H.R. 4173) Passage of major financial regulatory reform legislation intended to prevent the kind of economic crisis that occurred in September 2008

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of a conference report on financial regulatory reform legislation.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of financial regulatory reform legislation, which was intended to prevent the kind of financial crisis that had recently occurred in the fall of 2008. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. Both Houses then must pass that report before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. Under House rules, conference reports cannot be amended.

The conference report created a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers from risky and abusive financial practices, provided for an audit of the Federal Reserve, strictly limited the extent to which banks could invest in hedge funds, and gave the federal government the authority to regulate sensitive financial instruments known as ?derivatives.? The audit of the Federal Reserve, however, only applies to loans made by the Fed during the financial crisis. (A number of members, including Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), had proposed a much broader and controversial proposal to audit the Federal Reserve.)

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) urged support for the conference report: ??The conference report represents a reasoned, middle ground that strikes an appropriate balance and does what we need it to do. It ends the problem of too-big-to-fail financial institutions, effectively regulates the derivatives products which some have referred to as financial weapons of mass destruction, and it greatly strengthens investor protections.?

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) argued the conference report was ?landmark legislation which will protect consumers and investors while allowing our financial services industry to continue financing the creativity and innovation which has, even in these very difficult times, made the American economy the envy of the world. This bill restores safety and soundness, reduces the likelihood of another systemic crisis, restores faith and confidence in our institutions and markets, while safeguarding Americans from predatory, unfair, and deceptive practices.?

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) urged opposition to the measure: ?Under the guise of financial reform, Democrats today are pushing yet another bill that will kill jobs, raise taxes, and make bailouts permanent. Let me say that again. This legislation will kill jobs by restricting access to credit, it will kill jobs by raising taxes on those that would provide loans and opportunity to small business owners and family farmers, and it makes the bad ideas of the Wall Street bailout permanent.?

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) criticized the conference report: ?This legislation is a clear attack on capital formation in America. It purports to prevent the next financial crisis, but it does so by vastly expanding the power of the same regulators who failed to stop the last one.?

The House passed the conference report by a vote of 237-192. 234 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 3 Republicans voted ?yea.? 173 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed a conference report on major financial regulatory reform legislation intended to prevent the kind of economic crisis that occurred in September 2008.  With the legislation having passed the House, Senate passage would clear it for President Obama?s signature.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 412
Jun 30, 2010
(H.R.4173):On a motion that would have amended financial regulatory reform legislation to require a sweeping audit of the Federal Reserve

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit on the financial regulatory reform conference report (see explanation of conference reports below) that would have required a sweeping audit of the Federal Reserve. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of financial regulatory reform legislation, which was intended to prevent the kind of financial crisis that had recently occurred in the fall of 2008. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. Both Houses then must pass that report before it is sent to the president to be signed into law.

Under House rules, motions to recommit on conference reports cannot be debated. Thus, no members spoke in support of or opposition to the motion. Multiple news outlets, however, reported that Republicans would use the motion to recommit to offer a proposal providing for a sweeping audit of the Federal Reserve.

The conference report provided for a much more limited audit, limiting it to loans provided by the Fed during the financial crisis. While some Republicans (such as Rep. Ron Paul (D-TX) supported a broader audit, the motion to recommit was intended to put Democrats in a political bind. While the broader audit had robust support in the House, it had little support in the Senate. Thus, the motion to recommit could have jeopardized the conference report?s chances in the Senate. The Atlantic?s Chris Goode reported: ?It's a last-ditch effort to alter/thwart Democratic financial reforms: House Republicans will force a floor vote today on Ron Paul's proposal for an audit of the Federal Reserve?.The proposal is popular in the House, having gained 320 cosponsors, but probably wouldn't fare as well in the Senate: a related bill, introduced by Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, drew only two cosponsors.?

The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 198-229. 175 Republicans and 23 Democrats voted ?yea.? 229 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have required a sweeping audit of the Federal Reserve.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Won
Roll Call 410
Jun 30, 2010
(H.R. 4173) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to financial regulatory reform legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to financial regulatory reform legislation.

The House of Representatives and Senate had passed different versions of financial regulatory reform legislation, which was intended to prevent the kind of financial crisis that had recently occurred in the fall of 2008. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. Under House rules, conference reports cannot be amended.

The conference report created a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers from risky and abusive financial practices, provided for an audit of the Federal Reserve, strictly limited the extent to which banks could invest in hedge funds, and gave the federal government the authority to regulate sensitive financial instruments known as ?derivatives.? The audit of the Federal Reserve, however, only applies to loans made by the Fed during the financial crisis. (A number of members, including Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), had proposed a much broader and controversial proposal to audit the Federal Reserve.)

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) praised the legislation: ??Today we will take an historic vote on the most significant reform to our financial industry since the New Deal. These comprehensive reforms will reduce threats to our financial system, increase oversight and prevent future bailouts. The bill strikes a responsible balance, ending the `wild west' era on Wall Street, while laying a new regulatory foundation for long-term growth which is stable and secure.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) criticized the measure: ?Today, we are considering a 2,300-page Federal takeover of the financial services industry. This happened in health care. It's now happening in financial services. The bill before us today is just one more piece of the Democrat majority's agenda to federalize more of the private sector of this country.?

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the conference report by a vote of 234-189. 234 Democrats voted ?yea.? 175 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on major financial regulatory reform legislation.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 409
Jun 30, 2010
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 407
Jun 30, 2010
(H.R. 4173) On a resolution allowing the House of Represenatatives to bring up financial regulatory reform legislation as well as separate legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution allowing the House of Representatives to bring up financial regulatory reform legislation.

Normally, the House Rules Committee passes a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments may be offered to bills. The full House then votes on that resolution. Following passage of the resolution, the chamber begins debate on the underlying bill. House rules, however, prohibit the full House from voting on such a resolution until the day after it passes the Rules Committee. Ordinarily, in order for the House to pass a resolution on the same day it was passed by the committee, it must receive a two-thirds majority vote.

Occasionally, the House circumvents this requirement by passing what is known as a ?same-day rule.?  A same-day rule is a resolution that waives the two-thirds majority vote requirement, and allows for passage with a simple majority vote. Under this procedure, the House first passes the same-day rule (which waives the two-thirds majority vote requirement). Following the vote on the same day rule, the House then passes the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments to the underlying bill. After passing that resolution, the House can begin debate on the underlying bill. Democratic leaders used this ?same-day rule? procedure for a conference report [see an explanation of conference reports in the paragraph below] on financial regulatory reform legislation, as well as a separate bill to extend unemployment insurance for laid-off workers.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of financial regulatory reform legislation. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)  urged support for the same day rule: ?I'm voting `yes' because I stand with working families against big banks, for transparency in the financial markets, with small businesses and family farmers and ranchers for tougher Wall Street oversight, and for progress toward preventing future bank bailouts.?

Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) criticized the financial reform legislation, arguing it ?grants [the federal government] some carte blanche power over the financial markets, not just on Wall Street but on Main Street, too. This bill is going to raise the costs for small business operators and consumers who will use financial institutions.?

The House agreed to the same day rule by a vote of 237-189. 237 Democrats voted ?yea.? 175 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House was able to bring up a resolution  (later that same day) setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to financial regulatory reform legislation as well as separate legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 406
Jun 30, 2010
(H.R. 4173) On bringing to a final vote a resolution allowing the House of Representatives to bring up financial regulatory reform legislation as well as separate legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution allowing the House of Representatives to bring up financial regulatory reform legislation. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. 

Normally, the House Rules Committee passes a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments may be offered to bills. The full House then votes on that resolution. Following passage of the resolution, the chamber begins debate on the underlying bill. House rules, however, prohibit the full House from voting on such a resolution until the day after it passes the Rules Committee. In order for the House to pass a resolution on the same day it was passed by the committee, it must receive a two-thirds majority vote.

Occasionally, the House circumvents this requirement by passing what is known as a ?same-day rule.?  A same-day rule is a resolution that waives the two-thirds majority vote requirement, and allows for passage with a simple majority vote. Under this procedure, the House first passes the same-day rule (which waives the two-thirds majority vote requirement). Following the vote on the same day rule, the House then passes the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments to the underlying bill. After passing that resolution, the House can begin debate on the underlying bill. Democratic leaders used this ?same-day rule? procedure for a conference report [see an explanation of conference reports in the paragraph below] on financial regulatory reform legislation, as well as a separate bill to extend unemployment insurance for laid-off workers.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of financial regulatory reform legislation. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the same day rule: ?This bill allows for clear actions, up-or-down votes on the conference report to prevent Wall Street from melting down like it did 2 years ago and a bill to provide unemployment compensation to people who have lost their jobs who cannot find work in this economy.?these are clear-cut choices. Either you support fixing Wall Street or you don't. Do you believe unemployed Americans looking for work should receive unemployment benefits to help them pay for their mortgages, utilities, and food for their families or do you not??

Rep. Pete Sessions criticized the Democrats? use of the same-day rule procedure: ?I remember just a few short years ago when our Speaker [Nancy Pelosi] said that she would run a House that was the most honest, open, and ethical Congress. I have yet to see evidence of that these last few years. As a matter of fact, week after week after week I see?unprecedented shenanigans related to bringing legislation to the floor, and a closed process.?

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question on the same day rule by a vote of 243-182. 242 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 173 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution allowing the chamber to bring up financial regulatory reform legislation later that day.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 398
Jun 29, 2010
(H.R. 5618) Passage of legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Democratic leaders decided to bring a ?stand-alone? unemployment insurance extension bill (meaning there were no other provisions in the measure) following failed attempts to enact more comprehensive legislation (which, among other things, had extended health benefits for jobless Americans). While the House had passed a more sweeping bill intended to aide job creation, that measure had stalled in the Senate. The House Democratic leadership thus attempted to pass this narrowly-tailored bill, which extended unemployment insurance for six months for workers who had exhausted their benefits.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) urged support for the bill: ?America's unemployed workers cannot wait any longer for all of us to do the right thing?.If you vote ``no'' you will be cutting off unemployment benefits to Americans who have worked hard and played by the rules but now find themselves with no job, no savings, and no support.?

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: ? Here we go again. Another month, another bill extending unemployment benefits and extending the Federal deficit?.I urge my colleagues to oppose this deficit-extending bill today so that we can bring up a real bill that allows us to pass and actually pay for these benefits for the long-term unemployed. That's the only road out of this policy dead-end into which the other [Democratic] side's spending ways have driven us.?

While a majority of members (261) supported the measure, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since H.R. 5618 did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. The vote was 261-155. 231 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members -- and 30 Republicans voted ?yea.? 139 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation pass legislation extending unemployment insurance (for six months) for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired. Democratic leaders, however, could still bring the bill up again under a process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 391
Jun 24, 2010
(H.R. 5175) Passage of legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for or against a political candidate or party through independent expenditures (spending on campaign ads). That prohibition also applied to foreign-owned corporations. Under the bill?s new reporting requirements (applying to donations in excess of $600), independent organizations (such as advocacy groups) airing political ads would be required to make previously confidential information regarding their donors public.

House Democratic leaders brought up H.R. 5175 in response to Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law in January 2010. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not prohibit unions and corporations from spending money on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates.  To earn support from conservative Democrats, the Democratic leadership made last minute changes to the bill that exempted organizations which had existed for more than 10 years, had more than one million members, and received no more than 15% of their total funds from corporations. This exemption, or ?carve-out,? was intended to exempt the National Rifle Association from the bill?s requirements. This change enabled conservative, pro-gun Democrats to vote for the bill.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) urged support for the bill: ?Now, I ask my colleagues, will you stand with the American people in calling for disclosure and transparency in the political process, or will you allow corporations to overtake our democracy with the expenditure of undisclosed, limitless amounts of money? I think that we should stand with the American people. We should vote for the DISCLOSE Act [H.R. 5175]. Disclosure is good. Voters need to know who is saying what.?

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) also urged the House to support the bill: ?The DISCLOSE Act would make a vast and substantial difference in protecting the integrity of our elections, and I cannot think of a more important bill if this country is going to remain a democracy with a small `d' and not a captive of large corporations.?

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) argued the bill was an assault on free speech: ?`Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.' We all know that that is part of our First Amendment to the Constitution. It is first for a reason, because freedom of speech is the basis for our democracy, but today, the majority wants to pass a bill restricting speech, violating that very First Amendment to the Constitution.?

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) concurred, saying: ?I am not sure that I have ever seen a frontal assault on the Constitution as this bill is. Why do I say that? I say that because this deals with the First Amendment. It deals with political speech. It deals with political speech at its most effective, which is in the context of a political campaign, and we ought to deal with that very, very carefully.?

The House passed the bill by a vote of 219-206. 217 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 2 Republicans ? voted ?yea.? 170 Republicans and 36 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
Y Y Won
Roll Call 390
Jun 24, 2010
(H.R. 5175) On a motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) on campaign finance reform legislation that would have banned political ?robocalls? (automated calls to voters urging support for or opposition to a political candidate) unless explicitly authorized by a political candidate and would have provided for an expedited judicial review process determining the constitutionality of the bill. The motion to recommit would also have required this expedited process to be used for any subsequent legislation giving the District of Columbia a member of the House with full voting rights.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit on a campaign finance reform bill that would have banned political ?robocalls? (automated calls to voters urging support for or opposition to a political candidate) unless explicitly authorized by a political candidate and would have provided for an expedited judicial review process determining the constitutionality of the bill. (The motion to recommit would also have required this expedited process to be used for any subsequent legislation giving the District of Columbia a member of the House with full voting rights.)

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

Under the expedited judicial review process required by the motion to recommit, a three-judge court convened in Washington, D.C would review a constitutional challenge immediately. That challenge could then be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Under the normal judicial review process, bills would first be challenged in the federal district court. Following the judgment of the district court, cases can be appealed the case to a federal circuit court. Only after the circuit court?s has ruling has been handed down can a case be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court.)

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) urged support for the motion to recommit: ?We have spent 40 hours in this Congress naming post offices [Congress routinely passes bills naming post office buildings]; can't we spend a little bit of time protecting the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?...We're talking about political speech, the essence of the First Amendment, and for us not to allow that consideration by the courts in an accelerated manner, as we have every other time, is unworthy of this place, is unworthy of our constituents, and is unworthy of the Constitution that we take an oath to uphold.?

Rep. Brady (D-PA) urged members to oppose the motion to recommit: ?Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a needless distraction from the core mission of the underlying legislation. All the legislation says basically is, who is saying it, who is paying it? We have a right to know who's talking about us; we have a right to know who's talking for us.? Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the author of the underlying bills, accused the Republicans of having ?injected a total spurious and unrelated provision with respect to D.C. voting rights.?

The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 208-217. 171 Republicans and 37 Democrats voted ?yea.? 216 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit on a campaign finance bill that would have banned political ?robocalls? unless explicitly authorized by a political candidate and would have provided for an expedited judicial review process determining the constitutionality of the bill. (The motion to recommit would also have required this expedited process to be used for any subsequent legislation giving the District of Columbia a member of the House with full voting rights.)


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Won
Roll Call 389
Jun 24, 2010
(H.R. 5175) On an amendment to a campaign finance reform bill that required the funders of a political television advertisement to include the city and state of their place of residence or principal place of business in the advertise advertisement?s ?disclaimer? (in which the funder of the ad acknowledges financing it)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-PA) to a campaign finance reform bill that that required the funders of political television advertisements to include the city and state of their place of residence or principal place of business in the advertisement?s disclaimer. The ?disclaimer? refers to the portion of the advertisement in which its funder acknowledges financing it.

Murphy urged support for his amendment: ?By knowing where the money is coming from, people will have a better understanding of who the funder is and the motivations behind an ad. This is not a Democratic or a Republican idea. All citizens deserve to know if a special interest completely unrelated to their districts and to the issues that affect their daily lives is trying to influence their elections.?

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) argued the amendment would impose an onerous requirement on political advertising, and require their disclaimers to be unrealistically long: ?By the additional disclaimers required on broadcast ads, we have already determined that, in some cases, very easily, one would have to use 15 to 17 seconds of a 15- or a 30-second ad to make the disclaimer. If you add additional requirements, as the gentleman suggests, you could have as much as 20 seconds, which will mean that you won't be able to do 15-second ads.?

The House agreed to Murphy?s amendment by a vote of 274-152. 243 Democrats and 31 Republicans voted ?yea.? 140 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment to a campaign finance bill that required the funders of political television advertisements to include the city and state of their place of residence or principal place of business in the advertisement?s disclaimer.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
Y Y Won
Roll Call 386
Jun 24, 2010
(H.R. 5175) Legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party ? On a resolution setting a time limit for floor debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to campaign finance reform legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party. Under the bill?s new reporting requirements (applying to donations in excess of $600), independent organizations (such as advocacy groups) airing political ads would be required to make previously confidential information regarding their donors public.

House Democratic leaders brought up H.R. 5175 in response to Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law in January 2010. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not prohibit unions and corporations from spending money on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) praised the legislation: ?Earlier this year, the Supreme Court overturned decades of precedents in a court case called the Citizens United case. The decision undermines democracy and empowers the powerful?.This legislation restores transparency and accountability to Federal campaigns and ensures that Americans know when Wall Street, Big Oil, and health insurers are the ones behind political advertisements.?

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) argued the bill amounted to an attack on free speech: ?If I had the chance under the House rules to speak to the public, this is what I would say. This is your First Amendment. It's not my First Amendment. It's not the Democratic leadership's First Amendment. And yet they are auctioning off parts of this First Amendment by this bill.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 220-205. 220 Democrats  -- including a majority of progressives -- voted ?yea.? 171 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
Y Y Won
Roll Call 385
Jun 24, 2010
(H.R. 5175) Legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party ? On bringing to a final vote a resolution setting a time limit for floor debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to campaign finance reform legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party. Under the bill?s new reporting requirements (applying to donations in excess of $600), independent organizations (such as advocacy groups) airing political ads would be required to make previously confidential information regarding their donors public.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

House Democratic leaders brought up H.R. 5175 in response to Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law in January 2010. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not prohibit unions and corporations from spending money on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) praised the underlying resolution: ?During my time in Congress, I haven't had a single constituent say to me, `You know, Jim, I think there should be more special interest money in politics.' Obviously, the conservative activist judges that now make up the majority of the Supreme Court don't live in my district. Because in January, the court tossed aside decades of established law and legal precedent by ruling that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in federal elections.?

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) criticized the bill and defended the Supreme Court?s ruling: ?The Citizens United decision [the Supreme Court decision referenced above] struck down provisions of campaign finance law because of the unconstitutional restrictions on free speech, a right explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. The bill is simply a legislative workaround to Citizens United. The Supreme Court was very clear that prohibitions on full legal speech are unconstitutional and will only be a matter of time should this bill become law that it's struck down as well.?

The House agreed to motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 243-181. 243 Democrats voted ?yea.? 173 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to campaign finance reform legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
Y Y Won
Roll Call 375
Jun 17, 2010
(H.R. 5297) Passage of legislation establishing a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.

H.R. 5297 established a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less. The loan fund was aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers. The measure also established the ?Small Business Credit Initiative Program.? This initiative provided $2 billion to help states increase private lending to small businesses. 

Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL) praised the bill, calling it ?a significant step to boost small business lending through our community banks.?This is an important investment by the federal government in our small business that brings tremendous returns.?

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) also supported the bill: ? This bill, ladies and gentlemen of the House, can go a long way towards opening up the flow of credit that helps create jobs. That's what this is about, allowing small businesses to expand, grow their businesses, hire more people, pay good salaries and benefits, and get our economy moving. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to help our small businesses create jobs.?

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) urged opposition to the bill: ?My opposition is not a question of whether or not I support small businesses, it's a question of whether or not this bill will actually help small businesses. Unfortunately, my conclusion is that this bill will not help them, but will cost the taxpayers another $33 billion--by the way, $33 billion that we don't have?. This bill allows for another $33 billion in spending that will be added to the government's credit card.?

Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) argued the bill would fail to help small businesses: ?Although my [Democratic] colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this bill would improve small business access to much-needed capital, I am not convinced. In fact, there is virtually no guarantee that small businesses will benefit whatsoever from the funding in this bill.?

(The resolution that set a time limit for debate and determined which amendments could be offered to H.R 5297 also provided that when the House passed the bill, it would be combined with H.R. 5486, a separate small business measure that had already passed the House. H.R. 5486 exempted investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes. Thus, once H.R. 5297 was passed, these two small business measures were combined into a single bill.)

The House passed the small business lending bill by a vote of 241-182. 238 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted ?yea.? 169 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result the House passed legislation establishing a loan fund aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers ? and passed additional legislation (which was incorporated into H.R. 5297 following its passage by the House) exempting investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Helping Small Business
Y Y Won
Roll Call 374
Jun 17, 2010
(H.R. 5297) On an amendment to small business legislation that would have required the Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (which had been created to assist troubled banks during the serious economic decline of 2008 and 2009) to oversee a new small business loan fund created by the underlying bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit by Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) on a small business legislation that would have  required the Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to oversee a new small business loan fund created by the underlying bill. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If passed, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend it as specified. 

TARP had been created to assist troubled banks during the serious economic decline of 2008 and 2009. The small business loan fund provided for by H.R. 5297 authorized the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less. The loan fund was aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers.

Neugebauer urged support for the motion to recommit: ?Is the majority afraid to use this experienced and effective regulator simply because the word ``TARP'' is part of its title? The taxpayers deserve to be protected when Treasury makes investments with their money. Unfortunately, we have some examples of TARP investments that have raised serious questions about how the investment decisions were made.?

Republicans had been sharply critical of TARP and had tried to capitalize on the public?s anger over the notion of a ?bailout? for the nation?s biggest banks.  Rep. Barney Frank accused Republicans of trying to tar the small business lending bill with TARP?s reputation to make the bill unpopular with the public. In addition, he mocked Republicans for what he called their ?envy? that Democrats would ultimately be responsible of phasing out the unpopular program. Frank said: ?This [motion to recommit] is an effort to call it [H.R. 5297] TARP? It's the Peewee Herman school of legislating; let's call each other names without dealing with the substance. Let's not, when we're dealing with a serious issue of trying to get money to community banks to help our smaller businesses, fall for that nonsense?. What our friends on the other side have, for political reasons, is a severe case of TARP separation envy. It's going away?They are going to miss it, but we're not going to deal with that in this bill and kill the bill.?

The House rejected Neugebauer?s motion to recommit by a vote of 180-237. 171 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?yea.? 237 Democrats voted ?no.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit on H.R. 5297 that would have required the Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program to oversee a new small business loan fund created by the underlying bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Helping Small Business
N N Won
Roll Call 369
Jun 17, 2010
(H.R. 5297) Legislation establishing a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.

H.R. 5297 established a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less. (The loan fund was aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers. The measure also established the ?Small Business Credit Initiative Program.? This initiative provided $2 billion to help states increase private lending to small businesses.

This resolution also provided that when the House passed H.R. 5297 (which established the small business loan fund), it would be combined with H.R. 5486--a separate small business bill that had already passed the House, but had never been voted in the Senate. H.R. 5486 exempted investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes. Thus, once H.R. 5297 was passed, these two small business measures were combined into a single bill.

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) praised the bill and accused Republicans of trying to resurrect the economic policies of former President George W. Bush: ??The steps that we propose to take in this Small Business Act [H.R. 5297]?are steps that we believe are worth trying, that will be an affirmative effort to grow jobs in the small business segment of the economy to make capital available?to motivate small business operators to grow their businesses, to start new businesses. These are the steps that this Congress and this [Obama] administration are taking to grow the economy. It is better than sitting in the cheap seats and saying we want to go back to the [Bush] agenda that put us in the ditch.?

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) argued the legislation was fiscally irresponsible: ??This debate is not just about whether or not we are acting responsibly here. It is what we are doing with the hard-earned taxpayer money. We are talking about money here, and this bill that you are talking about spends an extra $33 billion that we do not have??

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to H.R. 5297 by a vote of 237-179. 237 Democrats voted ?yea.? 169 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Helping Small Business
Y Y Won
Roll Call 368
Jun 17, 2010
(H.R. 5297) Legislation establishing a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less ? On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

H.R. 5297 established a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less. The loan fund was aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers. The measure also established the ?Small Business Credit Initiative Program.? This initiative provided $2 billion to help states increase private lending to small businesses. 

This resolution also provided that when the House passed H.R. 5297 (which established the small business loan fund), it would be combined with H.R. 5486--a separate small business bill that had already passed the House, but had never been voted on in the Senate. H.R. 5486 exempted investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes. Thus, once H.R. 5297 was passed, these two small business measures were combined into a single bill.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) praised the bill: ??In 2008, after years of lax regulation and Wall Street roulette, our nation's economy fell off a cliff. Within a matter of months, many Wall Street giants fell, and they took the livelihoods of thousands of small businesses with them....The underlying bill, the Small Business Lending Fund Act, establishes a process for community banks to lend responsibly to small businesses.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill: ??It is really just another bank bailout. The bill is intended to give the appearance that they're [the Democrats] doing something. It appears the ruling liberal Democrat regime has completely given up on even trying to pretend they are capable of budgeting or of even governing this country.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 241-179. 241 Democrats voted ?yea.? 172 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Helping Small Business
Y Y Won
Roll Call 363
Jun 15, 2010
(H.R. 5486) Passage of legislation exempting income from investments in small businesses and restricting the use of granter retained annuity trusts (?GRATS, ? which allow individuals to transfer wealth to family members without paying a gift or estate tax) by requiring that they have a 10-year minimum term

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation exempting income from investments in small businesses. In addition, the bill restricted the use of granter retained annuity trusts (GRATS). GRATS essentially allow individuals to transfer wealth to family members without paying a gift or estate tax. By setting up a trust that is passed onto a beneficiary (which must be a family member), wealthy individuals can facilitate a considerable transfer of wealth without being subject to the normal tax penalties that apply to such transfers. If the individual dies before the GRAT?s term expires, the family member receives the remaining value of the trust. The bill would limit the use of these financial instruments by requiring a minimum 10-year terms for GRATS. Requiring  a 10-year minimum term would make GRATS a riskier option for older people who may not survive for a full decade. In other words, a 10-year GRAT requires far more financial risk than a two or three-year GRAT. Forbes? Ashlea Ebeling explained the rationale this way: ?The House bill would require a GRAT to last a minimum of 10 years. That increases the risk the person setting it up will die during the term of the GRAT, making GRATS less attractive for the older folks who typically set them up.?

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, urged members to support it: ? This bill, H.R. 5486, the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act of 2010, is, in a few words, a continuation of our work to spur job creation and to really improve the quality of life in all of our communities. Since the beginning of this year, our economy has created 982,000 jobs. That is a reversal of 22 straight months of job losses, a very long stretch indeed. But we all know that far too many people today are out of work and the unemployment rate remains at a very unacceptably high 9.7 percent. So something considerable has been done, but we have to do more.?

Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA) also urged support for the bill: ?If you really care about small businesses and entrepreneurship and growing the economy, the essential argument here is how do we get these small business people back on their feet. The proposal here is to provide some tax relief. Greater lending possibilities with the prospect of encouraging small businesses to grow and invest is a very important part of what's incorporated in this very piece of legislation.?

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible, and would fail to help small businesses: ??While the tax relief in here is welcome, it's not enough and won't actually help small businesses create the jobs we need to reduce our stubbornly high unemployment rate?.this bill, like others before it, provides a stark reminder of the majority's view of the Ways and Means Committee as an ATM machine to fund other spending.?

House Minority Leader John Boehner argued that the bill was doomed to fail as long as a major health care law enacted in March 2010 remained in place: ??The bill before us today is supposed to be about helping small businesses. ?Yet, if we really want this bill to work and if we really want small businesses to be able to begin hiring once again, what we really need to do is to repeal the job-killing health care law that was passed in this Chamber on March 21. The heart of that law is something that is called the ``individual mandate.'' The individual mandate forces Americans to buy health insurance whether they want to or not, whether they can afford it or not.?

The House passed the bill by a vote of 247-170. 242 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted ?yea.?162 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation exempting income from investments in small businesses and restricting the use of granter retained annuity trusts.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Won
Roll Call 362
Jun 15, 2010
(H.R. 5486) On an amendment to small business legislation that would have repealed a provision in a major health care reform law enacted in March 2010 that required Americans to obtain health insurance

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) on small business legislation that would have repealed a provision in a major health care law enacted in March 2010 that required Americans to obtain health insurance. Most Republicans opposed this provision, which is known as the ?individual mandate.?

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If passed, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend it as specified.

Camp urged support for his motion to recommit: ? The motion to recommit the underlying bill keeps the underlying bill intact and provides real help to Americans by repealing one of the most onerous provisions of the new health care law, the individual mandate that? forces Americans to buy government-approved health insurance or pay a tax if they don't. The Federal Government has never required its citizens to purchase a particular product before, and doing so with health insurance violates the basic principles of freedom and individual choice. No American should be forced to buy or purchase health insurance they don't want or can't afford.?

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) urged members to oppose the motion to recommit: ?Without individual responsibility, it would mean that we could not eliminate exclusions for preexisting conditions. We could not prohibit insurers from refusing to cover someone when they apply. We could not prohibit insurance companies from charging more when you get sick.?

The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 187-230. 166 Republicans and 21 Democrats voted ?yea.? 229 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an effort to repeal a provision in a major health care law enacted in March 2010 that required Americans to obtain health insurance.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Won
Roll Call 360
Jun 15, 2010
(H.R. 4855) Passage of legislation establishing a new award given by the Labor Department to employers that adopt effective ?work-life balance policies? ? policies that enable employees to balance the demands of work with family life.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation establishing a new award given by the Labor Department to employers that adopt effective ?work-life balance policies? ? policies that enable employees to balance the demands of work with family life.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey urged support for the bill: ?Outside of the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides unpaid leave for qualifying employees, there is no national policy to support work-life balance. This award will send a strong message that the Federal Government supports and encourages work-life balance.?

No Republicans spoke in opposition to the bill during floor debate. Most GOP members, however, voted against the measure. Later that evening, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) delivered a speech explaining his opposition to the legislation: ??The goals and objectives of this bill are respectable and even noble ideas.  No one questions that a proper work-life balance is extremely important.  But, just because something is important, doesn?t mean that Washington has to write a law to protect it or create a bureau to encourage it?it is simply not the job of the federal government to promote good work-life balance.?

The vote on this bill was 249-163. While a majority of members voted for the bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since H.R. 4855 did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure was rejected. 230 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted ?yea.? 147 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation establishing a new award given by the Labor Department to employers that adopt effective ?work-life balance policies.? Democratic leaders, however, could bring the bill up again under a process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 359
Jun 15, 2010
(H.R. 5486, H.R. 5297) Legislation exempting investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes, as well as a separate bill intended to increase lending to small businesses ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to a bill exempting investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes, as well as a separate bill intended to increase lending to small businesses.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution, as well as the underlying legislation: ?These bills will provide much needed support for the small businesses that make up our communities and are the backbone of our economy and our economic recovery. These bills will help small entrepreneurs grow and create jobs?. Today, we can assist the small lenders who know firsthand the difference those businesses make to a community. Today, we can make it easier for companies to get access to the financing that will help them grow, expand, and create jobs.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) urged members to oppose the resolution and the underlying bills: ??It's unfortunate that I, again, find myself before this body amazed by the stunning arrogance of the liberal Democrats responsible for bringing this rule [the ?rule? refers to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bills] before us today?.We all know that many small businesses have not been able to get available credit. However, the Democrat response is, unfortunately, too predictable: Borrow more money from foreign lenders in future generations and spend it on yet another in a long string of bailouts; create a lot of federal government jobs; and do nothing to really help small businesses.?

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two small business bills by a vote of 228-186. 228 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 166 Republicans present and 20 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on a bill exempting investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes, as well as a separate bill intended to increase lending to small businesses.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Helping Small Business
Y Y Won
Roll Call 350
Jun 10, 2010
(H.R. 5072) On an amendment to housing legislation that would have prohibited the federal government?s mortgage insurance program from insuring a mortgage on a home worth more than $500,000.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) that would have prohibited the federal government?s mortgage insurance program from insuring a mortgage on a home worth more than $500,000. Current prohibited the program from insuring loans in excess of $729,750.

Turner urged support for his amendment: ? Only in Washington would a government program insure a mortgage on a home worth $750,000 for a low- and moderate-income program. Permitting FHA loans on a $750,000 home puts American taxpayers at additional risk. Allowing FHA-backed loans on these expensive homes contributes to the overinflated housing values that contributed to the foreclosure crisis from the beginning?. Permitting FHA loans to purchase a $750,000 home also means fewer FHA-insured mortgages for Ohio families and for families across America who truly need them.?

Rep. Gary Miller (D-CA) urged members to oppose the amendment: ??If this were in some way impacting the federal government or taxpayers, I would absolutely agree with my good friend [Rep. Turner]?.but this is not impacting taxpayers. It is not impacting FHA. It has some of the best-performing loans. Why should people who live in high-cost areas be basically penalized just because we want to pick a number of $500,000 out of the air, which will have no benefit to anybody anywhere??

(The federal government?s mortgage insurance program is run by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), which was established during the Great Depression to make home ownership accessible and affordable for more Americans. It insures mortgages provided to homeowners by FHA-approved private lenders. The program is intended to shield private lenders participating in the program from losses that occur when homeowners default on their loans. The program is largely ?self-sustaining? ? meaning the taxpayers do not finance it. To keep the program solvent, the legislation raised premiums paid by homeowners receiving loans from FHA-approved lenders.)

The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 121-301. 109 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?yea.? 240 Democrats and 61 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to housing legislation that would have prohibited the federal government?s mortgage insurance program from insuring a mortgage on a home worth more than $500,000.


HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
N N Won
Roll Call 349
Jun 10, 2010
(H.R. 5072) On an amendment to housing legislation that would have capped the number of new mortgage loans provided to borrowers under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program at 10 percent of the total number of private-market home loans given each year.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) that would have capped the number of new mortgage loans provided to borrowers under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program at 10 percent of the total number of private-market home loans given each year.

Price urged support for his amendment: ??If we are honest with ourselves, when appropriately sized, the FHA does indeed do a wonderful job and is very helpful. But at this point, this is just another government program that is distorting the market. FHA's huge market share is a hindrance to regaining equity in the housing market.?

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) urged members to oppose Price?s amendment: ?Right now, FHA is 30 percent of the home purchase finance market, about over half of that market for African Americans, 45 percent for Hispanics. Are we going to tell one-third of American home buyers, almost half or over half Hispanics and African Americans seeking to buy homes, that they are not going to be able to buy those homes? Because, if they can't get FHA financing, the private sector may be there, but at much higher rates. And there is no way that these individuals will be able to afford to buy those homes.?

(The federal government?s mortgage insurance program is run by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), which was established during the Great Depression to make home ownership accessible and affordable for more Americans. It insures mortgages provided to homeowners by FHA-approved private lenders. The program is intended to shield private lenders participating in the program from losses that occur when homeowners default on their loans. The program is largely ?self-sustaining? ? meaning the taxpayers do not finance it. To keep the program solvent, the legislation raised premiums paid by homeowners receiving loans from FHA-approved lenders.)

The House rejected the Price amendment by a vote of 106-316. 105 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?yea.? 251 Democrats and 65 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to housing legislation that would have capped the number of new mortgage loans provided to borrowers under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program at 10 percent of the total number of private-market home loans given each year.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
N N Won
Roll Call 348
Jun 10, 2010
(H.R. 5072) On an amendment to housing legislation that would have required homeowners receiving mortgages from private lenders participating in the federal government?s mortgage insurance program to make a 5% down payment on their home.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) to housing legislation that would have required homeowners receiving mortgages from private lenders participating in the federal government?s mortgage insurance program to make a 5% down payment on their home, as opposed to the 3.5% payment required under current law.

The federal government?s mortgage insurance program is run by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), which was established during the Great Depression to make home ownership accessible and affordable for more Americans. It insures mortgages provided to homeowners by FHA-approved private lenders. The program is intended to shield private lenders participating in the program from losses that occur when homeowners default on their loans. The program is largely ?self-sustaining? ? meaning the taxpayers do not finance it. To keep the program solvent, the legislation raised premiums paid by homeowners receiving loans from FHA-approved lenders. Since the FHA is intended to help low-income individuals become homeowners, mortgage loans provided under the program require very little investment up front from the borrower. This amendment would require those borrowers to pay more when closing on a loan by requiring a 5% down payment on the home, as opposed to the 3.5% payment required under current law.

Garrett urged support for his amendment: ?It's not a 20 percent down payment or 15 percent or even a 10 percent, which many private lenders right now require, but we go for the reasonable one, the compromise, 5 percent down payment. I support home owners as much as the next guy, and I want everybody to be able to afford their own home if they could. But we have to learn something from our past history, and we have to be responsible here in this House.?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) argued that the amendment was unnecessary, because the FHA had already instituted more stringent requirements than those which Garret proposed: ??The FHA has gone beyond the gentleman from New Jersey with regard to borrowers who are risky. For borrowers with a 580 or below credit score, the FHA has already used the authority we have given them to raise the down payment to 10 percent??

The House rejected the Garrett amendment by a vote of 131-289. 124 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted ?yea.? 243 Democrats and 46 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to housing legislation that would have required homeowners receiving mortgages from private lenders participating in the federal government?s mortgage insurance program to make a 5% down payment on their home, as opposed to the 3.5% payment required by current law.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
N N Won
Roll Call 343
Jun 09, 2010
(H.R. 4173) On a motion instructing a conference committee (which resolves differences between House and Senate versions of bills after they have passed both chambers) resolving differences between a House and Senate version of financial regulatory reform legislation to prohibit the federal government from stabilizing troubled financial institutions under any circumstancesDescription:This was a vote on a Republican motion instructing a conference committee resolving differences between a House and Senate version of financial regulatory reform legislation to prohibit the federal government from stabilizing troubled financial institutions under any circumstances. (When the House and Senate pass two different versions of the same bill, they generally hold a conference to resolve the discrepancies between the two. Each body appoints a representative number of its members to participate in the conference.) This procedure, known as a ?motion to instruct conferees,? directs the conferees on a bill take a specific action with regard to the legislation that is the object of the conference.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

While the bill did allow the government to prop up institutions in situations that could lead to a financial catastrophe, those actions would be paid for by a fund financed by a fee on financial institutions ? not taxpayer money. In these situations, the government would be empowered to fire all of the top management of the institution in question. The government could extend loan guarantees for banks and financial institutions only if they were solvent, and only in the event of a liquidity crisis (This refers to a ?frozen credit market,? in which financial institutions stop lending -- which can have disastrous economic effects.). 

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) urged support for the motion: ?This motion to instruct directs the conferees to insist that this legislation end the possibility of taxpayer-funded bailouts once and for all by stipulating that bankruptcy is the only available option for liquidating a failed financial firm?. if you read the bill, in reality, it is nothing less than the taxpayer-funded life support to pay off the creditors of the failed institutions but not necessarily all of the creditors.?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, argued that the motion to recommit sought to do more than simply prohibit bailouts. Rather, he contended the proposal would have prevented the government from taking action to prevent an economic catastrophe resulting from the collapse of a major financial institution: ?The question between us is this: When an institution that has gotten overly indebted is put out of business, as this bill requires it to be, do you simply do that and ignore the consequences or should there be some capacity in the Federal Government to look at the consequences??


Frank, also argued that Republicans were simply inventing fictitious controversies in the bill based on blatant misrepresentations and distortions: ??We have just seen an elephant stick wielded on the floor of the House. The elephant stick refers to the man who's walking around the Mall here in Washington carrying a big stick, and people say, Why do you have that big stick. He said, Well, I've got to keep away all the elephants, and the people say to him, Well, there aren't any elephants here, and he said, Right, my stick works.?


The House rejected the motion to instruct conferees by a vote of 198-217. All 170 Republicans present and 28 Democrats voted ?yea.? 217 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House did not instruct the conference committee to prohibit the federal government from stabilizing troubled financial institutions under any circumstances.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Won
Roll Call 341
Jun 09, 2010
(H. Res. 989) On passage of a resolution urging the federal government to implement national policies to prevent ocean acidification -- which can severely damage marine ecosystems in coastal areas -- in the United States.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution urging the federal government to implement national policies to prevent ocean acidification --which can severely damage marine ecosystems in coastal areas -- in the United States.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) urged support for the resolution: ??What our resolution attempts to do is to focus on another perhaps worse threat to the oceans today associated with the burning of fossil fuels, and that is the sad, unalterable, unambiguous, scientifically certain fact that our oceans are becoming more acidic, substantially more acidic, as a result of carbon-based pollution from our burning of oil and coal and other fossil fuels.?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) criticized the resolution as overly vague, and charged it could be a stalking horse for cap-and-trade legislation. (?Cap-and-trade? refers to a proposal in which companies that emit excessive quantities of pollutants would be required to purchase credits from companies that pollute less.) Chaffetz said: ?I would stress that, prior to adopting national policies and international agreements which could adversely impact American jobs, the administration needs to continue its efforts to conduct research to better understand ocean acidification to ensure that efforts to address its effects do not necessarily harm the United States economy.?

Chaffetz asked Inslee about cap-and-trade directly: ?It [the resolution] talks in the very first sentence, `Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should adopt national policies.' By `national policies' does the gentleman mean the cap-and-trade??

Inslee responded: ?A cap could be one of those, but there are many other policies that could be beneficial, many of which have already passed the House of Representatives, including our efforts to start building electric cars in America rather than China, building lithium ion batteries. We are opening up our first plant in Michigan where we are putting to work hundreds of out-of-work autoworkers.  All of these are great policies. We do not specify in this resolution any particular policy.?

Although a majority of members (241) voted in favor of the resolution, it failed to receive the two-thirds majority vote required for passage under suspension of the rules. Thus, the measure was rejected. The vote on the resolution was 241-170. 222 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted ?yea.? 150 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a resolution urging the federal government to implement national policies to prevent ocean acidification -- which can severely damage marine ecosystems in coastal areas -- in the United States.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 340
Jun 09, 2010
(H.R. 5072) Legislation authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to raise the maximum premium paid by homeowners under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program ? on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to raise the maximum premium paid by homeowners under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program.

The federal government?s mortgage insurance program is run by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), which was established during the Great Depression to make home ownership accessible and affordable for more Americans. It insures mortgages provided to homeowners by FHA-approved private lenders. The program is intended to shield private lenders participating in the program from losses that occur when homeowners default on their loans. The program is largely ?self-sustaining? ? meaning the taxpayers do not finance it. To keep the program solvent, the legislation raised premiums paid by homeowners receiving loans from FHA-approved lenders.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) praised the underlying legislation, saying it ?provides FHA with the necessary tools to strengthen its mortgage insurance program and overall financial position. The collapse of the private sector in the wake of the financial crisis left a large void in the housing market.?

Republicans did not express opposition to the contents of the bill, but argued it would fail to address larger economic concerns ? and criticized Democrats for blaming on former President George W. Bush for the economic crisis. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) said: ?The legislation before us today brings some stability to the currently wavering housing market; but Americans are still concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the Democratic agenda?I think that increasing deficits, increasing spending, more taxes on business, shrinking job numbers, it's a sad day if we want to look back and blame everything on George Bush?For that reason, I encourage a?``no'' vote on the rule [the ?rule? refers to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill].

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 239-172. 239 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 168 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to raise the maximum premium paid by homeowners under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program.


HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 339
Jun 09, 2010
(H.R. 5072) Legislation authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to raise the maximum premium paid by homeowners under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program ? on bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to raise the maximum premium paid by homeowners under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

The federal government?s mortgage insurance program is run by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), which was established during the Great Depression to make home ownership accessible and affordable for more Americans. It insures mortgages provided to homeowners by FHA-approved private lenders. The program is intended to shield private lenders participating in the program from losses that occur when homeowners default on their loans. The program is largely ?self-sustaining? ? meaning the taxpayers do not finance it. To keep the program solvent, the legislation raised premiums paid by homeowners receiving loans from FHA-approved lenders.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) praised the legislation: ?FHA plays a critical role in the marketplace, and this bill strengthens the program so that it can continue its role in a sound manner. FHA was created during the Great Depression to stimulate the economy, particularly with regard to real estate. This purpose is equally important today, so it is crucial that we make reforms to the program that will allow it to keep up with the industry.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) did not criticize the bill, but urged opposition to the resolution and to ordering the previous question, claiming Democrats had not provided for an open amendment process: ??This will be the 31st time that I have handled a rule [a ?rule? is a resolution that sets a time limit for debate and determines which amendments can be offered to bills] on this House floor in this Congress, and this is the 31st time that I have yet to handle an open rule. In fact, out of the over 120 rules of this Congress, we have not debated one open rule. Not one open rule this Congress. I don't believe that closing debate, limiting amendments, and shutting Democrats and Republicans out of thoughtful ideas is a good way to run this House.? While Perlmutter did not specifically rebut Sessions? criticisms with respect to the amendment process, he had noted in his opening remarks that the resolution allowed 13 amendments to be offered to the underlying bill.

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 230-180. 230 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 170 Republicans present and 10 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to raise the maximum premium paid by homeowners under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program.?


HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 336
May 28, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5136 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 335
May 28, 2010
(H.R. 5136) On an amendment to legislation authorizing funding for Defense Department programs in 2011 that would have prohibited the bill?s funds from being used to transfer inmates from the Guantanamo Bay prison to the United States

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit offered by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) that prohibited funds provided by a Defense bill from being used to transfer inmates from the Guantanamo Bay prison to the United States. Since 2001, the federal government had held suspected terrorists at a detention center in Guantanamo Bay.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. 

Forbes urged support for his motion to recommit: ??Sometimes things are not as complex as we try to make them here in Washington. In fact, sometimes our best decisions come down to simple truths. One of those truths is that Americans are safer when our government fights to keep terrorists off U.S. soil rather than when it fights to bring them here.?

No members spoke in opposition to the motion to recommit. More than half of all House Democrats, however ?  including most progressives ? voted ?nay.? Calls to Democratic offices seeking an explanation for their votes were not returned. 

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), a staunch ally of the Obama administration and a supporter of closing the Guantanamo Bay facility, said this in 2009, as quoted by ABC News: "If we can safely hold these individuals, I believe we can safely hold any Guantanamo detainees who need to be held?no prisoner has ever escaped in the United States, period. Republicans also claim the administration wants to release terrorists in our communities, some kind of work release, walking around situation for terrorists. What an incredible charge, and patently false. President Obama has made clear that Guantanamo will be closed in a manner consistent with our national security."

A July 21 article in Roll Call entitled ?Guantánamo Debate Has Gone Silent on Capitol Hill,? made note of the Democrats? hesitancy to address Guantanamo. The article quoted House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) as saying: ?That?s [Guantanamo] not an issue being discussed very broadly. I think that you?re not going to see it discussed very broadly in the near term.? Indeed, a number of Democrats who had once opposed Republican efforts to prohibit funding for transferring Guantanamo detainees voted differently on this motion to recommit. For example, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) voted in favor of the motion to recommit. In 2009, however, Ruppersberger said this about transferring Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.: ??If, in fact, there are prisoners that are so dangerous that would hurt our country, I would much rather have us control those prisoners. If we need to bring them to the United States of America to try them, I have more confidence in our court system and our prison system than some of the countries they go back to where they could escape and come back and do harm to our citizens.?

The House agreed to the motion to recommit by a vote of 282-131. 168 Republicans and 114 Democrats voted ?yea.?  130 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House voted to prohibit the Defense bill?s funds from being used to transfer inmates from the Guantanamo Bay prison to the United States.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD People in Jails and Prisons
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Lost
Roll Call 334
May 28, 2010
(H.R. 5136) On a motion to table (kill) an appeal of the ruling of the House Speaker that a motion to freeze the salaries of all federal employees violated House rules

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of the ruling of the House Speaker that a motion to freeze the salaries of all federal employees violated House rules. During debate on legislation authorizing annual funding for the Defense Department in 2011, Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) offered a motion to recommit that would have frozen the salaries of all federal employees ? including members of Congress.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

Bachman urged support for the motion to recommit: ?Do we really want to go on record saying that the rules of this House should not be used to shield our own Members of Congress' salaries and also those of the legislative salaries of the non-uniformed branch from being fiscally irresponsible??

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) made a point of order against the motion to recommit, arguing that it violated House rules because it had nothing to do with the Defense bill: ?I make a point of order against this motion as it is not germane, and I insist on that point of order.?

The Speaker ruled in Skelton?s favor, declaring that Bachmann?s motion was in violation of the rules. Bachmann then appealed that ruling.  Skelton then made a motion to table (kill) Bachmann?s appeal.

The House voted to table Bachmann?s appeal of the Speaker?s ruling by a vote of 227-183. 224 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted ?yea.? 165 Republicans and 18 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have frozen the salaries of all federal employees ? including members of Congress.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 332
May 28, 2010
(H.R. 5116) Passage of legislation authorizing $86 billion to be spent over six years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation authorizing $86 billion to be spent over six years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research. Of the $86 billion total, $44 billion would be designated for National Science Foundation programs, while $35 billion would be designated for Energy Department research programs. The bill also authorized $5.4 billion for National Institute of Standards and Technology programs. (The National Institute of Standards and Technology is an agency within the Commerce Department. Its mission to promote competitiveness through scientific and technological research.)

The House first debated H.R. 5116 (legislation which was intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world) on May 13, one week earlier. Republicans offered a motion to recommit that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.) The motion to recommit also would have required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography. 

(The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to vote against eliminating programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to vote against barring federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography.)

The Republicans had effectively torpedoed the bill by attaching the anti-pornography provision to the motion to recommit -- which passed with the support of 121 Democrats. Since Republicans had succeeded in making such drastic changes to the measure, Democratic leaders then withdrew the legislation from the House floor without holding a vote on final passage. Since the House had never voted on final passage of the bill, Democrats brought the measure up again as ?unfinished business.? Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) then demanded that the motion to recommit be divided into different sections (this rarely used procedure is known as ?dividing the question?). Thus, the motion to recommit was split into nine separate parts. Democrats were able to defeat all sections of the motion to recommit that cut funding in the bill. The anti-pornography section passed unanimously. Following votes on the different sections of the GOP motion to recommit, the House proceeded to vote on final passage.

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) urged support for the bill: ?In recent years we have watched as our country has fallen behind in educating our children for the 21st century and developing technology that our neighbors envy. Today's legislation will help to turn these trends around by making the strong investments necessary in research, education and manufacturing.?

No Republicans spoke on the bill prior to the vote on final passage, but during previous debate on May 13, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: ?While I'm certain this bill was drafted with the best of intentions and motivations, I strongly disagree that this is in our nation's best interests. American investments in science and technology cannot operate in a vacuum. We need a broader strategy that prioritizes spending, reduces debt, eliminates deficits, and provides clarity, stability, and the appropriate regulatory environment?But this legislation makes no choices. It simply authorizes more and more spending.?

The House passed the bill by a vote of 262-150. All 245 Democrats present and 17 Republicans voted ?yea.? 150 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing $86 billion to be spent over six years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 331
May 28, 2010
(H.R. 5116) On an motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) that would have frozen spending on existing programs in (in a bill intended to make the U.S more competitive in the world economy) at 2010 levels in any year in which there was a federal budget deficit.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have frozen spending on existing programs (in legislation intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world economy) at 2010 levels in any year in which there was a federal budget deficit.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.  

The House first debated H.R. 5116 (which was a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world economy) on May 13. Republicans offered a motion to recommit that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levelsThe motion to recommit also would have required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography.  (The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to vote against eliminating programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to vote against barring federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography.) 

The Republicans had effectively torpedoed the bill by attaching the anti-pornography provision to the motion to recommit -- which passed with the support of 121 Democrats. Since Republicans had succeeded in making such drastic changes to the measure, Democratic leaders then withdrew the legislation from the House floor without holding a vote on final passage. Since the House had never voted on final passage of the bill, Democrats brought the measure up again as ?unfinished business.? Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) then demanded that the motion to recommit be divided into different sections (this rarely used procedure is known as ?dividing the question?). Thus, the motion to recommit was split into nine separate parts. Roll call votes were held on six of the nine sections. (No roll call vote was requested on the remaining three sections.) This vote was on the ninth section, which froze spending on existing programs in the bill at 2010 funding levels in any year in which there was a federal budget deficit.

No debate occurred on any sections of the GOP motion to recommit. When the House debated the GOP motion to recommit on May 13, however, Rep. Ralph Hall argued that increasing spending on the bill?s programs beyond 2010 levels was excessive: ?The motion to recommit addresses the biggest concern I, and many of the Members on this side of the aisle, have with the legislation, which is the excessive spending. It will address this issue by?reducing the spending down to the fiscal year 2010 appropriated levels.?

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, argued that additional spending was needed to keep the U.S. competitive with the rest of the world: ?There are 6.5 billion people in the world. Half of those that are working make less than $2 a day. Now, if we try to compete in a global economy on that type of labor, then you're going to see your kids and grandkids wind up with a national standard of living less than their parents. So we can't win in terms of wages. We have to win by having a higher technological base here.?

The House rejected this section of the GOP motion to recommit by a vote of 181-234. 169 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?yea.? 233 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected the section of the GOP motion to recommit that would have frozen spending on existing programs in the bill (which was intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world economy) at 2010 levels in any year in which there was a federal budget deficit.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 330
May 28, 2010
(H.R. 5116) On an amendmentthat would have barred institutions of higher learning from receiving funds provided by the underlying bill if they prohibited the U.S. military from recruiting on their campuses. The amendment was offered to a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have barred institutions of higher learning from receiving funds provided by the underlying bill if they prohibited the U.S. military from recruiting on their campuses. The amendment was offered to a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world.

The House first debated H.R. 5116 (which was a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world) on May 13. Republicans offered a motion to recommit that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. ) The motion to recommit also would have required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography. 

The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to preserve programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to oppose a ban on federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography. 

The GOP motion to recommit passed 292-126, with 121 Democrats voting ?yea? with Republicans Since Republicans had succeeded in making such drastic changes to the bill, Democratic leaders then withdrew the legislation from the House floor without holding a vote on final passage. The Democratic leadership then brought a scaled-down version of the bill (designed to attract Republican support) to the floor under suspension of the rules; this procedure prohibits the minority party from offering any amendments or a motion to recommit. It also requires, however, that bills receive a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Although the scaled-down version bill included a number of the proposals from the GOP motion to recommit ? including the anti-pornography language ? most Republicans still voted against the measure, denying it the two-thirds majority required for passage.

Since the House had never voted on passage of H.R. 5116 on May 13 following the successful motion to recommit, House rules allowed Democratic leaders to bring the bill up again as ?unfinished business.? Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) then demanded that the motion to recommit be divided into different sections (this rarely used procedure is known as ?dividing the question?). Thus, the motion to recommit was split into nine separate parts. Roll call votes were held on six of the nine sections. (No roll call vote was requested on the remaining three sections.) This vote was on the eighth section, which dealt with military recruiters on college campuses.

No debate occurred on any sections of the GOP motion to recommit. When the House debated H.R. 5116 on May 13, Rep. Ralph Hall urged support for the motion to recommit, arguing it would ?ensure that the institutions that we're giving Federal funding to through this act will repay the federal government by allowing the military onto their campuses for recruitment.?

No members spoke against this section during the May 13 debate. Many progressives, however, have long opposed requiring colleges to grant military recruiters access due to its policy banning gays and lesbians from serving openly. When the House debated the issue of military recruiters on college campuses in 2006, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said: "The military's misguided Don't Ask, Don't Tell ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual servicemembers is clearly not compatible with university policies that prohibit campus recruiting by employers who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?.granting access to an employer, whether military, private sector or otherwise, that fails to meet a school's nondiscrimination policy is not equal access, but special access. It is a unique right to discriminate, granted only to the military." 

The House agreed to this section of the GOP motion to recommit by a vote of 348-68. 179 Democrats and 169 Republicans voted ?yea.? 68 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?nay.? As a result, the House voted to bar barred institutions of higher learning from receiving funds provided by H.R. 5116 if they prohibited the U.S. military from recruiting on their campuses.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 328
May 28, 2010
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment that would have required that institutions of higher education that serve large numbers of disabled veterans receive ?special consideration? for funding provided by all programs in the underlying bill. The amendment was offered to a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have required that institutions of higher education serving large numbers of disabled veterans receive ?special consideration? for federal funding provided by the underlying bill.The proposal would essentially put schools that serve disabled veterans in the same category (with respect to eligibility for federal funding) as institutions such as Gallaudet, a university for the blind. The amendment was offered to a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world.

The House first debated H.R. 5116 (which was a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world) on May 13. Republicans offered a motion to recommit that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. ) The motion to recommit also would have required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography. 

The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to preserve programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to oppose a ban on federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography. 

The GOP motion to recommit passed 292-126, with 121 Democrats voting ?yea? (with Republicans). Since Republicans had succeeded in making such drastic changes to the bill, Democratic leaders then withdrew the legislation from the House floor without holding a vote on final passage. The Democratic leadership then brought a scaled-down version of the bill (designed to attract Republican support) to the floor under suspension of the rules; this procedure prohibits the minority party from offering any amendments or a motion to recommit. It also requires, however, that bills receive a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Although the scaled-down version bill included a number of the proposals from the GOP motion to recommit ? including the anti-pornography language ? most Republicans still voted against the measure, denying it the two-thirds majority required for passage.

Since the House had never voted on passage of H.R. 5116 on May 13 following the successful motion to recommit, House rules allowed Democratic leaders to bring the bill up again as ?unfinished business.? Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) then demanded that the motion to recommit be divided into different sections (this rarely used procedure is known as ?dividing the question?). Thus, the motion to recommit was split into nine separate parts. Roll call votes were held on six of the nine sections. (No roll call vote was requested on the remaining three sections.) This vote was on the sixth section, which dealt with disabled veterans.

No debate occurred on any sections of the GOP motion to recommit. During debate on the motion to recommit on May 13, however, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) urged support for this component of the GOP proposal: ?I cannot for the life of me understand why there's a resistance to assisting the Nation's disabled veterans. Of the 3.1 million disabled veterans in this country, over 50,000 are currently training to receive undergraduate degrees and an additional 2,800 participate in graduate school programs. The schools serving these men and women deserve the same consideration as those assisting other underrepresented populations.?

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, argued that H.R. 5116 already guaranteed that disabled veterans receive special consideration: ??Language was put in the bill both for scholarships for individual veterans and also for those institutions. Let me read this to you, ?For the purposes of the activities and programs supported by this Act and the amendments made in this Act, institutions of higher education offering?research education activities and programs that serve veterans with disabilities shall receive special consideration and review??.So we have taken care of that.?

When the Science and Technology Committee had drafted the bill, Gordon had made an additional argument against Hall?s specific proposed language. Gordon contended that, since nearly all universities enroll veterans, Hall?s proposal would open a limited funding source for schools serving the disabled to an unsustainable number of schools. As a result, he contended, schools like Gallaudet would lose funding: ?The concern that I have here is?this is such an expansion that it covers everywhere where it makes nobody special in this regard.?which really reduces the benefits to Gallaudet and to those other schools. So I think your intention is good, but I am afraid that the expense is too large.?

Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) articulated this point somewhat more succinctly: ??Insofar as every college and university in America ought to be serving veterans with disabilities, by opening it [special consideration for federal funding] up to every college and institution, we are not targeting anybody.?

Gordon argued the language included in the bill (quoted above from May 13 floor debate) accomplished Hall?s stated objective in a manner which was realistic and feasible.

The House rejected this section of the GOP motion to recommit by a vote of 197-215. 171 Republicans and 26 Democrats voted ?yea.? 215 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members ? voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected the section of the GOP motion to recommit that would have required that institutions of higher education that serve large numbers of disabled veterans receive ?special consideration? for funding provided by all programs in H.R. 5116 ? language which Democrats argued was duplicative of what was already in the bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
N N Won
Roll Call 327
May 28, 2010
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment that would have eliminated a provision establishing an ?innovative services initiative? intended to help small manufacturers increase their profits by reducing their energy usage and environmental waste. The provision was part of a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have eliminated a provision establishing an ?innovative services initiative? intended to help small manufacturers increase their profits by reducing their energy usage and environmental waste. The initiative also was intended to help manufacturers commercialize new products relating to renewable energy systems. The provision was part of a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world.

The House first debated H.R. 5116 (which was a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world) on May 13. Republicans offered a motion to recommit that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. ) The motion to recommit also would have required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography.

The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to preserve programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to oppose a ban on federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography. 

The GOP motion to recommit passed 292-126, with 121 Democrats voting ?yea? with Republicans. Since Republicans had succeeded in making such drastic changes to the bill, Democratic leaders then withdrew the legislation from the House floor without holding a vote on final passage. The Democratic leadership then brought a scaled-down version of the bill (designed to attract Republican support) to the floor under suspension of the rules; this procedure prohibits the minority party from offering any amendments or a motion to recommit. It also requires, however, that bills receive a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Although the scaled-down version bill included a number of the proposals from the GOP motion to recommit ? including the anti-pornography language ? most Republicans still voted against the measure, denying it the two-thirds majority required for passage.

Since the House had never voted on passage of H.R. 5116 on May 13 following the successful motion to recommit, House rules allowed Democratic leaders to bring the bill up again as ?unfinished business.? Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) then demanded that the motion to recommit be divided into different sections (this rarely used procedure is known as ?dividing the question?). Thus, the motion to recommit was split into nine separate parts. Roll call votes were held on six of the nine sections. (No roll call vote was requested on the remaining three sections.) This vote was on the second section, which sought to eliminate the ?innovative services initiative.?

No debate occurred on any sections of the GOP motion to recommit. During debate on the motion to recommit on May 13, however, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) made clear that the GOP motion to recommit sought to eliminate all new programs in the bill because Republicans viewed them as fiscally irresponsible: ?The motion to recommit addresses the biggest concern I, and many of the members on this side of the aisle, have with the legislation, which is the excessive spending. It will address this issue by?striking the new programs in the bill??

Gordon argued that increasing funding for innovative research ? particularly with respect to energy efficiency ? was necessary: ?R&D [research and development] gives you innovation. Innovation gives you jobs, which creates the type of standard of living and revenue that allows us to reduce the deficit as well as to continue the R&D again. Another important part of this bill is the energy independence. Right now we have to reduce our dependence on our foreign oil for our economic as well as our national defense. And I don't want to trade our dependency on foreign oil to foreign technology.?

The House rejected this section of the GOP motion to recommit by a vote of 163-244. 163 Republicans voted ?yea.? 239 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected the section of the GOP motion to recommit that would have eliminated a provision in H.R. 5116 that established an ?innovative services initiative? intended to help small manufacturers increase their profits by reducing their energy usage and environmental waste.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 326
May 28, 2010
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment that would have eliminated a provision establishing a pilot program in which the National Science Foundation would award cash prizes for innovative research. The provision was part of a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have eliminated a provision establishing a pilot program in which the National Science Foundation would award cash prizes for innovative research. The provision was part of a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world.

The House first debated H.R. 5116 (which was a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world) on May 13. Republicans offered a motion to recommit that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. ) The motion to recommit also would have required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography. 

The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to preserve programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to oppose a ban on federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography. 

The GOP motion to recommit passed 292-126, with 121 Democrats voting ?yea? with Republicans. Since Republicans had succeeded in making such drastic changes to the bill, Democratic leaders then withdrew the legislation from the House floor without holding a vote on final passage. The Democratic leadership then brought a scaled-down version of the bill (designed to attract Republican support) to the floor under suspension of the rules; this procedure prohibits the minority party from offering any amendments or a motion to recommit. It also requires, however, that bills receive a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Although the scaled-down version bill included a number of the proposals from the GOP motion to recommit ? including the anti-pornography language ? most Republicans still voted against the measure, denying it the two-thirds majority required for passage.

Since the House had never voted on passage of H.R. 5116 on May 13 following the successful motion to recommit, House rules allowed Democratic leaders to bring the bill up again as ?unfinished business.? Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) then demanded that the motion to recommit be divided into different sections (this rarely used procedure is known as ?dividing the question?). Thus, the motion to recommit was split into nine separate parts. Roll call votes were held on six of the nine sections. (No roll call vote was requested on the remaining three sections.) This vote was on the first section, which sought to eliminate National Science Foundation cash awards for innovative research.

No debate occurred on any sections of the GOP motion to recommit. During debate on the motion to recommit on May 13, however, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) made clear that the GOP motion to recommit sought to eliminate all new programs in the bill because Republicans viewed them as fiscally irresponsible: ?The motion to recommit addresses the biggest concern I, and many of the members on this side of the aisle, have with the legislation, which is the excessive spending. It will address this issue by?striking the new programs in the bill??

Gordon argued that increasing funding for innovative research was essential with respect to job creation and economic growth: ??The last few years, you've seen that the public sector dollars have been stagnant in terms of our investment in research and development. And on the private sector level, they've actually gone down. Why does this matter? Because the rest of the world is increasing their investments in research and development, and the importance to us here in this country is that 50 percent of the growth in the GDP in our Nation since World War II has been a result of research and development.?

The House rejected this section of the GOP motion to recommit by a vote of 175-243. 170 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted ?yea.? 242 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected the section of the GOP motion to recommit that would have eliminated a pilot program in which the National Science Foundation would award cash prizes for innovative research.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 325
May 28, 2010
(H.R. 4213) Passage of legislation blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians (known as the physician payments ?fix?) scheduled to take effect on June 1. The Democratic leadership had decided to divide H.R. 4213 into two different sections, each to be voted separately.  The first vote was on all provisions contained in the bill except the Medicare physician payment ?fix.? (Those provisions included an extension of unemployment insurance and tax credits for small businesses.) The second vote (this vote) dealt exclusively with the physician payments. This strategy allowed members to vote in favor of extending unemployment insurance, and against blocking cuts in physician payments, or vice versa.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) urged support for the measure: ?I want to urge my colleagues to vote for the part of this legislation that would update the SGR [sustainable growth rate ? the government?s formula which sets Medicare payment rates for physicians], which is the payment for physicians under the Medicare program. It's absolutely critical to do this if we are going to keep doctors in Medicare and keep the promise to Medicare beneficiaries that they will have access to physicians' services.?If we don't act, doctors' fees will be cut by 21 percent from where they are today. This would be unconscionable.?

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) argued that House action on blocking a pay cut for physicians was an empty gesture, since the Senate had already adjourned for its week-long Memorial Day recess and would not vote on the measure. He contended the bill ?is not going to benefit America's doctors, because the Senate went home.  June 1, doctors get their pay cut?. Do you know what happens when you hold a check in a one- or two-doctor office for two weeks? That doctor doesn't have a paycheck at the end of their month, their margins are so tight.?

The House passed the Medicare physician payments measure by a vote of 245-171. 230 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 15 Republicans voted ?yea.? 156 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.


HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 324
May 28, 2010
(H.R. 4213) Passage of legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, extending through 2010 tax credits for small businesses, and extending through 2012 a bonds program that offers state and local governments to invest in infrastructure.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, extending through 2010 tax credits for small businesses. The legislation also extended through 2012 a bonds program that offers state and local governments to invest in infrastructure. In addition, the measure extended the flood insurance program through December 31, 2010.

In addition to all of the provisions listed above, H.R. 4213 originally blocked a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians (known as the physician payment ?fix?) scheduled to take effect on June 1. The Democratic leadership, however, decided to divide H.R. 4213 into two different sections, each to be voted separately.  The first vote (this vote) was on all provisions contained in the bill except the Medicare physician payment ?fix.? The second vote dealt exclusively with the physician payments. This strategy allowed members to vote in favor of extending unemployment insurance, and against blocking cuts in physician payments, or vice versa.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) urged support for the legislation, particularly the extension of unemployment insurance: ?If you think starving the children of unemployed people by saying, We're not going to give you money to go to the store and get food for your kids, is going to somehow make them go out and find work in a time when we have six people looking for every job in this country, you simply don't understand the human condition.?

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) argued the measure ?protects the safety net for Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own. It extends their unemployment insurance and helps them keep their health coverage. That's not only the right thing to do; it is also one of the most effective ways to boost local economies.?

Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) urged members to opposed the measure: ? Instead of creating jobs, this bill will cost jobs. Instead of providing much needed certainty, this bill merely kicks the can down the road. Instead of helping our economy recover, this bill will more likely delay it.?

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) argued the bill would fail to create jobs: ??Let?s look carefully and quickly at what the job creators are saying about this bill. The United States Chamber of Commerce says it will hinder job creation. The Business Roundtable says it takes us two steps backwards in terms of job creating?.
Look, this is a cascading disappointment?.This needs to go back to the drawing board?.Let's get about the business of serious job creation, and not just fall headlong into an orthodoxy that is a complete failure.

The House passed the measure by a vote of 215-204. 214 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 170 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, extending through 2010 tax credits for small businesses, and extending through 2012 a bonds program that offers state and local governments to invest in infrastructure ? and then proceeded to a vote on blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 323
May 28, 2010
(H.R. 4213) On a resolution setting the terms for floor debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, as well as allowing a separate vote on blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010. The bill also extended through 2010 tax credits for small businesses as well as a a bonds program encouraging state and local governments to invest in infrastructure. The resolution also allowed the House to take a separate vote on blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.

Democrats were trying to pass legislation to help unemployed Americans. Republicans and conservative Democrats opposed the measure, objecting to the bill?s overall cost. Thus, Democratic leaders were forced to water down the measure in order to attract support from conservative Democrats. Thus, Democratic leaders reduced the bill?s price tag by eliminating health benefits for laid-off workers. They also divided the bill into two different sections, each to be voted on separately. One section blocked a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians, and the other section contained the rest of the bill. This strategy allowed members to vote in favor of extending unemployment insurance, and against blocking cuts in physician payments, or vice versa

Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of this rule [resolution] and the underlying bill for one reason, and that is jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what this bill is about. It's about creating jobs across the country from Massachusetts to Florida to my home State of California.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) criticized the resolution and the underlying legislation: ?Why is the Speaker having this bill today on the floor? This isn't about jobs. It's not about the unemployed. It's not about those without insurance or it's not even about physicians. It's about a political agenda. It's about taxing and spending and a message on this floor that tries to make it seem like it's the reverse.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 221-199. 221 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- voted ?yea.? All 170 Republicans present and 29 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, extending through 2010 tax credits for small businesses, and blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 322
May 28, 2010
(H.R. 4213) On an amendment eliminating a provision in legislation intended to help laid-off workers that extended health benefits for jobless Americans. The amendment also divided the bill into two separate sections, each to be voted on separately (One section blocked a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians, and the other section contained the rest of the bill.)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment eliminating a provision in legislation intended to help laid-off workers that extended health benefits for jobless Americans. The amendment was not offered to the bill itself, but to the resolution that allowed the House to debate and vote on the bill. Such resolutions typically set a time limit for debate and determine which amendments can be offered to legislation. In rare cases, however, these resolutions can make substantive changes to the underlying bill. This was such a case. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) offered this amendment.

Democrats were trying to pass legislation to help unemployed Americans. Republicans and conservative Democrats opposed the measure, objecting to the bill?s overall cost. Thus, Democratic leaders were forced to water down the measure in order to attract support from conservative Democrats. Thus, Democratic leaders reduced the bill?s price tag by eliminating health benefits for laid-off workers. They also divided the bill into two different sections, each to be voted on separately. One section blocked a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians, and the other section contained the rest of the bill. This strategy allowed members to vote in favor of extending unemployment insurance, and against blocking cuts in physician payments, or vice versa.
No debate occurred on the amendment. Republicans, however, had voiced their displeasure earlier in the day with being confronted with last minute changes to the bill under this legislative procedure. Rep. Pete Sessions said: ?Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority promised the American people that they would run the most open, honest, and ethical Congress. To date, this Congress and I think the last one has seen more backroom deals, arm twisting, and more partisan negotiations than ever before. I think the American people are fed up with it. They want transparency, they want accountability, and I think what they are looking for is solutions. Standing up and touting this bill when nobody even knows what's in it and how great it is, I think, a sham.?

The House agreed to Slaughter?s amendment by a vote of 215-106. 215 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- voted ?yea.? All 172 Republicans present and 34 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House eliminated a provision in legislation intended to help laid-off workers that extended health benefits for jobless Americans ? and divided the bill into two separate sections, each to be voted on separately.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 321
May 28, 2010
(H.R. 4213) On bringing to a final vote a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, and blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote ordering the previous question (which, if passed, effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote) on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation extending unemployment insurance and health benefits for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010. The bill also blocked a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1. In addition,  the bill  extended through 2012 a bonds program that offers state and local governments to invest in infrastructure.

Following this vote (which was on ordering the previous question), however, the House was scheduled to consider an amendment by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) that stripped the health insurance extension from the bill, and then divided the bill into two different sections, each to be voted on separately. One section contained the Medicare physician payment provision, and the other section contained the rest of the bill. (This strategy allowed members to vote in favor of extending unemployment insurance, and against blocking cuts in physician payments, or vice versa.) Democrats eliminated the extension of health benefits in order to attract support from conservative Democrats who were balking at the cost of the bill.

Slaughter praised the legislation: ?It's the product of many hours of hard work. It's also an effort to strike a balance between extending important life-saving assistance to laid-off workers and investing in smart spending that will help our economy.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) criticized the Democratic majority for introducing last minute changes to H.R. 4213 through Slaughter?s amendment to the resolution: ??It is my understanding that the Democrats are planning to amend the rule [resolution] to change the text of the underlying legislation that we are discussing here right now?.What's in the amendment? Are they gutting the State Medicare funding portion? Are they eliminating the COBRA [health benefits for laid-off workers] extension? Will doctors see a 21 percent cut in reimbursement next week? I don't know, nor does anybody who is going to vote on this bill.?

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 235-182. 235 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 169 Republicans present and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a vote on Slaughter?s amendment, and then a final vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, and blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 318
May 27, 2010
(H.R. 5136) On an amendment to legislation authorizing funding for Defense Department programs that barred the federal government from contracting out services that would otherwise be performed by federal employees without determining that such a contract would result in savings for taxpayers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) to legislation  authorizing funding for Defense Department programs in 2011 that barred the federal government from contracting out services that would otherwise be performed by federal employees without determining that such a contract would result in savings for taxpayers. In addition, the amendment required all federal agencies to conduct an inventory of their existing  government contracts. The amendment required those inventories to specify the total amount of federal money spent on each contract. The inventories were also required to identify contracted services that had been ?poorly performed,? either due to excessive cost or inferior quality. The amendment also required the inventories to identify government contracts in which services should be ?insourced,? or transferred to government employees.

Sarbanes argued his amendment ?would bring standards of good government and good government practice to procurement across the federal agencies. What it does, in fact, is it takes a set of standards that has been put in place already with respect to the Department of Defense?and it makes it clear that those are going to be authorized standards going forward to apply to non-DOD [Department of Defense] agencies as well now as to DOD agencies.?

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) argued the outsourcing policies Sarbanes sought to enact ?not working so great for the Department of Defense, and to take it to all the other departments of government is not a good idea?. People that are in government are well-intentioned, they do their best, but there just sometimes is not that same cutting-edge innovation and technology improvement in government service that we see with people working in the private sector.?

The House agreed to the Sarbanes amendment by a vote of 253-172. 243 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted ?yea.? 161 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that barred federal government agencies from contracting out services that would otherwise be performed by federal employees without determining that such a contract would result in savings for taxpayers, and required all federal agencies to conduct an inventory of their existing  government contracts. (The amendment required those inventories to identify contracted services that had been ?poorly performed,? either due to excessive cost or inferior quality. The amendment also required the inventories to identify government contracts in which services should be ?insourced,? or transferred to government employees.)


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Won
Roll Call 317
May 27, 2010
(H.R. 5136) On an amendment to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Defense Department that repealed the military?s ?Don?t Ask Don?t Tell? (DADT) policy towards gay servicemembers, which prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military while barring military officials from inquiring about soldiers? sexuality.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Defense Department that repealed the military?s ?Don?t Ask Don?t Tell? (DADT) policy towards gay servicemembers, which prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military  while barring military officials from inquiring about soldiers? sexuality. In a compromise intended to attract support from military leaders, the amendment allowed the Pentagon to postpone repeal of DADT until the department completes a review of the policy in December 2010. Following the review, DADT would be repealed only if military leaders certify that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military would not harm military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, or recruiting and retention.

Murphy urged support for his amendment: ??When I served in Baghdad, my team did not care whether a fellow soldier was straight or gay. We cared if they could fire their M-4 assault rifle or run a convoy down Ambush Alley; could they do their job so that everybody in our unit would come home safely. With our military fighting two wars, why on Earth would we tell over 13,500 able-bodied Americans that their services are not needed? This policy hurts our national security?Our troops deserve a Congress that puts their safety and our collective national security over rigid partisan interests and a close-minded ideology.?

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) said: ??Anyone who is willing to put on this country's uniform and put his or her life on the line to protect our freedoms deserves our respect and should not be subject to discrimination. Repealing this flawed policy is an important way for us to show that respect.?

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) argued consideration of the amendment was premature: ?I rise in strong opposition to the amendment being offered by Representative Murphy that would have Congress act to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell even before the comprehensive review directed by the Secretary of Defense is completed and even before Congress has received the comprehensive views of those who will be most directly affected by any change in the law.? Rep. John Shimkus called the amendment ?devastating to the warfighters and to the combat infantrymen.?

The House agreed to Murphy?s amendment by a vote of 234-194. 229 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members -- and 5 Republicans voted ?yea.? 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment to a Defense bill that repealed the military?s ?Don?t Ask Don?t Tell? (DADT) policy towards gay servicemembers, which prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military while barring military officials from inquiring about soldiers? sexuality ? but allowed the Pentagon to postpone repeal of DADT until the department completes a review of the policy in December, 2010. Following the review, DADT would be repealed only if military leaders certify that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military would not harm military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, or recruiting and retention.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 316
May 27, 2010
(H.R. 5136) On an amendment to a bill authorizing annual funding for the Defense Department that would have prohibited funding for an alternate jet engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (a military aircraft), which the Pentagon views as unnecessary and too expensive.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) to a bill authorizing annual funding for the Defense Department that would have prohibited funding for an alternate jet engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (a military aircraft), which the Pentagon views as unnecessary and too expensive. According to the Washington Post: ?Gates has opposed the extra engine for years, saying it is unnecessary and a waste of money. But Congress has argued that funding a second engine model for the F-35 would keep defense contractors on their toes by forcing them to compete.?

Pingree urged support for her amendment: ?In 2001, Pratt & Whitney won the award for the primary engine for the Joint Strike Fighter through a competitive bidding process. This process was set up to save millions in taxpayer dollars. Since then, Congress has authorized an astonishing $1.3 billion of unrequested funds for the development of this extra unnecessary engine. The Bush administration opposed this program. The Obama administration opposes this program. And yet if this amendment fails today, we will continue to fund a defense program that is a complete waste of money.?

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) argued that eliminating funding for the second engine would prove to be anti-competitive and would actually cost taxpayers more money: ??The second engine is all about fiscal responsibility and saving the taxpayers money. The Pentagon themselves funded this program for 10 years, and they funded it because they knew that competition mattered.? Rep. Mike Conaway argued: ?The Pingree amendment would result in a sole source contract to a single engine manufacturer for the Joint Strike Fighter. But few can argue with the premise that competition is good for the taxpayer.?

The House rejected the Pingree amendment by a vote of 193-231. 136 Democrats ? including a majority of the most progressive members -- and 57 Republicans voted ?yea.? 116 Republicans and 115 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to the Defense bill that would have prohibited funding for an alternate jet engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N Y Lost
Roll Call 315
May 27, 2010
(H.R. 5136) On an amendment to legislation authorizing funds for the Defense Department that allowed the Government Accountability Office (which carries out audits and investigations on behalf of Congress) to carry out audits of the Intelligence community in order to aid investigations undertaken by the House Intelligence Committee.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) to legislation authorizing funds for the Defense Department that allowed the Government Accountability Office (which carries out audits and investigations on behalf of Congress) to carry out audits of the Intelligence community in order to aid investigations undertaken by the House Intelligence Committee. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) already possesses this authority with respect to other Congressional committees. An exception has long been made for the Intelligence Committee, however, due to the sensitive nature of the issues under its jurisdiction.

Eshoo urged support for her amendment: ?The reason I offer this amendment is because, unlike all the rest of the committees of the House who can use the GAO, dispatch the Government Accountability Office into the executive branch to make the kinds of determinations on financial issues, financial management, personnel, acquisitions, information technology, whatever it might be, the House Intelligence Committee is not allowed to do that?. I believe this issue goes directly to the heart of one of the most important functions of the Congress, and that is effective oversight. That's what this amendment is about.?

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) argued the amendment was unnecessary: ?I think the intelligence committees in the House and the Senate are capable of performing their job. Now, I get frustrated. I don't agree with everything that the majority chooses to do, but I believe that the committee is perfectly capable of oversight of the intelligence community as we were tasked to do in the House rules and by statute.?

The House agreed to the Eshoo amendment by a vote of 218-210. 206 Democrats ? including a majority of the most progressive members ? and 12 Republicans voted ?yea.? 161 Republicans and 49 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment allowing the GAO to carry out audits of the Intelligence community in order to aid investigations undertaken by the House Intelligence Committee.


WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
Y Y Won
Roll Call 307
May 27, 2010
(H.R. 5136) Legislation authorizing annual funding in 2011 for Defense Department programs ? on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing annual funding in 2011 for Defense Department programs.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?In the end, the bill that we will vote on later today will strengthen our national defense, will give our troops the equipment they need to do their jobs and will take care of them and their families. The bill also invests in military infrastructure and technology, which will create jobs here in the United States and will stimulate growth throughout the economy.?

Pingree also urged support for an amendment that would repeal the military?s ?Don?t Ask Don?t Tell? (DADT) policy towards gay servicemembers. This policy prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, and barred military officials from inquiring about soldiers? sexuality.  The effort to repeal this policy was backed by gay rights groups, most Democrats, the Obama administration, and key high-ranking military officials, such as Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Pingree said: ?I am very encouraged and pleased by the fact that this rule [resolution] allows for an amendment [repealing DADT) to be made in order by Mr. [Patrick] Murphy from Pennsylvania, which, if passed, will finally put the military on the path to repealing the misguided and outdated Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. I am looking forward to voting for the amendment and to seeing the end of this discriminatory policy once and for all.?

Most Republicans, however, opposed the amendment repealing DADT, and therefore voted against this resolution, which allowed the amendment repealing the policy to be debated and voted on. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) argued that the process by which Democrats sought to repeal DADT failed to take into account input from the troops: ??When the President announced his decision to repeal the current policy [DADT]?it was agreed to by all, including the President, that a survey would be sent to all the troops so that their input would be taken into account regarding how best to implement the new policy, and that a report with such recommendations as to how to best implement the new policy would be issued this December, before any legislative action was taken?So, breaking the agreement now by having this vote today is most unfortunate, and I strongly disagree with the decision of the President, the Speaker, and the majority leadership to do so, to break that agreement today.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 241-178. 240 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 167 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing annual funding in 2011 for Defense Department programs.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 306
May 27, 2010

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 282 Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 288
May 20, 2010
(H. Res. 1363) On a resolution granting the Education and Labor Committee the authority to take depositions relating to its investigation of a mine explosion on April 5, 2010 in West Virginia ? On bringing the resolution to a final vote

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution granting the Education and Labor Committee the authority to take depositions relating to its investigation of a mine explosion in West Virginia. (This particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.)  On April 5, 2010, 29 miners were killed in an explosion in Upper Big Branch Mine in Raleigh County, West Virginia.

Rep. Louise Sluaghter (D-NY) urged support for the resolution: ?this resolution provides the Committee on Education and Labor with deposition authority in connection with its investigation of underground mine safety. The resolution also requires the Education and Labor Committee to report to the Rules Committee on its use of the authority by the end of this congressional session. Mr. Speaker, we're here today with a pretty straightforward mission. We want to empower the men and women who are investigating the causes of the serious safety problems facing miners in America.?

Rep. David Dreier argued that the House need not have considered the resolution, because Republicans would have agreed to grant the committee deposition authority unanimously. If the House had agreed by ?unanimous consent? to grant this authority, no vote would have been taken on the matter. Dreier urged members to defeat the previous question motion: ??I'm going to move to defeat the previous question. I'm going to move to defeat the previous question, not so that we, in any way, would undermine this very important authority that the Committee on Education and Labor is going to have, but to enhance this and get us back to an issue which I think is very near and dear to the American people since we've all agreed that this kind of authority, Democrats and Republicans alike, is essential. We believe that if we can defeat the previous question, we will have the opportunity to take on the issue of deficit spending, which has been incredibly painful all the way around.?

The House agreed the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 240-177. 240 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 168 Republicans present and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution granting the Education and Labor Committee the authority to take depositions relating to its investigation of a mine explosion on April 5, 2010 in West Virginia.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
LABOR RIGHTS Occupational Safety and Health
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Won
Roll Call 277
May 19, 2010
(H.R. 5325) Legislation authorizing $47 billion to be spent over three years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation authorizing $47 billion to be spent over three years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.   

H.R. 5325 was a revised version of legislation considered by the House the previous week. The earlier version (H.R. 5116) provided $86 billion over five years (while H.R. 5325 provided $47 billion over three years). This revision was intended to attract support from Republicans, who had complained about the bill?s price tag. House Democrats abruptly ended consideration of H.R. 5116 before voting on final passage after the House agreed to Republican-drafted motion to recommit. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.)

The GOP motion to recommit eliminated all new programs established by H. R. 5116 (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. The motion to recommit also required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography. 

The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to vote against eliminating programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to vote against barring federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography.  

Thus, Democrats brought a revised version of that bill to the floor under suspension of the rules ? a procedure that does not allow for any amendments or a motion to recommit. In order to win GOP support, Democrats incorporated the anti-pornography language from the motion to recommit into the new bill (H.R. 5325). In addition, Democrats reduced overall funding provided by the bill to $47 billion (from $86 billion).

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) urged support for the bill: ? The bill before us today, H.R. 5325, is similar to the bill the House considered last week?However, the bill differs in two respects. One, it includes language from the motion to recommit barring money from going to agency employees who were disciplined for viewing pornography at work, and two, the authorization period for all programs in the bill has been changed from 5 years to 3 years. I understand the concerns of many of my colleagues about the overall size of a 5-year authorization, and this reduction is my sincere attempt to compromise on an issue that is very important to me and our country.?

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) urged members to oppose the bill: ?While I remain committed to the underlying goals of the America COMPETES Act [H.R. 5325], the bill before us today continues to take us in a much more costly direction and authorizes a number of new programs which have little to do with prioritizing investments in basic science, technology, engineering, and math research and development.?

While a majority of members voted in favor of the bill (261), a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since H.R. 5325 did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. All 246 Democrats present and 15 Republicans voted ?yea.? 148 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation authorizing $47 billion to be spent over three years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research. However, Democratic leaders could bring the bill up again under a process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 273
May 18, 2010
(H.R. 2288) Passage of legislation authorizing funding to help endangered species of fish recover in the San Juan River (which runs through parts of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona) Basin and the Upper Colorado River Basin (which runs through parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation authorizing funding for programs to help endangered species of fish recover in the San Juan River (which runs through parts of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona) Basin and the Upper Colorado River Basin (which runs through parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah). H.R. 2288 authorized ?such sums as may be necessary? through 2023 for these fish conservation initiatives. (Funding for those initiatives was previously set to expire in 2011.) The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing the legislation would cost $12 million per year through 2015, and $3 million to $4 million annually from 2016 through 2023.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) urged support for the bill: ?H.R. 2288 will help ensure the continued delivery of water from Federal water projects to irrigators and municipal and industrial contractors throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin through fiscal year 2023?.These recovery programs are nationally recognized examples of diverse stakeholders coming together to collaboratively find solutions without litigation that allow everyone to use the river systems to promote economic growth while supporting compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the recovery of native fish species within the Colorado River Basin.?

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) argued the legislation would damage the economies of western states: ?This measure offers yet another example of how the Endangered Species Act has put a gun to the head of the West. The unreasonable effect of this law is now impoverishing millions of people across the country. In California communities, it has devastated the agricultural sector of our economy, and it threatens us all with permanent water shortages, skyrocketing food prices, and chronic unemployment.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the fish conservation bill by a vote of 264-122. 228 Democrats and 36 Republicans voted ?yea.? 119 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing funding to help endangered species of fish recover in the San Juan River Basin and the Upper Colorado River Basin.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 271
May 13, 2010
(H. Res. 1338) Passage of a resolution ?recognizing the significant accomplishments of AmeriCorps and encouraging all citizens to join in a national effort to raise awareness about the importance of national and community service,? which most Republicans opposed on the basis that some AmeriCorps volunteers are currently employed by Planned Parenthood (a pro-abortion rights organization which provides abortions through its clinics, along with a variety of other reproductive health and counseling services)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution ?recognizing the significant accomplishments of AmeriCorps and encouraging all citizens to join in a national effort to raise awareness about the importance of national and community service.? Americorps is a national public service program in which volunteers perform jobs ranging from education to environmental cleanup.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) urged support for the resolution: ?I rise today in full support of House Resolution 1338, which recognizes the substantial contributions of AmeriCorps. Since 1994, AmeriCorps programs have engaged over 570,000 individuals of all ages in national service programs, totaling 705 million hours of service to our nation.?

Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) also praised the resolution: ?Americans have a long history of service to each other and to their country, and AmeriCorps creates a web of opportunities for Americans to serve?.Nationwide, AmeriCorps provides 85,000 opportunities annually to serve communities from across the Nation and gives Americans the opportunity to offer their services in tutoring and mentoring disadvantaged youth, fighting illiteracy, building affordable housing, and assisting communities in times of natural disaster.?

No members spoke against the resolution. Most Republicans, however, voted against it. According to GOP.gov, the official website of the House Republican conference, offered this explanation: ?Some members are concerned that AmeriCorps volunteers are currently employed (and recruited) by community organizations including Planned Parenthood [a pro-abortion rights organization which provides abortions through its clinics, along with a variety of other reproductive health and counseling services].  Members have expressed concern that federal funding should not support "volunteers" to be paid to work [Americorps volunteers receive stipends for food and other living expenses] for abortion providers??

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution by a vote of 280-128. 236 Democrats and 44 Republicans voted ?yea.? 128 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed a resolution ?recognizing the significant accomplishments of AmeriCorps and encouraging all citizens to join in a national effort to raise awareness about the importance of national and community service.?


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Encouraging Voluntary National Service
Y Y Won
Roll Call 270
May 13, 2010
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment to legislation authorizing funding for scientific and technological research that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels, and prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions on a science and technology research bill that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. ) The motion to recommit also required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography.

The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to vote against eliminating programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to vote against barring federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography.

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), the author of the motion to recommit, urged members to support it: ?The motion to recommit addresses the biggest concern I, and many of the members on this side of the aisle, have with the legislation, which is the excessive spending?It also would prohibit federal funds from being used by federal employees to view, download, or exchange pornography, including child pornography. Additionally, it will ensure that the institutions that we're giving federal funding to through this act will repay the federal government by allowing the military onto their campuses for recruitment.?

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) urged members to reject the motion to recommit: ?Nobody seriously thinks that we don't want to deal with pornography here?.Everybody raise your hand that's for pornography. Come on, raise your hand. Nobody? Nobody is for pornography? Well, I'm shocked. So I guess we need this little bitty provision that means nothing; that's going to gut the entire bill. This is an embarrassment, and if you vote for this, you should be embarrassed.?

The House agreed to the motion to recommit by a vote of 292-126. 171 Republicans and 121 Democrats voted ?yea.? 125 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members ? and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment to a science and technology research bill that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels, and prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography.  Since Republicans had succeeded in making such drastic changes to the bill, Democratic leaders then withdrew the legislation from the House floor without holding a vote on final passage.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 267
May 13, 2010
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment (to legislation authorizing funding for scientific and technological research) doubling ? to $100 million ? funding for a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH) to a science and technology research bill that doubled ? to $100 million ? funding for a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation. (The original underlying bill had authorized $50 million to be spent on this program.)

Boccieri urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment is an investment in our Nation's manufacturing base, the backbone of our economic recovery that will give additional funding for loans to embrace advances in technology, innovation and retool and rebuild so that we can compete on a global scale.?

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) argued doubling funding for the program was excessive: ?This amendment would double to $100 million annually the authorization levels of the new never-done-before loan guarantee program created in the bill. I have major concerns with this program as it stands?Doubling the amount and doubling this spending on an unnecessary and redundant program is not good policy.?

The House agreed to Boccieri?s amendment by a vote of 248-171. 246 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 168 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment (to legislation authorizing funding for scientific and technological research) doubling ? to $100 million ? funding for a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation. Democratic leaders, however, could bring the bill up again under suspension of the rules ? a process that prohibits Republicans from offering a motion to recommit but would also require a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Alternatively, Democrats could bring the measure up again under a process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage. The latter option, however, would enable Republicans to offer another motion to recommit that could potentially undermine or kill the bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 265
May 12, 2010
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment (to legislation authorizing funding for scientific and technological research) barring public institutions (such as public universities) from receiving funds authorized by the bill if those institutions fail to provide unions with information to which they were entitled under current law

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) to a science and technology research bill barring public institutions (such as public universities) from receiving funds for facilities and administrative costs if they failed to provide labor organizations with information (relating to facilities and administrative costs) to which they were entitled under current law.  Specifically, those institutions would be required to provide labor organizations with the applicable information within 15 days of a request. When universities submit requests for grants, those requests account for the cost of maintaining or installing new facilities, and various administrative costs. Often, postdoctoral individuals are responsible for carrying out much of this administrative work (which includes tasks such as running laboratories).  Miller charged that the University of California, Berkley, for example, had failed to pass on grant funding intended for administrative costs to the postdoctoral individuals who did the administrative work. Thus, the amendment was intended to force universities to be more transparent with respect to how they spend grant funding.

Miller urged support for his amendment: ??This has really nothing to do with labor law. The question is whether the postdoctorate employees of the university who are involved in running these very sophisticated labs and experiments and research, whether or not they get the information that they are entitled to under the law.?

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) urged opposition to the amendment: ??Any public university receiving funds in this bill ?would have to produce any documents or information that a union requests within 15 days or face the threat of losing federal funding?.I find this amendment troubling, and urge its defeat.?

The House agreed to Miller?s amendment by a vote of 250-174. 241 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted ?yea.? 161 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment barring public institutions (such as public universities) from receiving funds authorized by the bill if those institutions fail to provide unions with information to which they were entitled under current law.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Won
Roll Call 264
May 12, 2010
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment (to legislation authorizing funding for scientific and technological research) establishing a ?clean energy consortium? intended to further the commercialization of clean energy technologies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) to a a science and technology research bill establishing a ?clean energy consortium? intended to further the commercialization of clean energy technologies. The consortium would include research universities, private industry, as well as nongovernmental organizations that specialize in clean energy development.

Markey urged support for his amendment: ? Moving to commercialize innovations in the clean energy sector is critical to our ability to compete for jobs with China and India. The faster we bring clean energy technologies to market, the faster we end our addiction to foreign oil from the Middle East. Our amendment will connect professors with producers, inventors with investors to move energy innovations out of the lab and into the factory.?

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) urged members to reject the amendment, arguing Markey?s proposal was ?expensive and [would] expand the bureaucracy within the Department of Energy, which is already too large. We need to be consolidating and streamlining DOE's [Department of Energy] many R&D [research and development] programs, not creating new ones on top of new ones.?

The House agreed to Markey?s amendment by a vote of 254-173. 253 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 170 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment establishing a ?clean energy consortium? intended to further the commercialization of clean energy technologies.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 263
May 12, 2010
(H.R. 5116) On an amendment (to legislation authorizing funding for scientific and technological research) that would have eliminated provisions in the bill creating a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation and creating a ?regional innovation program? within the Commerce Department to help small businesses develop new technologies in order to improve competitiveness

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) that would have eliminated a provision in a science and technology research bill creating a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation. The amendment also would have eliminated a provision in the bill creating a ?regional innovation program? within the Commerce Department to help small businesses develop new technologies in order to improve competitiveness. In addition, the amendment would have eliminated an ?Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship,? which the bill established to foster the commercialization of new technologies, products, and services.

Hall urged the House to support the amendment, arguing it eliminated provisions that would lead to ?bigger government and calls for more spending in areas that go well beyond research and development and authorize potentially inappropriate and duplicative programs.?

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) urged opposition to the amendment: ?All the provisions [which Hall?s amendment sought to eliminate]?are aimed at looking at creating real world economic value for research and development?Title V [the section of the bill which contained the provisions the amendment would have eliminated] includes three important provisions to help spur innovation in this country?It establishes an Office of Innovation and Enterprise at the Department of Commerce to help turn the good ideas into new businesses, leading to economic growth and job creation. And, finally, it establishes a Regional Innovation Program at the Department of Commerce to empower local communities to leverage regional strengths to promote innovation.?

The House rejected Hall?s amendment by a vote of 163-258. 161 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted ?yea.? 250 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated provisions in a science and technology research bill creating a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation and creating a ?regional innovation program? within the Commerce Department to help small businesses develop new technologies in order to improve competitiveness.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 259
May 12, 2010
(H.R. 5116) Legislation authorizing $86 billion to be spent over six years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing $86 billion to be spent over six years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research. Of the $86 billion total, $44 billion would be designated for National Science Foundation programs, while $35 billion would be designated for Energy Department research programs. The bill also authorized $5.4 billion for National Institute of Standards and Technology programs. (The National Institute of Standards and Technology is an agency within the Commerce Department. Its mission to promote competitiveness through scientific and technological research.)

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation: ?As we speak, there are scientists, inventors, and engineers in our Nation who are devising the next groundbreaking advances. We cannot afford to let those ideas wither on the vine. So I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying bill, which will create jobs and solidify the foundation for the long-term growth and prosperity of the United States.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) argued that the bill would provide for excessive spending on scientific research programs: ??We need to have an economic strategy that encourages companies, businesses in the United States, to compete, to grow, and to hire new workers, a strategy that includes the streamlining of burdensome regulations, a strategy that reduces taxation, that brings our federal spending under control, and controls the spiraling national debt?as much as I would prefer to support the underlying legislation, I believe that at this time of severe budgetary constraints, the underlying legislation includes excessive spending levels.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 243-177. 243 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 172 Republicans present and 5 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing $86 billion to be spent over six years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 255
May 06, 2010
(H.R. 5019) Passage of legislation authorizing rebates for energy efficient renovations in private residences, including a rebate of up to $3,000 for homeowners who make their houses 20% more energy efficient

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation authorized a total of $6 billion to be spent over two years on initiatives intended to make private homes more energy efficient. The government would provide rebates for such energy efficiency improvements. The rebate would be given to the contractors responsible for the renovations. Those contractors would then be required to pass on the value of that rebate to their customers.

The measure authorized rebates of up to $1,500 for certain installations, such as energy-efficient doors and storm windows. Those who make their homes 20% more energy efficient would be eligible for a rebate of up to $3,000. All of the programs authorized by the bill would expire if the legislation was projected to increase the federal budget deficit.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, urged members to support it: ?This legislation, more than anything, is about jobs?.These are jobs that won't be outsourced overseas. They are construction jobs in our neighborhoods and our communities?. [The bill] would accomplish this by establishing a rebate program for the installation of energy-efficient home upgrades. These rebates would encourage homeowners to hire contractors to install new, efficient heating and air conditioning, to insulate their homes, and to replace drafty windows and doors. It's an approach that can benefit every contractor in this country, from small independent businesses to contractors associated with large home improvement store chains. ?

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) also praised the legislation: ?It will create 168,000 new jobs, especially in the construction sector which has upwards of 25 percent unemployment, and it will increase our energy independence by backing out that oil that we import into our country, moving us closer to this energy independence, which should be the goal of our country, using new energy technologies that make it possible for every consumer to participate in this revolution.?

Rep. Joe Barton urged argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: ?The definition of insanity, Madam Chair, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. That appears to be what we are doing here today with the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act [H.R. 5019]. It's another chapter in saying one thing, trying to put something out that looks good, feels good, but doesn't really have the substance to back it up?.I don't believe we should authorize a $6 billion program without a pay-for or an indication of how we intend to pay for it. I think that's too much, and I think it's bad public policy with a deficit of $1.5 trillion.?

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) urged members to oppose the bill: ??We're going to authorize $6.6 billion of money that we don't have so that we can caulk homes.  Now, I think it's a good idea to caulk your home, to weatherize your home, to make our homes more energy efficient; but we have to remember something: 43 cents of every dollar the federal government spends this year we're going to borrow. And guess who gets to pay that money back? It's going to be our kids and our grandkids.?

The House passed the bill by a vote of 246-161. 234 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted ?yea.? 154 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing rebates for energy efficient renovations in private residences, including a rebate of up to $3,000 for homeowners who make their houses 20% more energy efficient.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Won
Roll Call 254
May 06, 2010
(H.R. 5019) On an amendment to a home energy efficiency bill that would eliminate a loan program providing loans for home energy efficiency improvements, eliminate a provision providing $12 million for advertising home energy efficiency programs to the public, and require all the programs authorized by the bill to expire if they were projected to increase the federal budget deficit.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on  a motion to recommit with instructions by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) on a bill authorizing rebates for energy efficient renovations in private residences. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.
 
Barton?s motion to recommit required the legislation to expire if it were projected to increase budget deficits. In addition, it eliminated the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program, which would have provided loans to individuals who want to make their homes more energy efficient, but cannot afford the needed renovations. In addition, the motion to recommit eliminated $12 million in funding for a ?public education campaign? intended to advertise the bill?s home energy efficiency initiatives (including rebates and loans) to the public.  Finally, the motion would have disqualified homeowners from participating in these initiatives if their gross annual income exceeded $250,000.

Barton?s motion to recommit also contained two provisions that were politically difficult for Democrats to oppose. It barred the bill?s funds from being used for gambling, and prohibited any of the programs funded by the bill from employing sex offenders. According to an Associated Press story:

 ?Waxman said Republicans picked up Democratic votes for that final GOP motion - 178 of 245 voting Democrats backed it - by including several ?gimmicks? that could be used against lawmakers in future elections, such as a provision that contractors in the program must ensure that they don't have sexual predators on their payroll.?
The Atlanta Journal Constitution?s Jamie Dupree noted: ?When the vote started, Democrats voted against the plan.  But it became clear that Republicans were going to win this procedural vote, and so dozens and dozens of Democrats then changed sides, to the Yes column.?

Barton urged support for his motion to recommit: ??The substantive parts of the motion to recommit are pretty straightforward. It would sunset the legislation if there is a negative net effect on the Federal budget deficit?.It strikes the $12 million EPA public information campaign. As I pointed out in my floor statement, bees know where the honey is, bank robbers know where the bank is, teenage boys know where the teenage girls are, the public will know how to get this money.?

Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) also urged support for the motion to recommit: ? This simply is not the time for a new $6.6 billion government program. That is why?I urge you to support the motion to recommit. It ensures fiscal responsibility and ensures taxpayer dollars will be spent wisely.?

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, urged members to reject Barton?s motion to recommit: ?It [the motion to recommit] undermines the basic structure of the bill?.It eliminates the loan program. It eliminates the public education campaign. It creates?burdensome income thresholds as well.?

The House agreed to Barton?s motion to recommit by a vote of 346-68. 178 Democrats and 168 Republicans voted ?yea.? 67 Democrats ? including most progressives ? and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House voted to eliminate a loan program providing loans for home energy efficiency improvements, eliminate a provision providing $12 million for advertising home energy efficiency programs to the public, and require all the programs authorized by the bill to expire if they were projected to increase the federal budget deficit.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
N N Lost
Roll Call 253
May 06, 2010
(H.R. 5019) On an amendment to a home energy efficiency bill that would have eliminated a provision in the legislation providing $12 million for advertising energy efficiency programs to the public.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) to a home energy efficiency bill that would have eliminated a provision in the legislation providing $12 million for advertising the energy efficiency programs to the public.

The underlying bill authorized a number of programs (including rebates and loans) for residents who make their homes more energy efficient. The bill provided $12 million for the purposes of advertising those programs. The amendment would have eliminated that funding.

Burgess argued that since energy efficiency programs were popular with the public, they did not need to be advertised: ?This amendment would strike the $12 million it [the bill] has designated for advertising that will be paid for by the Federal Government. Now, let's be honest. Energy efficiency sells itself. If consumers see lower bills, they use less electricity. It is inherently incentivized.?

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) urged House members to reject the Burgess amendment: ?a philosopher once asked: If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and if there is no one around, does that tree make a sound??Mr. Burgess' amendment raises a similar question. If there is a great energy efficiency program and if people don't know about it, will it help to actually increase energy efficiency? The answer to that question, I think, is no. We actually need to have a plan to spread the word about Home Star to achieve the best results.?

The House rejected the Burgess amendment by a vote of 190-228. 167 Republicans and 23 Democrats voted yea.? 227 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members ? and one Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to a home energy efficiency bill that would have eliminated a provision in the legislation providing $12 million for advertising energy efficiency programs to the public.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
N N Won
Roll Call 252
May 06, 2010
(H.R. 5019) On an amendment to a home energy efficiency bill that would have eliminated a provision allowing the government to use funds collected from repaid loans (for energy efficiency home renovations) to make new loans

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to a home energy efficiency bill that would have eliminated a provision in the legislation allowing the government to use funds collected from repaid loans (for energy efficiency home renovations) to make new loans. In other words, Barton sought to prohibit repaid loans from being ?re-lent.? The underlying bill established the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program. This program provided loans to individuals who want to make their homes more energy efficient, but cannot afford the needed renovations.

Barton urged support for his amendment: ??This amendment is fairly straightforward. It would strike? [a provision] which provides that funds repaid by eligible participants may be used to provide loans to additional participants under the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program. In other words, under the pending legislation, if people were to get a loan and use that loan, when that loan was paid back, the funds that are paid back could then be relent. My amendment would strike the relending provision so that as the funds are paid back, they would go to the Treasury, hopefully for deficit reduction.?

Rep. Ed Markey urged opposition to the Barton amendment: ??People want to save money on their energy bills, but not everyone can afford the upfront costs of an energy retrofit. What the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program is designed to do is to help those people participate in the Home Star program?if the Barton amendment is passed, it would severely limit the number of people who could participate in Home Star. Without long-term opportunities for efficiency loans, many low-income households will, literally, be left out in the cold.?

The House rejected the Barton amendment by a vote of 180-237.  166 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?yea.? 236 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to a home energy efficiency bill that would have eliminated a provision in the legislation allowing the government to use funds collected from repaid loans (under the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program) to make new loans.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
N N Won
Roll Call 251
May 06, 2010
(H.R. 1722) Passage of legislation that would have required federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home), and designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have required federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). The bill would also have required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.  

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) urged support for the bill: ?This legislation seeks to improve and expand access to telework  (telecommuting) among Federal employees governmentwide?despite the evolving nature of the way the federal Government conducts its affairs, telework continues to be underutilized by federal agencies. H.R. 1722 provides for improvements to increase the number of federal employees that participate in telework programs.?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) also praised the bill: ?Telework has been shown to save money on infrastructure, transportation, and other costs.?In addition, telework has proven to be an effective way to attract and retain highly qualified, skilled, and motivated employees. As the baby boomer generation begins to retire, these types of tools will be essential to ensuring that the Federal Government can attract the next generation of employees.

No members spoke in opposition to the bill. The Baltimore Sun, however, quoted Michael Steel -- a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) -- as saying: "Republican members opposed the bill because it would add $30 million to the deficit." Steel was referring to a cost estimate by the Congressional Budget office projecting that implementing the bill?s new telecommuting policies would cost the federal government $30 million over six years.

While a majority of members (268) voted in favor of the bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since H.R. 1722 did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. The vote on this motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill was 268-147. All 244 Democrats present and 24 Republicans voted ?yea.? 147 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation that would have required federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home), and designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs. Democratic leaders, however, could bring up the bill again under a procedure requiring only a simple majority for passage.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 249
May 06, 2010
(H.R. 5019) Legislation authorizing rebates for energy efficient renovations in private residences ? On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing rebates for energy efficient renovations in private residences.

The underlying bill authorized a total of $6 billion to be spent over two years on initiatives intended to make private homes more energy efficient. The government would provide rebates for such energy efficiency improvements. The rebate would be given to the contractors responsible for the renovations. Those contractors would then be required to pass on the value of that rebate to their customers. The measure authorized rebates of up to $1,500 for certain installations, such as energy-efficient doors and storm windows. Those who make their homes 20% more energy efficient would be eligible for a rebate of up to $3,000. In addition, the bill established the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program. This program provided states with funds to offer loans to individuals who want to make their homes more energy efficient, but cannot afford the needed renovations.

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA) argued the bill would not only reward environmentally sound practices, but also create jobs: ? As our nation continues its economic recovery, we must continue to focus on job creation. By increasing energy efficiency, we will not only create jobs and incentivize the emerging clean technology industry but also reduce carbon pollution and cut costs for customers.  H.R. 5019 would increase residential efficiency and create almost 170,000 jobs nationwide, thereby reducing the current 25 percent unemployment rate in the construction sector.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) criticized the bill, arguing it was wasteful: ?This bill would provide tax rebates to participating contractors and vendors who would perform qualifying energy-saving measures that meet efficiency and insulation targets in federal standards. That's a whole lot of words for a program that in essence is too expensive, unnecessary, and I believe a waste of taxpayer dollars, especially at a time when growing deficits are causing this country to have failing markets and confidence in this government.?

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill by a vote of 229-182.  229 Democrats voted ?yea.? 171 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing rebates for energy efficient renovations in private residences.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Won
Roll Call 248
May 05, 2010
(H. Res. 1301) On passage of a resolution ?supporting the goals and ideals of National Train Day,? which Republicans opposed because they objected to the resolution?s praise for Amtrak

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution ?supporting the goals and ideals of National Train Day.? Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

The text of the resolution stated that the House of Representatives ? (1) recognizes the important contributions that trains and Amtrak make to the national transportation system; (2) supports the goals and ideals of National Train Day as designated by Amtrak; and (3) urges the people of the United States to recognize such a day as an opportunity to celebrate passenger rail and learn more about trains.?

Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) praised the train resolution: ?Rail in America is experiencing a renaissance we haven't seen in 50 years. All forms of passenger rail, including Amtrak, are seeing increased ridership numbers. In fact, in 2009 Amtrak welcomed aboard over 27.1 million passengers, the second-largest annual total in Amtrak's history, an average of more than 74,000 passenger rides and more than 300 Amtrak trains per day.?

No members spoke against the resolution. Politico, however, reported that Republicans voted against the measure because it offered praise for Amtrak.  ?Taxpayer subsidies enable Amtrak to avoid necessary reforms and keep losing money,? read a GOP memo (urging opposition to the resolution) obtained by Politico?s Jonathan Allen.

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution by a vote of 296-119. All 246 Democrats present and 50 Republicans voted ?yea.? 119 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed a resolution ?supporting the goals and ideals of National Train Day.?


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 242
Apr 29, 2010
(H.R. 2499) Passage of legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States -- or continue its current status as commonwealth (territory)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States -- or continue its current status as commonwealth (territory).  (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.)

The bill provided that the referendum determining Puerto Rico?s future would take place in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, free association, or continuing its current commonwealth status.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) urged support for the bill: "Puerto Rico ?is a showcase of democracy in the Caribbean. Having some of the highest voter turnout rates in our nation, Puerto Rico shames many of our own States with its energy and enthusiasm in electing its leaders. Economically, it is a powerhouse in the Caribbean and considered a home away from home for many mainland Fortune 500 companies?.We are here today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives because, in spite of what we have gained from each other, there has been no ultimate achievement in Puerto Rico's political status, which really is the greatest commitment the U.S. has to all of our territories."

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) also praised the bill: "This legislation does not bind future Congresses. H.R. 2499 doesn't require the federal government to create a Puerto Rican state, nor does it force us to work toward Puerto Rican independence. This bill simply asks the citizens of Puerto Rico whether they want to remain a U.S. territory in their current status or whether they would prefer another political status. And if it turns out they favor another political status, another vote would then be authorized to determine which status option they prefer."

Rep. Doc Hastings urged members to oppose the bill: "H.R. 2499 is the wrong way to go about achieving statehood?This bill has the process entirely backwards. This bill is a bill asking Puerto Rico if it wants to be a State, not the other way around. This is a dramatic departure from the long-established precedent of how other states sought admission to the Union."

Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) also expressed opposition to the bill: "This legislation is designed to push the statehood agenda, regardless of whether that agenda is the best solution for the island or even among the people?.I tell you that this legislation has no business being on the floor today. It raises a host of questions. It has zero probability of becoming law. However, it does place Members in the awkward position of explaining why they are meddling in Puerto Rico when a request from Puerto Rico has not even been made."

The House passed H.R. 2499 by a vote of 223-169. 184 Democrats -- including a majority of the most progressive members -- and 39 Republicans voted "yea." 129 Republicans and 40 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, o a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States -- or continue its current status as commonwealth (territory).


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Gun Control
WAR & PEACE Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico
Y Y Won
Roll Call 241
Apr 29, 2010
(H.R. 2499) On an amendment that would have required Puerto Rico -- if it were to become a state -- to adopt English as the official language, and requiring Puerto Rico to enact laws guaranteeing its residents have the right to own, possess, carry, and transport firearms

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit by Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) that would have required Puerto Rico -- if it were to become a state -- to adopt English as its official language. In addition, it required Puerto Rico to enact laws guaranteeing its residents have the right to own, possess, carry, and transport firearms. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.  

Hastings argued his motion to recommit would simply have stated that "English will be the official language of the state, and all official business will be conducted in English; two, laws will be in place that will `ensure residents have the Second Amendment right to own, possess, carry, use for self-defense, store assembled at home, and transport for lawful purposes, firearms and in any amount ammunition, providing that such keeping and bearing of firearms and ammunition does not otherwise violate federal law.'''

Del. Pedro R. Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico) urged opposition to the motion to recommit: "The matters that are being raised in this motion are premature. They are irrelevant, actually, because all that H.R. 2499 does is to consult the people of Puerto Rico on the four available options that they have regarding our status--the current status of the territory, statehood, independence, and free association. The people of Puerto Rico have not yet expressed by a majority that they want to join the Union as a State. I hope that it comes about, and when it comes about, Puerto Rico will comply with the Second Amendment in the same way that all the other States must comply with the Second Amendment."

The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 194-198. 162 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted "yea." 192 Democrats ? including a majority of the most progressive members -- and 6 Republicans voted "nay." As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required Puerto Rico -- if it were to become a state -- to adopt English as the official language, and requiring Puerto Rico to enact laws guaranteeing its residents have the right to own, possess, carry, and transport firearms.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Gun Control
WAR & PEACE Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico
N N Won
Roll Call 240
Apr 29, 2010
(H.R. 2499) On an amendment that would have delayed consideration of legislation dealing with Puerto Rico's status until the federal government "receives an official proposal from the people of Puerto Rico to revise the current relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States"

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) that would have delayed consideration of legislation dealing with Puerto Rico's status until the federal government "receives an official proposal from the people of Puerto Rico to revise the current relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States that was made through a democratically held process by direct ballot." The underlying bill required Puerto Rico to choose from three options in a referendum: statehood, independence, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States. (If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.) As amended, the bill also allowed Puerto Rico to choose to continue its commonwealth status. (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.)

The underlying bill provided that the referendum determining Puerto Rico?s future would take place in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, free association, or continuing its current commonwealth status.

Velázquez urged members to support her amendment: "The amendment that I am offering will honor the concept of self-determination. This amendment empowers the people of Puerto Rico to submit their own proposal for moving forward. The amendment expresses the sense of Congress that we should not proceed until we have heard from those most affected by this debate, the Puerto Rican people. The residents of Puerto Rico should exercise freely and without congressional interference."

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) argued the amendment would have undermined the effort to resolve the question of Puerto Rico's status: "?This amendment does nothing to further the goal of H.R. 2499, which is to provide the people of Puerto Rico with a federally recognized process to allow them to freely express their wishes regarding their future political status in a congressionally recognized referendum."

The House rejected Velázquez's amendment by a vote of 171-223. 116 Republicans and 55 Democrats voted "yea." 175 Democrats -- including a majority of the most progressive members -- and 48 Republicans voted "nay." As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have delayed consideration of legislation dealing with Puerto Rico's status until the federal government "receives an official proposal from the people of Puerto Rico to revise the current relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States that was made through a democratically held process by direct ballot."


WAR & PEACE Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico
N N Won
Roll Call 237
Apr 29, 2010
(H.R. 2499) On an amendment requiring that ballots in a referendum held in Puerto Rico (in which Puerto Rico to choose statehood, independence, continuing its current commonwealth status, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States) be printed in English as well as Spanish

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) requiring that ballots in a referendum  held in Puerto Rico  be printed in English as well as Spanish. The amendment also provided that if Puerto Rico were to become a state, it would be subject to any federal English language requirements (such as establishing English as the official language of the United States). Currently, no such federal requirement exists. The underlying bill required Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on its political future in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, ?free association,? or continuing its current commonwealth status. If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.

(The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.)

Burton urged support for his amendment: "This is an amendment I think that everybody will embrace?So we are talking about making sure that everybody who votes?will see it [the ballot] in both English and Spanish. We are also pushing to promote English more than it has been in the past. I think this is an amendment that everybody should agree with."

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) urged opposition to the amendment: "I think it [Burton's amendment) should be soundly defeated, but I am happy he brought it because it just demonstrates the imperialist nature. Here we are in the empire, the Congress of the United States, plenary powers over Puerto Rico, dictating what language they have to use."

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) argued the amendment was gratuitous: "It [Burton's amendment] says that the plebiscite [referendum] will be carried out in English. So we don't need that because it is already in the bill. The second provision [of Burton's amendment] is really meaningless. That is the one that talks about Federal language requirements. We know there is no Federal requirement in this country as to English, even though 30 States have adopted that. There is no official one from the United States. There should be, but there isn't."

The House agreed to Burton's amendment by a vote of 301-100. 187 Democrats ands 114 Republicans voted "yea." 47 Democrats and 53 Republicans voted "nay." The most progressive members were nearly evenly split on this vote: 17 members voted "yea," while 18 voted "nay." As a result, the House agreed to an amendment requiring that ballots in a referendum held in Puerto Rico (in which Puerto Rico to choose statehood, independence, continuing its common wealth status, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States) be printed in English, as well as Spanish -- and providing that Puerto Rico would be subject to any federal English language requirements (such as establishing English as the official language of the United States). Currently, no such federal requirement exists.


WAR & PEACE Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico
N N Lost
Roll Call 235
Apr 29, 2010
(H.R. 2499) On an amendment allowing Puerto Rico to choose "none of the above" in a referendum determining the nature of its association (or lack there of) with the United States - in addition to allowing Puerto Rico to choose statehood, independence, continuing its commonwealth status, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on  an amendment by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) allowing Puerto Rico to choose "none of the above" in a referendum determining  the nature of its association (or lack there of) with the United States. The underlying bill required Puerto Rico to choose from three options in a referendum: statehood, independence, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States. (If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.) As amended, the bill also allowed Puerto Rico to choose to continue its current commonwealth status. (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.) Gutierrez's amendment would have added "none of the above" as an additional option. In a referendum held in 1999 in Puerto Rico, voters chose "none of the above" over statehood, independence, or free association.

The underlying bill provided that the referendum determining Puerto Rico?s future would take place in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, free association, or continuing its current commonwealth status.

Gutierrez urged support for his amendment: "They [the Democratic leadership] have this thing rigged from the beginning to the end. If not, if they were so faithful to the wishes, to the will, to the passion of the self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico, why aren't they including the very option that won? They say they respect the decision of American citizens on the island of Puerto Rico and we should give them an opportunity to express themselves freely in a referendum. Guess what? They did. And yet we reject the very option that they chose for themselves."

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) argued that allowing for a "none of the above" option could allow the issue of Puerto Rico's political future to remain unresolved: "'None of the above' is the ultimate and unnecessary escape clause. The proposal for its inclusion on the ballot suggests that there exists some other option for permanently resolving Puerto Rico's status in a manner compatible with the U.S. Constitution beyond the three options of independence, sovereignty in association with the United States, or statehood. Such a belief defies the conclusions of the international community, the courts, and the executive branch."

The House rejected Gutierrez's amendment by a vote of 164-236. 118 Republicans and 46 Democrats voted "yea." 187 Democrats -- including a majority of the most progressive members -- as well as 49 Republicans voted "nay." As a result, the House rejected an amendment allowing Puerto Rico to choose "none of the above" in a referendum determining the nature of its association (or lack there of) with the United States - in addition to allowing Puerto Rico to choose statehood, independence, continuing its current common wealth status, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States.


WAR & PEACE Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico
N N Won
Roll Call 234
Apr 29, 2010
(H.R. 2499) On an amendment allowing Puerto Rico to choose to continue its commonwealth status, in addition to allowing it to choose statehood, independence, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) allowing Puerto Rico to choose to continue its current status as a commonwealth, or territory. The underlying bill required Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States. (If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.)  Foxx's amendment would have allowed for a fourth option -- continuing Puerto Rico's current commonwealth status. (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.)

The underlying bill provided that the referendum determining Puerto Rico?s future would take place in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, or free association.

Foxx urged support for her amendment: "[Under the bill,]?Puerto Ricans choose only from three options: statehood, independence, or sovereignty in association with the United States. These three options deny supporters of continuing the Commonwealth status quo the freedom to vote for their preferred political status. Whether they support statehood, independence, or the Commonwealth status quo, Puerto Ricans' views should be given equal and fair consideration. My amendment very simply adds a fourth option: 'Commonwealth: Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status to the available voting options for the second stage of the plebiscite.'"

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) urged opposition to Foxx's amendment: "this bill was carefully crafted to give the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to inform Congress for the first time ever whether they want to continue with their current temporary status, Commonwealth, or move to a permanent status: statehood, independence, or free association. This amendment would subvert this effort by including a choice to continue the island's present status among the options provided for in the bill's second plebiscite (referendum). Adoption of this amendment will contradict the bill's intent and make it less likely that the people of Puerto Rico would seek a permanent nonterritorial status."

The House agreed to Foxx's amendment by a vote of 223-179. 149 Republicans and 74 Democrats voted "yea." 160 Democrats -- including a majority of the most progressive members -- voted "nay." As a result, the House agreed to an amendment allowing Puerto Rico to choose to continue its current commonwealth status, in addition to allowing it to choose statehood, independence, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States.


WAR & PEACE Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico
N N Lost
Roll Call 233
Apr 29, 2010
(H.R. 2499) Legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States -- On a motion to table (kill) a motion to reconsider (a motion which essentially calls for a revote) the vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to table a motion to reconsider the vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States. The House had passed this resolution, and the motion to reconsider essentially asked the House to vote on it again. If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.  (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.)

The bill provided that the referendum determining Puerto Rico?s future would take place in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, or free association.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) made the motion to reconsider the vote on the resolution. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) then made a motion to table (kill) Gutierrez's motion. There was no debate on either motion. During floor debate on the resolution limiting amendments to H.R. 2499, however, Gutierrez had sharply criticized the process by which Democratic leaders chose to bring the bill to the House floor. Gutierrez noted that when the House had considered a similar bill when Republicans controlled Congress, the amendment process had been less restrictive: "First of all, I really think that if you're going to talk about democracy [in Puerto Rico]?then you have to deal with the process, and this process is just patently unfair. I thank the majority for two amendments. That was nice. But isn't it interesting that as a Democrat--100 percent Democrat, one that has been consistently a senior Democrat--that when I came down here in 1998?when it was a Republican-sponsored bill and I went before the Rules Committee, I had seven amendments ruled in order. Each amendment was given 30 minutes."

The House tabled (killed) Gutierrez's motion to reconsider the vote on the resolution limiting amendments to H.R. 2499 by a vote of 199-186. 196 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted "yea." 165 Republicans and 21 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States.


WAR & PEACE Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico
Y Y Won
Roll Call 232
Apr 29, 2010
(H.R. 2499) Legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States -- On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States. If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.  (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.)

The bill provided that the referendum determining Puerto Rico?s future would take place in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, or free association.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: "What this bill does is celebrate democracy in Puerto Rico. I am grieved from time to time when I read that some of our fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico talk about the United States treating Puerto Rico as a colony. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not interested in having colonies. I don't perceive and have never perceived the United States as an imperial power with colonies. I perceive the United States of America as priding itself on being supportive of self-determination, of being committed to the premise that people freely ought to be able to come together and determine their own status."

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) urged opposition to the resolution, arguing that it unfairly limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill: "It is astonishing to me to see how the Democrat leaders are denying the amendments proposed and offered by Members of their caucus. Senior Democrat Members are being limited. Their amendments were blocked. Their ability to speak and engage in debate is being restricted. And for what possible reason, Mr. Speaker? By what justification is this necessary and how is it fair?"

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to H.R. 2499 by a vote of 222-190. 221 Democrats and 1 Republican voted "yea." 170 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House later proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States.


WAR & PEACE Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico
Y Y Won
Roll Call 231
Apr 29, 2010
(H.R. 2499) Legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States -- On bringing to a final vote a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States. If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation. (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.)

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.  

The bill provided that the referendum determining Puerto Rico?s future would take place in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, or free association.

Rep. Jared Polis praised the legislation: "?In spite of the contributions Puerto Ricans have made to this country, they do not receive all of the benefits that are due to them as American citizens?.While they [Puerto Ricans] pay many taxes, Federal programs treat Puerto Rico less than equally when compared to the 50 States?.while they have courageously served in the military, and in fact at a higher rate than many other States, they do not yet have the right to vote for President of the United States, the Commander in Chief. It's imperative that Congress act to right these wrongs which Puerto Ricans have had to live through for so long."

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) -- a supporter of the underlying bill -- criticized the Democratic majority for deciding to limit amendments to the H.R. 2499: "?Unlike the current majority, I believe in open debate. Let amendments stand or fall on their merits. Just about every week I have the honor to come to the floor of this House to help manage rules debates on behalf of my party, and pretty much every time I come to the floor, I criticize the current majority for systematically blocking open debate with ruthless efficiency on every bill that we consider."

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to H.R. 2499 by a vote of 218-188. 218 Democrats voted "yea." 171 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States.


WAR & PEACE Legal Relationship between the USA & Puerto Rico
Y Y Won
Roll Call 217
Apr 22, 2010
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

N N Won
Roll Call 211
Apr 15, 2010
(H.R. 4851) Final passage of legislation extending unemployment compensation and health insurance for laid-off workers, and blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending unemployment compensation and health insurance for laid off workers and blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians. The Senate had already passed the bill. House passage thus cleared it for the president's signature.

The bill extended (through May 2010) unemployment insurance for workers whose benefits had expired, as well as a program providing government subsidized health insurance for workers who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own. (Workers who were fired due to poor job performance, for example, were not eligible for this health program.) The bill also extended current Medicare payment rates for physicians, blocking a scheduled 21% cut in those payments.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) urged support for the bill, arguing laid-off workers urgently needed assistance: "We now have 6 1/2 million unemployed workers who have been looking for a new job for over 6 months. That's twice the numbered of long-term unemployed compared to any other time on record before this recession....we should now rise together and pass this bill. The unemployed people of this country are waiting. Those looking for work when there are no jobs available are waiting for action by this House."

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) also urged members to vote for the legislation: "We pass these needed and humane extensions tonight to ease the pain being felt by our fellow citizens around the country. I sincerely hope this is the last time we are forced to cut off this social lifeline because of the dilatory tactics of Senate Republicans. Food, shelter, and health care are too important to be subjected to petty political battles."

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: "?I support American workers and families, and that is why I must oppose the legislation before us that would heap another $18 billion onto the dangerous deficits this Congress has already amassed and that American workers will ultimately be made to pay for in the coming years?.we need to send this bill back to the drawing board and return with legislation that is paid for that will not create more debt, that will help create more jobs instead of economic uncertainty and, ultimately, more job losses."

Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS) argued the bill would fail to lower the unemployment rate: "?This bill does little to address our country's persistent high unemployment rate. Rather than continuing to spend money we do not have, Congress needs to pursue a strategy of job creation. This legislation is yet another unfortunate example of `business as usual' in our nation's capital; same old story from a Congress that needs to learn its lessons from the American people?"

The House passed the bill by a vote of 289-112. 240 Democrats and 49 Republicans voted "yea." 111 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation (thus enabling President Obama to sign it into law) extending through May 2010 unemployment compensation and health insurance for laid-off workers, and blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payment rates for physicians.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 209
Apr 15, 2010
(H.R. 4175) Passage of legislation authorizing $50 million to be spent annually on a program to restore estuaries (bodies of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mix with salt water from the sea)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of a bill authorizing $50 million to be spent annually (through 2016) on a program to restore estuaries. (Estuaries are coastal bodies of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mix with salt water from the sea.)

Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) -- the chairman of the committee that drafted the measure -- urged support for the bill, arguing that protecting estuaries was in the national interest: "An impaired estuary is bad for commercial and recreational fishing, results in depleted fisheries, decreased tourism revenues, and deteriorated property values. In addition, because of deterioration of the estuary and the borderland around it, we've seen increased flooding, shoreline erosion, damaged infrastructure, particularly when storms occur, which happens every year."

Rep. John Boozman (R-AR) -- the only member to speak against the bill during general debate time -- argued that while estuaries were important, increases in funding may not be justified: "I note that H.R. 4715 increases the authorized level of funding by 43 percent from $35 million per year to $50 million a year. The average appropriation over the past 5 years for this program has been only $26.8 million. While I support the National Estuary Program and improvements made here in H.R. 4715, I know many of my colleagues, as well as myself, are concerned about increasing authorized levels of spending for programs when Congress has not been able to fund the program close to its current authorization."

The House passed the estuaries bill by a vote of 278-128. 240 Democrats and 38 Republicans voted "yea." 126 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing $50 million to be spent annually on a program to restore estuaries.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 208
Apr 15, 2010
(H.R. 4715) On an amendment that would have reduced the annual authorized funding level for an estuary restoration program to $35 million from $50 million

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) that would have had the effect of reducing the annual authorized funding level for an estuary restoration program to $35 million. The underlying bill authorized $50 million annually for the program through 2016.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. 

Jordan urged the House to support his motion to recommit: " Discipline is the quality we need in this Congress today. The easiest thing to do in the world is to spend money, particularly someone else's money. Really simply, this amendment says: Let's have the discipline to say ``no'' to spending. Let's have the discipline to say let's do the right thing today. Let's not do the convenient thing. Let's hold the line on spending and treat taxpayers with a little respect on this day of all days. Treat them with a little respect."

Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) urged the House to reject Jordan's motion to recommit: "I am sorry that the gentleman doesn't understand that a great many people do understand what an estuary is. Three-fourths of our population live along areas that are designated as estuaries. Estuaries, the meeting place of fresh and salt water--where new forms of life are created, where new forms of fish and aquatic plants are created--are the richest places on Earth for the creation of maritime life. Estuaries are the common heritage of all Americans. There is a national interest in their protection and in their enhancement."

The House rejected Jordan's motion to recommit by a vote of 192-214. All 164 Republicans present and 28 Democrats voted "yea." 214 Democrats voted "nay. As a result, the House rejected an amendment to the estuary bill that would have reduced the annual authorized funding level for an estuary restoration program to $35 million from $50 million.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 207
Apr 15, 2010
(H.R. 4715) On an amendment to an estuary (a body of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mixes with salt water from the sea) restoration bill requiring that changes in sea level be taken into account when implementing a comprehensive estuary conservation and management plan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Carol Shea Porter (D-NH) to an estuary restoration bill requiring that changes in sea level be taken into account when implementing a comprehensive  estuary conservation and management plan. Estuaries are bodies of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mix with salt water from the sea. The underlying bill authorized $50 million to be spent annually (through 2016) on a program to restore estuaries.

Shea Porter urged support for her amendment: "?Sea levels are changing. Whether you agree or disagree that global climate change is the cause, we should all be alarmed by the potential impact rising sea levels could have on these important habitats. It has been estimated that sea level rise could convert as much as 33 percent of the world's coastal wetlands to open water. That right would be a devastating loss for our coastal community."

No members spoke in opposition to the amendment. Rep. John Boozman (R-AR), speaking for the Republicans, said: "We do not oppose this amendment." A majority of GOP members, however, voted against it. As of press time, calls to multiple Republican congressional offices for comment were not returned.

The House agreed to the Shea Porter amendment by a vote of 294-109. 238 Democrats and 56 Republicans voted "yea." 107 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House agreed to an amendment to an estuary restoration bill requiring that changes in sea level be taken into account when implementing a comprehensive estuary conservation and management plan.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 204
Apr 15, 2010
(H.R. 4175) On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to a bill authorizing $50 million to be spent annually on a program to restore estuaries (bodies of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mix with salt water from the sea)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to a bill authorizing $50 million to be spent annually (through 2016) on a program to restore estuaries. (Estuaries are coastal bodies of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mix with salt water from the sea.)

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: "?Many of the Nation's estuaries are in poor environmental health. An impaired estuary not only impacts commercial and recreational fishing, it also harms small businesses that rely on clean water and reduces the number of tourists coming to the State?.We're here today to discuss a bill to help restore our Nation's estuaries by promoting comprehensive planning efforts in nationally significant estuaries such as Casco Bay and the Piscatisqua River Estuary on the Maine-New Hampshire border."

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued the estuary bill was fiscally irresponsible: "Our national debt stands at $12.8 trillion and is growing every day; yet this bill increases funding levels for the National Estuary Program under the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] to $50 million per year, a 43 percent increase. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Speaker, and this action suggests the Democrats in charge, at best, are in denial or, at worst, are simply indifferent to the economic situation our country is facing. At a time of record budget deficits, it's crucial that we hold the line on spending."

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the estuary bill by a vote of 235-171. 235 Democrats voted "yea." All 168 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted "nay."  As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing $50 million to be spent annually on a program to restore estuaries.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 202
Apr 14, 2010
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 194
Mar 25, 2010
(H.R. 4872) Final passage of legislation making a number of changes to major health care legislation, including delaying the implementation of a tax on high-cost health insurance plans until 2018

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

After the House and Senate both passed their respective health care reform bills, the two chambers had intended to reconcile those two bills into a final package. After the House and Senate passed that final package, it would have been sent to President Obama, who would have signed it into law. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), however, won a special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) before the final health care bill could be brought up for a vote. Brown's victory gave Republicans 41 votes in the Senate, thus depriving Democrats of the 60-vote majority they needed to defeat a Republican filibuster against the final health care bill.

In order to pass comprehensive health care legislation without a 60-vote majority in the Senate, Democratic leaders devised a plan in which the House would pass the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590), thereby enabling the president to sign it into law. The House would then pass a separate companion bill (H.R. 4872) to make changes to the Senate health measure. Assuming the Senate passed the companion bill, that measure would then go to the president for signature as well. This process allowed the House to make changes to Senate-passed health
care legislation without sending the entire health bill back to the Senate, where it could be filibustered indefinitely. 

The House had already passed the companion bill on March 21, 2010. The Senate then made a number technical changes to the measure, and sent it back to the House. Senate Republicans succeeded in striking a number of sections of the bill that did not conform to budget reconciliation rules. These modifications did not change the substance or cost of the bill, but merely forced the House to vote on it a second time. 

This was the vote on final passage of companion bill making changes to the Senate health care legislation. Those changes included delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018. Democratic leaders brought up H.R. 4872 under a process known as budget reconciliation. This process shielded the bill from a filibuster in the Senate. If a bill is filibustered, it must have the support of 60 senators in order to end debate and vote on the legislation. Under budget reconciliation, bills can pass the Senate with a simple 51-vote majority.

H.R. 4872 would increase the number of uninsured Americans that would be covered under the health care bill by 1 million -- resulting in an expansion of coverage to 32 million individuals, as opposed to 31 million. An estimated 95% of Americans would have access to health insurance under the legislation.

H.R. 3590 placed 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals. Under the reconciliation bill (H.R. 4872), the tax would not take effect until 2018. 

H. R. 4782 also contained a major provision -- unrelated to health care -- that would phase out a program in which the federal government guaranteed loans made to students by private lenders. Under the bill, students would instead receive loans directly from the federal government.  

Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) urged passage of the bill: "We will finally say that Americans who wait on tables and pump gas and clean our offices at night will finally have the ability to go home and not only thank God for the fact that their child is better but be thankful for the fact that they live in this country where every American finally has affordable access to health insurance. That is our mission here tonight."

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) said: "I rise today in support of this legislation, the last leg of a long journey to bring historic health insurance and student loan reforms to the American people. Two days ago President Obama made our first piece of groundbreaking health reforms the law of the land, a remarkable moment that will benefit millions of American families and small businesses. Our health insurance reforms and student loan reforms are truly historic. But the benefits for Americans start right now. And with this law, we make college more affordable and health care available to all Americans. That's what we promised we would do, and that's what we did."

Rep. Mike Pence argued the Democratic-backed health care overhaul would prove disastrous: "Last Sunday, defying the will of a majority of the American people, House Democrats rammed their health care bill through the Congress?Now we're being asked to fix the bill by passing some sort of reconciliation measure. But, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us tonight doesn't fix anything. It doesn't fix the fact that this is a government takeover of health care that's going to mandate that every American buy health insurance whether they want it or need it or not?.Mr. Speaker, the American people know there's no fix for ObamaCare."

Rep. Michael Conaway (R-TX) argued the bill was an assault on freedom: "?Today may well mark a great victory for President Obama and the Democratic Leadership of Congress?.it appears as though they finally have the votes to bend an unyielding electorate to their will and pass the most massive expansion of the federal government in two generations. Yet, a victory today would be a pyrrhic victory; the costs of implementing their vision for the future of American health care will bankrupt our treasury and rob us of our liberty."

The House passed the companion reconciliation bill by a vote of 220-207. 220 Democrats -- including all of the most progressive members -- voted "yea." 175 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation (thus, enabling President Obama to sign it into law) giving 32 million uninsured Americans access to heath insurance, delaying a tax on high-cost health insurance plans until 2018, and phasing out a program in which the federal government guaranteed loans made to students by private lenders (Under the bill, students would instead receive loans directly from the federal government.).


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Won
Roll Call 193
Mar 25, 2010
(H.R. 4872) A bill making a number of changes to major health care legislation, including delaying the implementation of a tax on high-cost health insurance plans until 2018 -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

After the House and Senate both passed their respective health care reform bills, the two chambers had intended to reconcile those two bills into a final package. After the House and Senate passed that final package, it would have been sent to President Obama, who would have signed it into law. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), however, won a special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) before the final health care bill could be brought up for a vote. Brown's victory gave Republicans 41 votes in the Senate, thus depriving Democrats of the 60-vote majority they needed to defeat a Republican filibuster against the final health care bill.

In order to pass comprehensive health care legislation without a 60-vote majority in the Senate, Democratic leaders devised a plan in which the House would pass the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590), thereby enabling the president to sign it into law. The House would then pass a separate companion bill (H.R. 4872) to make changes to the Senate health measure. Assuming the Senate passed the companion bill, that measure would then go to the president for signature as well. This process allowed the House to make changes to Senate-passed health
care legislation without sending the entire health bill back to the Senate, where it could be filibustered indefinitely.

The House had already passed the companion bill on March 21, 2010. The Senate then made a number technical changes to the measure, and sent it back to the House. Senate Republicans succeeded in striking a number of sections of the bill that did not conform to budget reconciliation rules. These modifications did not change the substance or cost of the bill, but merely forced the House to vote on it a second time. 

This was the vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the companion bill making changes to the Senate health care legislation. Those changes included delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018. Democratic leaders brought up H.R. 4872 under a process known as budget reconciliation. This process shielded the bill from a filibuster in the Senate. If a bill is filibustered, it must have the support of 60 senators in order to end debate and vote on the legislation. Under budget reconciliation, bills can pass the Senate with a simple 51-vote majority.

H.R. 4872 would increase the number of uninsured Americans that would be covered under the health care bill by 1 million -- resulting in an expansion of coverage to 32 million individuals, as opposed to 31 million. An estimated 95% of Americans would have access to health insurance under the legislation.

H.R. 3590 placed 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals. Under the reconciliation bill (H.R. 4872), the tax would not take effect until 2018. 

H. R. 4782 also contained a major provision -- unrelated to health care -- that would phase out a program in which the federal government guaranteed loans made to students by private lenders. Under the bill, students would instead receive loans directly from the federal government.  

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) called for swift passage of the legislation: "I won't even bother reciting all of the ways in which ordinary Americans will gain as we shift the balance of power away from insurance companies and back to patients, because they will know very shortly. I have already spoken at length about how under our bill families will no longer feel trapped by their coverage or fearful about children with preexisting conditions. Health care reform, I am happy to say, is now the law of the land. I encourage my colleagues to join me today in quickly adopting these small technical fixes to the legislation so we may move on to more pressing challenges."

Rep. Jim McGovern praised Democratic efforts to pass health care reform legislation: "We voted to end the most abusive practices of the insurance companies, to provide coverage to millions of hardworking families, to bring down the costs of health care for families and small businesses, and to pass the biggest deficit reduction package in 25 years. That reform is now the law of the land. Already, we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle saying that they want to repeal that law. They want to allow insurance companies to once again discriminate against people because of preexisting conditions?.They want to continue to let families go bankrupt because of their medical bills."

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) criticized Democrats for failing to craft a bi-partisan health bill, and vowed that Republicans would work to pass legislation more to their liking: " We will work to ensure that government bureaucrats never come between patients and doctors. We will make sure that no one will be forced to give up their current coverage if they do not so choose, and that those who have diligently saved in their health savings accounts are not in any way punished. If we can abandon the failed tactics that the Democrats in charge have put forward and work in an bipartisan and open fashion, these are the kind of real reforms that can be enacted so all Americans will have access to quality, affordable health insurance."

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) warned that the legislation would have dire consequences: "   The first thing that it will do is it's going to drive millions of people out of work. Also, besides that, it's going to drive many doctors out of business?When people have that free health care insurance card issued by the federal government in their pocket, it's going to be about as worthless as the Confederate dollar was after the Civil War because you are not going to find any doctors who are going to be willing to take the government insurance card."

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the companion reconciliation bill by a vote of 225-199. 225 Democrats -- including all of the most progressive members -- voted "yea." All 174 Republicans present and 25 Democrats voted "nay."  As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation giving 32 million uninsured Americans access to heath insurance, delaying a tax on high-cost health insurance plans until 2018, and phasing out a program in which the federal government guaranteed loans made to students by private lenders (Under the bill, students would instead receive loans directly from the federal government.).


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Won
Roll Call 191
Mar 25, 2010
(H. Res. 1125) A resolution expressing support for the goals of "National Public Works Week," which acknowledges the contributions of infrastructure projects to the quality of life in the U.S. -- On a motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution supporting the goals of "National Public Works Week," which acknowledges the contributions of infrastructure projects to the quality of life in the U.S. In 2010, National Public Works Week will be observed May 16 through 22.

The majority party in the House schedules bills for floor debate under this procedure known as "suspension of the rules" if the leadership deems them to be non-controversial. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.  

Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) urged support for the resolution: "This year, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of National Public Works Week. During the Great Depression, public works rose to prominence as a means to help stabilize our Nation by putting people to work to create a national infrastructure that benefited all Americans. Once again, our country faces similar challenges and our public works will help our nation regain its footing."

No members spoke in opposition to the resolution during floor debate on the measure. Republicans, however, unanimously voted against the measure because it contained a number of references to jobs created by the "American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" -- the economic stimulus legislation signed into law by President Obama in February 2009 that was intended to prevent an economic catastrophe. Every House Republican voted against that bill. Thus, Republicans objected to praising the stimulus measure.

Following the vote, Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) expressed shock and outrage that all Republicans voted against the resolution: "I rise to express my astonishment and disappointment that the entire Republican Conference voted against H. Res. 1125 for the observance of National Public Works Week?.There were three [references]?to the investment of funds under the Recovery Act. Those are figures drawn from information reported to our committee by the states and reported every 30 days by this committee and distributed to every Member of this House. For some reason, the other side of the aisle chose to vote against that. They didn't like that reference in this resolution."

The House rejected the motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution by a vote of 249-172. While a majority of members (249) voted "yea," a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under motions to suspend the rules. Since the motion did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the National Public Works Week resolution was voted down. 249 Democrats voted "yea." 171 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted "nay." As a result, the House rejected a resolution expressing support for the goals of "National Public Works Week.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 190
Mar 25, 2010
(H.R. 1586) Passage of legislation providing $53 billion for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations (the FAA is the federal agency that oversees and regulates aviation activities in the U.S.), and establishing new procedures intended to improve aviation safety

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation providing $53 billion for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations. The FAA is the federal agency that oversees and regulates aviation activities in the U.S. These funds would be spent on airport planning and development, as well as aviation-related research and engineering. The bill also established new procedures intended to improve aviation safety, including a requirement that the FAA Administrator implement a runway safety plan, as well as a requirement that the FAA complete a study on combating fatigue among pilots. The bill also prohibited airline carriers from receiving immunity from anti-trust regulations. Under current law, the Transportation Department can grant such antitrust immunity to airlines seeking to form alliances.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) argued the bill set reasonable safety standards that all members should embrace: "We will have a new, higher standard, which the good airlines are already meeting, and those who are not meeting are going to be forced to meet?This will make the American traveling public safer?this FAA bill will move us to a 21st century system for air traffic control, one that will allow the airlines much more use of our airspace, much more efficiently avoid storms, fly more fuel-efficient routes, avoid delays."

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA) said: "The FAA Authorization Act represents our commitment to safety in general aviation, commercial, cargo, and many other areas, especially the innovative programs to come. This is important to our economy, but also to our quality of life. I fly two times a week, 3,000 miles each way?.This authorization is a step in the right direction to the total modernization that is needed and that has been long awaited."

Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI) expressed opposition to the bill "due to the inclusion of several controversial provisions?[including] a provision that would automatically sunset [eliminate] airline alliance antitrust immunity agreements 3 years after enactment. We are told this could threaten approximately 15,000 airline jobs in the United States. Considering U.S.-based airlines have already been forced to cut a staggering 41,000 jobs, nearly 10 percent of their work force in the last 2 years, further job loss resulting from this provision raises obvious concerns."

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) also took issue with the legislation's anti-trust provision: "By sunsetting in 3 years the antitrust immunity for airlines participating in international alliances, this bill puts at risk the global competitiveness of U.S. airlines, and reduces benefits for consumers. International alliances help better serve Americans when traveling abroad. When airlines partner together, consumers benefit from the enhanced competition."

The House passed the bill by a vote of 276-145. 242 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted "yea." 139 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation providing $53 billion for FAA operations, prohibiting airline carriers from receiving immunity from anti-trust regulations, and establishing new procedures intended to improve aviation safety.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 188
Mar 25, 2010
(H.R. 1586) Legislation providing $53 billion for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations (the FAA is the federal agency that oversees and regulates aviation activities in the U.S.), and establishing new procedures intended to improve aviation safety ? On the resolution setting a time limit for floor debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for floor debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation providing $53 billion for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations. The FAA is the federal agency that oversees and regulates aviation activities in the U.S. These funds would be spent on airport planning and development, as well as aviation-related research and engineering. The bill also established new procedures intended to improve aviation safety, including a requirement that the FAA Administrator implement a runway safety plan, as well as a requirement that the FAA complete a study on combating fatigue among pilots. The bill also prohibited airline carriers from receiving immunity from anti-trust regulations. Under current law, the Transportation Department can grant such antitrust immunity to airlines seeking to form alliances.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) praised the legislation, arguing it would improve aviation safety and save lives. She made reference to a recent plane crash near Buffalo, NY, as evidence that safety standards needed updating: "I stand here just a day after having been reminded yet again of the pain of many of my friends and constituents of the tragic February 12, 2009 crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 and the grief caused to the people of our area?.It has been 21 years, Mr. Speaker, since we have revised some of the standards for aircraft rescue and firefighting standards. We are well overdue to update our expectations for all pilots, who, for the most part, are well-qualified, dedicated, and well-trained professionals."

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) criticized the Democratic majority for prohibiting amendments to the bill, and argued the measure contained excessive spending: "?Once again we are here to discuss a bill on the floor that has come to the floor under a closed rule [that prohibits amendments]?This is a historic level of funding for the FAA, which should come as no surprise from this Democrat-controlled Congress that has already set record levels of deficit and spending over the past 4 years and, once again, aiming for a $1.6 trillion deficit this year, $200 billion worth of deficit last month alone."

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill by a vote of 231-190. 231 Democrats voted "yea." 173 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing $53 billion for FAA operations, and establishing new procedures intended to improve aviation safety.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 186
Mar 24, 2010
(H.R. 4899) Passage of legislation providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of a bill providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program. The $5.1 billion was specifically granted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the federal agency charged with helping communities recover from natural disasters. According to the Democratic staff on the committee that drafted the legislation, a number of FEMA projects were on hold due to a shortage of funding. The summer jobs program was intended to employ 300,000 people between the ages of 16 and 21 during the summer months.

Rep. David Obey (D-MI), the chairman of the committee that drafted the disaster relief bill,  urgedthe House to pass the legislation: "This a very simple bill. It provides $5.1 billion as requested by the President for FEMA disaster relief because FEMA will run out of money in the next 2 or 3 weeks....The bill also provides $600 million for youth summer jobs. This funding will support over 300,000 jobs for youth ages 16 to 21. This age group had some of the highest unemployment levels in the country."

Rep. David Price (D-NC) argued the bill was needed to sustain projects intended to support communities devastated by natural disasters: "This bill is about making sure that FEMA keeps its promises to devastated communities that are getting back on their feet as well as to those who may face disasters in the months to come. In addition to ongoing recovery costs associated with an active hurricane season and extraordinary flooding in the Midwest in 2008, FEMA is still required to pay for some very expensive outstanding costs related to Katrina, such as the devastated Louisiana schools and Charity Hospital."

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: "I believe that most Members would agree that the fiscal path that our country is currently on is unsustainable?.We shouldn't continue to spend money we don't have."

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) called the legislation "an expensive and now hurried bill. It goes without saying that the administration and FEMA must do better in estimating and budgeting for the real costs of disasters. We have been on this broken path for too long."

The House passed the disaster relief bill by a vote of 239-175. 234 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted "yea." 167 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Natural Disasters
Y Y Won
Roll Call 185
Mar 24, 2010
(H.R. 4899) Legislation providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program -- On tabling (killing) an effort to appeal the chair's ruling that an amendment using funds from the economic stimulus law to pay for new spending in the disaster relief bill violated House rules

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on tabling (killing) an effort by Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) to appeal the ruling of the chair that his amendment to the disaster relief bill violated House rules.  The disaster relief bill provided $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program. The $5.1 billion was specifically granted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the federal agency charged with helping communities recover from natural disasters.

During debate on the disaster relief bill, Lewis offered a motion to recommit with instructions. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. 

Lewis' amendment would have used funding from an economic stimulus bill signed into law by President Obama in February, 2009 to pay for the programs funded by  disaster relief bill. Lewis said: "?The bill before us contains almost $6 billion in new spending, spending that is not offset by true reductions. Instead, this $6 billion will simply pile more money on to the government's charge card and add to our already astronomical debt."

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) raised a point of order against Lewis' amendment, arguing it violated House rules. Obey contended that the amendment "constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill." House rules prohibit legislative language from being added to bills exclusively intended to spend money. The chair upheld Obey's point of order, ruling that the amendment did, in fact, violate the rules.  Lewis then appealed the chair's ruling. Obey then made a motion to table (kill) Lewis' appeal.

The House tabled (killed) Lewis' appeal of the chair's ruling by a vote of 239-176. 239 Democrats voted "yea." 173 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House effectively rejected an amendment to use funding from the economic stimulus law to pay for programs funded by the disaster relief bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 182
Mar 24, 2010
(H.R. 4849) Passage of legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation and expanding a bond program for infrastructure projects

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation. The job creation bill also expanded the "Build America Bond program," which provides subsidies to state and local governments for bonds intended for infrastructure projects. Current law provides subsidies for bonds issued prior to January 1, 2011. This bill extended the subsidy program to bonds issued prior to April 1, 2013. H.R. 4849 also increased taxes on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations employing American workers. 

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) urged passage of the bill: "This bill expands the successful Build America bonds and Recovery Zone bonds, which helps State and local governments fund needed projects and put people to work?.This bill also contains provisions to help small business innovate and grow....Americans all over our country will have stronger incentives to open the books of new businesses?For Democrats, job creation is our single-most important job?.This bill carries that work forward, and I believe it will provide significant relief to the Americans who are still feeling the recession's harsh effects."

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, said: "This, indeed, is a jobs bill. It's a continuation of the work in this Congress by some of us to spur job creation to recover from the 8.4 million jobs lost in this recession and to improve the quality of life in our communities. The cornerstone, indeed, of this package is an extension of the Build America Bonds program. It's been an effective tool in job creation. It's been a vital resource for State and local governments looking to advance infrastructure programs."

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) argued the bill would raise taxes and hurt American workers: "Under this bill, American jobs will be taxed?.There's never a good time to raise taxes on employers and American workers, but given the continued weakness in the economy, now may be the worst time. Data from the Department of Labor confirms that 48 states have lost jobs since the Democrats' stimulus bill passed, 3.3 million jobs have been eliminated since the Democrat stimulus bill passed, and a record 16 million Americans are out of work."

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) argued the bill illustrated the Democrats' failure to create jobs: "Another week, another stimulus. This ministimulus, the third or fourth such effort--I've lost count--is more proof of the failed economic policies of Washington Democrats and an acknowledgment that the massive $860 billion stimulus bill has fallen far short of its debt-driven, wastefully spent promises to revive America's recovery. From a jobs standpoint for small business, this bill does next to nothing. In fact, by increasing taxes on global companies that invest and create jobs here in America, this bill may actually kill more jobs than it creates."

The House passed the job creation bill by a vote of 246-178. 242 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted "yea." 171 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation and expanding a bond program for infrastructure projects, and  increasing taxes on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 181
Mar 24, 2010
(H.R. 4849) On an amendment to repeal a number of provisions in a major health care bill (including an annual limit on contributions to health flexible spending accounts) that was offered to legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation and expanding a bond program for infrastructure projects

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a ?motion to recommit with instructions? ? i.e. an amendment -- offered by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), that would have repealed a number of provisions in major health care legislation recently signed into law by President Obama, including an annual limit on contributions to health flexible spending accounts (FSAs).

The amendment was offered to legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

Camp contended his motion to recommit would repeal the most unpopular provisions in the health care reform law: "First, the motion repeals the cap on the minimum annual contribution to flexible spending accounts, which will be capped at $2,500 per year under the health care bill starting in 2011. FSAs, which are currently used by 35 million Americans, encourage consumers to be more aware of both the cost and quality of health care goods and services?.Second, the motion repeals the ban on using several forms of health savings, including FSAs and health savings accounts, also known as HSAs, to purchase over-the-counter medicines. Not only does this ban discourage tax-free savings, it discourages Americans from choosing cheaper, nonprescription medicines when they're available."

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) urged the House to defeat the motion to recommit, contending it was a cynical attempt to undermine legislation passed by the House just days earlier: "Well, I guess here we start?.I want to strongly urge everyone to vote against this motion to recommit. It is wrong in substance in trying to change the bill that we passed."

The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 184-239. All 174 Republicans present and 10 Democrats voted "yea." 239 Democrats voted "yea." As a result, the House did not include language in the job creation bill repealing certain provisions in major health care legislation, including an annual limit on contributions to health FSAs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Won
Roll Call 179
Mar 24, 2010
(H.R. 4899) Legislation providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to a bill providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program. The $5.1 billion was specifically granted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the federal agency charged with helping communities recover from natural disasters. According to the Democratic staff on the committee that drafted the legislation, a number of FEMA projects were on hold due to a shortage of funding. The summer jobs program was intended to employ 300,000 people between the ages of 16 and 21 during the summer months.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) argued the legislation was urgently needed: "?We are quickly approaching the beginning of disaster season in the United States?. Today's bill is the most important thing they can do to help in the recovery and relief efforts. There will be emergency response professionals who worked overtime and need to be reimbursed. There are federal search and rescue teams which will have to be mobilized. FEMA will have to rebuild public infrastructure and remove debris. FEMA will have to provide temporary shelter to families displaced by the disaster?.finally, the bill invests $600 million into job training and employment services. This is a vital investment to build upon the progress we have made in the past year to put America back to work."

Rep. Virginia Foxx argued the bill was filled with wasteful spending: "?The ruling Democrats, who have apparently no concept of the value of money, have completely thrown that idea right out of the window?. We have established in the minds of many Americans that federal dollars are somehow or another manna from heaven. They are not manna from heaven. Somebody has to pay this bill. It's not free. There is no free lunch. Every dime we are spending has to be borrowed. The American people understand that, and they are sick and tired of it."

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the disaster relief bill by a vote of 233-191. 232 Democrats and 1 Republican voted "yea." 174 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program.  


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Natural Disasters
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 178
Mar 24, 2010
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 173
Mar 23, 2010
(H.R. 4849) Legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation and expanding a bond program for infrastructure projects -- On a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation. The job creation bill also expanded the "Build America Bond program," which provides subsidies to state and local governments for bonds intended for infrastructure projects. Current law provides subsidies for bonds issued prior to January 1, 2011. This bill extended the subsidy program to bonds issued prior to April 1, 2013. H.R. 4849 also increased taxes on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations employing American workers.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) contended the bill deserved bi-partisan support: "I am pleased that we have in here the Build America Bonds, that we will be able to extend a favored treatment to local governments, to be able to build infrastructure, to be able to fight congestion, fight pollution, be able to revitalize communities. These bonds have been very successful in the last program we had. This extends it for 3 more years. I would hope, Madam Speaker, that at some point we will be able to return to the era where at least one area was not partisan, and that is infrastructure and rebuilding and renewing America. Even Ronald Reagan supported user fees for things like transportation."

Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) argued the bill would raise taxes without helping small businesses: "The last thing we should be doing to small businesses is raising taxes. The last thing that Congress should be doing is raising taxes. Small businesses today need certainty about what's going to be happening to them in the future. Small businesses today want to hire employees, but they can't hire employees because they are being taxed too much?.I am one of those that stand up and say, I want to keep the tax burdens on small businesses low so they can hire employees, so we can generate jobs, so we can generate this economy and get this country moving forward."

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the job creation bill by a vote of 233-187. 233 Democrats voted "yea." All 173 Republicans present and 14 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation and expanding a bond program for infrastructure projects.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 172
Mar 23, 2010
(H.R. 4849) Legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation and expanding a bond program for infrastructure projects -- On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.  

The job creation bill also expanded the "Build America Bond program," which provides subsidies to state and local governments for bonds intended for infrastructure projects. Current law provides subsidies for bonds issued prior to January 1, 2011. This bill extended the subsidy program to bonds issued prior to April 1, 2013. H.R. 4849 also increased taxes on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations employing American workers.

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) urged support for the legislation: "The small businesses of America form the backbone of economic growth in our country. In fact, they are responsible for creating three out of every four jobs in the United States. That is why with this bill we are continuing to foster their growth and entrepreneurial spirit?This bill extends the Recovery Act's Build America Bonds program. To date, State and local governments have financed well over $78 billion in infrastructure projects using this tool to create jobs and help improve water utilities, sewers, schools, hospitals, transit buses, and other public projects."

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) criticized the legislation, arguing it would raise taxes but fail to create jobs: "This bill does not create jobs just because the majority has slapped `jobs' on the title of the bill. This bill is nothing more than a hodgepodge of narrow, targeted tax provisions that will not create new jobs. Although it's sold as a jobs bill, it actually amounts to a net tax increase at a time when Congress should be lowering taxes in order to encourage job growth. In this legislation, the largest tax is a $7.7 billion one on foreign companies located in the United States employing American workers."

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 240-179. 240 Democrats voted "yea." All 174 Republicans present and 5 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to a bill providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation and expanding a bond program for infrastructure projects.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 167
Mar 21, 2010
(H.R. 4872) Passage of a bill making a number of changes to major health care legislation, including delaying the implementation of a tax on high-cost health insurance plans until 2018

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In order to pass comprehensive health care reform legislation, Democratic leaders devised a plan in which the House would pass the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590), thereby enabling the president to sign it into law. The House would then pass a separate companion bill (H.R. 4872) to make changes to the Senate health measure. Assuming the Senate passed the companion bill, that measure would then go to the president for signature as well. This process allowed the House to make changes to Senate-passed health care legislation without sending the entire health bill back to the Senate, where it could be filibustered indefinitely.

This was the vote on passage of the companion bill making changes to the Senate health care legislation. Those changes included delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018. Democratic leaders brought up H.R. 4872 under a process known as budget reconciliation. This process shielded the bill from a filibuster in the Senate. If a bill is filibustered, it must have the support of 60 senators in order to end debate and vote on the legislation. Under budget reconciliation, bills can pass the Senate with a simple 51-vote majority.

H.R. 4872 would increase the number of uninsured Americans that would be covered under the health care bill by 1 million -- resulting in an expansion of coverage to 32 million individuals, as opposed to 31 million. An estimated 95% of Americans would be covered under the legislation.

H.R. 3590 placed 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals. Under the reconciliation bill (H.R. 4872), the tax would not take effect until 2018.

H. R. 4782 also contained a major provision -- unrelated to health care -- that would phase out a program in which the federal government guaranteed loans made to students by private lenders. Under the bill, students would instead receive loans directly from the federal government. 

Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) argued the  reconciliation bill would help provide access to health care for nearly all Americans: "Opponents of health care reform have said anything and done everything to distort the facts, delay the process, and try to put off what Americans have asked for and needed for generations. They have tried to sow fear into the American people?.But we have made it to the final step in this process--despite all that noise. And now we face a simple choice. We can side with America's families and college students and make health insurance and college more affordable and accessible--while creating millions of jobs and reducing the deficit. Or, we can side with insurance companies and banks. That's it. That's the choice. I'm siding with the American people. "

Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) argued the bill would help his struggling middle-class constituents: "They are the average Long Islanders--not rich, not poor, but usually somewhere in between--who live in quiet desperation and concern?.The woman who thought health care worked pretty well for her, until her daughter was diagnosed with breast cancer....The middle class family with two kids just out of college who are having trouble finding a job that provides health insurance. Under this bill, those young adults can get coverage on their parents' plans until they turn 26."

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) argued the bill would infringe upon Americans' freedoms: "The philosophy advanced on this floor by this majority today is so paternalistic and so arrogant. It's condescending, and it tramples upon the principles that have made America so exceptional. My friends, we are fast approaching a tipping point where more Americans depend upon the Federal Government than upon themselves for their livelihoods, a point where we, the American people, trade in our commitment and our concern for individual liberties in exchange for government benefits and dependences."

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) argued the Democratic majority was ignoring the will of the public: "Despite overwhelming public opposition today, this administration and this Congress is poised to ignore the majority of the American people. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, this is not the President's House. This is not the Democrats' House. This is the people's House, and the American people don't want a government takeover of health care."

The House passed the reconciliation bill by a vote of 220-211. 220 Democrats -- including all of the most progressive members -- voted "yea." All 178 Republicans present and 33 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation giving 32 million uninsured Americans access to heath insurance, delaying a tax on high-cost health insurance plans until 2018, and phasing out a program in which the federal government guaranteed loans made to students by private lenders (Under the bill, students would instead receive loans directly from the federal government.). The legislation then went to the Senate for consideration by that chamber.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Won
Roll Call 166
Mar 21, 2010
(H.R. 4872) Legislation making changes to a major health care bill, including delaying the implementation of a tax on high-cost health insurance plans until 2018 -- On a "motion to recommit with instructions," or amendment to require tighter restrictions on insurance companies' coverage of abortion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a "motion to recommit with instructions" amending a bill making a number of changes to Senate-passed health care legislation.  A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.  

This amendment, offered by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), would have prohibited health insurers from selling government-subsidized coverage to uninsured individuals if the insurance plans cover abortion. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) had offered an amendment to the original House-passed health care bill containing this language. His amendment passed, and thus these restrictions on abortion coverage were included in the House bill. The Senate health bill, meanwhile, had less stringent abortion language -- it required women receiving subsidized health coverage to make a separate payment for abortion services to ensure they were not reimbursed for those services with taxpayer money.

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) urged the House to pass his motion to recommit: "The motion to recommit offers us a chance to fix the most egregious defect, allowing taxpayer funds to subsidize abortions?. There is no bargaining or dealmaking when it comes to the life of the unborn. A life is a life. And it is the responsibility of this House to defend these children. When this measure was last before the House, it passed overwhelmingly, 240-194. It should do so again." 

Stupak -- the original author of this language -- led the opposition to it, denouncing the amendment as a cynical attempt to kill health care reform efforts: "The motion to recommit purports to be a right-to-life motion, in the spirit of the Stupak amendment. But as the author of the Stupak amendment, this motion is nothing more than an opportunity to continue to deny 32 million Americans health care. The motion is really a last-ditch effort of 98 years of denying Americans health care?. For the Republicans to now claim that we send the bill back to committee under the guise of protecting life is disingenuous. This motion is really to politicize life, not prioritize life. We stand for the American people. We stand up for life."

The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 199-232. All 178 Republicans and 21 Democrats voted "yea." 232 Democrats -- including all of the most progressive members -- voted "nay." As a result, the House did not include language in health care reform legislation prohibiting health insurers from selling government-subsidized coverage to uninsured individuals if the insurance plans separately cover abortion.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Won
Roll Call 165
Mar 21, 2010
(H.R. 3590) On passage of legislation making major changes to the national health care system, including expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of a bill making major changes to the national health care system. House passage of the legislation ? which had already passed the Senate -- would clear the bill for the president's signature.

The Senate-passed bill imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance, added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, provided funding to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people, and prohibited insurance companies from refusing coverage because of ?pre-existing conditions.? The bill would also place a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals.

Under the legislation, insurers would be required to cover preventive care -- such as regular checkups -- at no cost to customers. The bill was estimated to cover 31 million uninsured individuals. Under the bill, an estimated 95% of Americans would have health insurance.

Immediately following the vote on the Senate-passed health care bill, the House planned to bring up a second health measure. The second bill  made a number of changes to the Senate legislation, including delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018. It also expanded coverage to 32 million people, one million more than the Senate-passed bill. The second bill was brought up by Democratic leaders under a process known as budget reconciliation. This process shielded the bill from a filibuster in the Senate, allowing it to pass that chamber with a simple 51-vote majority.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) argued the bill represented "the end of discrimination against Americans with preexisting conditions, and the end of medical bankruptcy and caps on benefits. It is coverage you can rely on whether you lose your job or become your own boss, coverage that reaches 95 percent of all Americans?.Illness and infirmity are universal, and we are stronger against them together than we are alone. Our bodies may fail us; our neighbors don't have to. In that shared strength is our Nation's strength, and in this bill is a prosperous and more just future."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the chairman of one of the committees that drafted the legislation, said: "This bill provides all Americans the security of knowing they will always be able to afford health care for themselves and their families. The bedrock foundation of the legislation is that it builds on what works today and reforms what doesn't, but we fundamentally reform the insurance company practices that are failing our families." 

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) criticized the Republicans for seeking to delay and obstruct passage of the legislation: "GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party. Now, it stands for grandstand, oppose, and postpone. They grandstand with phony claims about nonexistent government takeovers, they oppose any real reform, and then they want to postpone fixing a broken health care system. GOP: Grandstand, oppose, and postpone."

Republicans denounced the bill as a "government takeover" of health care that would lead to economic ruin: Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) said: "Tragically, this bill will destroy freedom and do incredible damage to the very fabric of our society. This bill is a bailout for the insurance companies. They get the individual mandate that they wanted all along--a mandate that is un-American and unconstitutional."

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) argued the bill would use taxpayer dollars for abortions: "This bill violates the conscience of the American people?.This extreme legislation is being forced on an unwilling Nation. It is the most pro-abortion bill and the largest expansion of abortion in our history. No Member who votes for it will ever be able to claim again that they have always stood on the side of the unborn."

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) argued the bill would lead to socialism and totalitarianism: "?This debate is not about the uninsured; it's about socialized medicine. Today we are turning back the clock. For most of the 20th century, people fled the ghosts of communist dictators, and now you are bringing the ghosts back into this Chamber. With passage of this bill, they will haunt Americans for generations. Your multitrillion dollar health care bill continues the Soviets' failed Soviet socialistic experiment. It gives the Federal Government absolute control over health care in America?.Say "no'' to socialism. Say "no'' to totalitarianism. Say ?no? to this bill."

The House passed the Senate health care bill by a vote of 219-212. 219 Democrats -- including all of the most progressive members -- voted "yea." All 178 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation making major changes to the national health care system, including expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans -- thereby enabling the president to sign it into law.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Won
Roll Call 163
Mar 21, 2010
(H.R. 3590, H.R. 4872) Legislation making major changes to the national health care system, including expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to a major Senate-passed health care bill -- as well as a separate companion bill making changes to the Senate health measure.The Senate-passed bill imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance, added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, provided funding to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people, and prohibited insurance companies from refusing coverage because of ?pre-existing conditions.? The Senate bill would also place a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals. The bill was estimated to cover 31 million uninsured individuals. Under the bill, an estimated 95% of Americans would have health insurance.

The companion bill  made a number of changes to the Senate legislation, including delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018. It would also expand coverage to 32 million people, one million more than the Senate-passed bill. The second bill was brought up by Democratic leaders under a process known as budget reconciliation. This process shields the bill from a filibuster in the Senate, allowing it to pass that chamber with a simple 51-vote majority.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) argued the health care legislation was historic and long overdue: "  The effort to reform the health care system goes back to at least Theodore Roosevelt, that great President who campaigned in 1912 by promising: 'We pledge ourselves to work increasingly in State and Nation for protection of home life against the hazards of sickness?'" Slaughter also argued the bill had "the potential to transform the way that we deliver health care in the country." She accused Republicans of willfully misrepresenting the bill to the public saying: "The fight has been long and contentious, and the public has been grievously and purposefully lied to."

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) contended the bill would make health care more affordable while reducing the deficit: "We have the opportunity to enact real, meaningful health insurance reform that will improve the lives of millions of our fellow citizens. We can end the most abusive practices of the insurance companies. We can provide coverage to millions of hardworking families. We can bring down the cost of health care for families and small businesses. We can close the doughnut hole in Medicare and extend the solvency of that vital program, and we can pass the biggest deficit-reduction package in 25 years. All we need is the courage to do what is right."

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) argued: "?The simple truth is this health care bill is a killer. It kills over 5 million jobs in future job creation with $52 billion in mandates and taxes. It kills economic freedom and the American entrepreneurial spirit. It kills the family budget with over $17 billion in more mandates and taxes primarily aimed at the poor and its seniors. It kills our future by allowing taxpayer-funded abortions.  Make no mistake about it. If you vote for this bill, you can never call yourself pro-life again."

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued the bill "represents one of the most offensive pieces of social engineering legislation in the history of the United States, and the American people recognize this simple truth. Even the ruling Democrats recognize how unpopular this proposal is but have chosen to ignore the overwhelming outcry and convince their wavering colleagues that the government and politicians in Washington, D.C., know better than their constituents. What arrogance."

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 224-206. 224 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members-- voted "yea." All 178 Republicans present and 28 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on a Senate-passed bill making major changes to the national health care system -- as well as a bill to make a number of changes to the Senate-passed measure (including delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018).


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Won
Roll Call 162
Mar 21, 2010
(H.R. 3590, H.R. 4872) Legislation making major changes to the national health care system, including expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans -- On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to a major Senate-passed health care bill -- as well as a separate companion bill making changes to the Senate health measure.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. 

The Senate-passed bill imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance, added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, provided funding to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people, and prohibited insurance companies from refusing coverage because of ?pre-existing conditions.? The Senate bill would also place a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals. The bill was estimated to cover 31 million uninsured individuals. Under the bill, an estimated 95% of Americans would have health insurance.

The  separate companionbill would make a number of changes to the Senatelegislation, including delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018. It would also expand coverage to 32 million people, one million more than the Senate-passed bill. The second bill was brought up by Democratic leaders under a process known as budget reconciliation. This process shields the bill from a filibuster in the Senate, allowing it to pass that chamber with a simple 51-vote majority.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) argued the legislation would expand access to health insurance and prevent abuses by private health insurance companies: "Our bill covers an estimated 32 million Americans in a fiscally responsible way that improves Medicare benefits, holds insurance companies accountable, and helps small business owners with coverage. We are finally gaining ground against insurance special interests. Small businesses, the backbone of our economy will get tax credits if they make health care coverage available for their workers. We offer free preventive care for people on Medicare. We help people who have retired at 55, 10 years before they are eligible for Medicare. And we ban the lifetime and yearly limit on coverage."

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) argued the legislation would fail to reduce health care costs or improve the quality of care Americans receive: "This is not a bill that will increase access to care or improve its quality. It will not rein in costs. What it will do is add an enormous amount of new government bureaucracy to our existing system. It will spend $1 trillion at a time when our deficit is already $1.4 trillion, and our total national debt exceeds $12 trillion. It will cripple the small businesses that are already struggling in this economy and will further drive up unemployment."

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 228-202. 228 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members -- voted "yea." All 178 Republicans present and 24 Democrats voted nay. As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments on a Senate-passed bill making major changes to the national health care system -- as well as a separate companion bill to make a number of changes to the Senate-passed measure (including delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018).


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Won
Roll Call 160
Mar 21, 2010
(H.R. 3590, H.R. 4872) Legislation making major changes to the national health care system, including expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans -- On a "question of consideration," or determining whether the House would bring up the resolution allowing the chamber to debate the health care legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote determining whether the House would begin consideration of a resolution that would both set a time limit for debate and prohibit amendments to major health care legislation. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), raised a point of order against the resolution, claiming it contained earmarks -- provisions tucked into legislation that benefit a particular interest, organization or locale. In order to defeat this point of order against the resolution, the Democrats needed to vote on a "question of consideration" -- which essentially determined whether the House would consider the resolution. If the House voted in favor considering the resolution, the point of order would be defeated.

Issa argued his point of order against the resolution allowing debate on health care effort legislation should be upheld: "?This legislation is filled with earmarks?Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that an earmark is tantamount to a bribe. An earmark to receive a vote is clearly a way to get a vote in return for something of value. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a vast tax increase and a vast increase in the reach of government. It deserves to be considered on its merits, not based on promises and bribes for financial gain to various Members' districts. Therefore, it is clear we must remove all earmarks before this legislation can move forward."

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) argued Issa was trying to use procedural tactics to kill health care legislation: "The rule and the underlying legislation deserve to be debated on the merits, not stopped by purely procedural motions. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation, so important to the American people. Let's not waste any more time."

By a vote of 230-200, the House voted in favor of considering the resolution allowing for debate on health care legislation -- and, in effect, voted down Issa's point of order. 230 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members -- voted "yea." All 178 Republicans present and 22 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House was able to bring up a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to health care legislation.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Won
Roll Call 159
Mar 21, 2010
(H.R. 3590, H.R. 4872) Legislation making major changes to the national health care system, including expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans -- On a "question of consideration," or determining whether the House would bring up the resolution allowing the chamber to debate the health care legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote determining whether the House would begin consideration of a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to major health care legislation. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), raised a point of order against the resolution, claiming it contained ?unfunded mandates?, which violate the Congressional Budget Act. An unfunded mandate is a provision requiring states to spend money on a program without providing federal money to pay for the program.  In order to defeat this point of order against the resolution, the Democrats needed to vote on a "question of consideration" -- which essentially determined whether the House would consider the resolution. If the House voted in favor considering the resolution, the point of order would be defeated.

Ryan said: "This bill is the mother of all unfunded mandates. There are mandates on states?.There is an individual mandate. It mandates individuals purchase government-approved health insurance or face a fine to be collected by the IRS?There is a business mandate. It mandates businesses provide government-approved health insurance or face penalties?.There's a health plan mandate. There are mandates on health plans to comply with new federal benefits, mandates without any funds to meet these new requirements?."

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) denounced Ryan's point of order as an effort to kill health care reform legislation: "Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and, ultimately, the underlying legislation. In reality, it's about blocking much-needed health care reform in this Nation. Those who oppose the process don't want any debate or votes on health care itself. They just want to make reform go away. I know my colleagues on our side will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion"

By a vote of 228-195, the House voted in favor of considering the resolution allowing for debate on health care legislation -- and, in effect, voted down Ryan's point of order. 228 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members present -- voted "yea." All 176 Republicans present and 19 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House was able to bring up a health care resolution setting a time limit for debate and a prohibition on amendments.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Won
Roll Call 151
Mar 20, 2010
(H.R. 1612) Passage of legislation requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs (The PLSC provides youth with volunteer opportunities relating to repair and restoration projects in national parks)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs. The PLSC provides youth with volunteer opportunities relating to repair and restoration projects in national parks. H.R. 1612 would also officially change the name of the  Corps from the "Public Lands Corps (PLC)" to the "Public Lands Service Corps (PLSC)." As amended, the bill would keep in place an annual $12 million limit on funding for the program. In addition, the program would expire within five years unless legislation is enacted to provide additional funding for the PLSC.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the sponsor of the bill, urged the House to pass it: "The training and experience Corps members receive while working to improve the condition of our natural and cultural resources will give them a huge advantage when they enter the working world in such professions as science, land management, the building trades, academic disciplines such as history and education. The legislation not only takes a decisive step forward in finishing desperately needed work on our national park lands, forests, wildlife refuges, historic sites and Indian lands, but also recognizes the importance of our coastal and marine systems and our national marine sanctuaries."

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) argued the bill should put additional restrictionson funding for the PLSC: "What we are doing now is building a program that has no latitudes, no restrictions on what their options are, no restrictions on their funding. This is a hole so wide you could drive a Toyota Prius through it because there is nothing involved that could stop it. That is not the way you do good legislation. This is not the way you do good legislation. But it could be, and it should have been."

The House passed the bill by a vote of 288-116. 230 Democrats and 58 Republicans voted "yea." 114 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate the Public Land Service Corps.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 148
Mar 20, 2010
(H.R. 1612) Legislation requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs (The PLSC provides youth with volunteer opportunities relating to repair and restoration projects in national parks) -- On an amendment keeping in place the annual $12 million limit on funding for the PLSC, and forcing the program to expire in five years without new legislation to provide it with additional funding.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment to legislation requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs. The PLSC provides youth with volunteer opportunities relating to repair and restoration projects in national parks. H.R. 1612 would also officially change the name of the Corps from the "Public Lands Corps (PLC)" to the "Public Lands Service Corps (PLSC)." The bill would also remove annual $12 million limit on funding for the PLSC. 

The amendment, offered by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), would keep in place the annual $12 million limit on funding for the PLSC, and "sunset" the program within five years. A "sunset" refers to a requirement that a program would expire on a certain date unless new legislation is enacted to provide that program with additional funding.

Bishop urged the House to pass his amendment: "This is a very simple amendment, an easily understandable one?.Number one is you continue the funding authorization that is in the current law; and, number two, you add a 5-year sunset period in there?. There is something wrong when we refuse to periodically exercise our legislative responsibility to review those things that we are currently doing?.There is nothing wrong with a sunset. In fact, it should be standard fare in most of our pieces of legislation."

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) urged the House to reject the amendment: "The amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Bishop, would not only leave the [$12 million] cap in place, but also force the program to sunset in 5 years. Madam Speaker, as we all know, when the Republicans controlled this Congress and the White House, they presided over the largest increase in Federal spending in the history of this Nation?.Republicans want to cap and sunset a popular, effective, bipartisan jobs program; but when they controlled the entire Federal budget, they spent like sailors on leave."

The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 227-180. 171 Republicans and 56 Democrats voted "yea." 179 Democrats -- including a majority of the most progressive members -- and 1 Republican voted "nay." As a result, the House included language in the PLSC bill keeping in place the annual $12 million limit on funding, and "sunsetting" the program within five years.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Lost
Roll Call 143
Mar 19, 2010
(H.R. 4003) Legislation requiring the National Park Service (NPS) to conduct a study evaluating the feasibility of designating the Hudson River Valley in New York as a unit of the National Park System -- On a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill requiring the National Park Service (NPS) to conduct a study of the Hudson River Valley in New York to evaluate the national significance of the area and to determine the feasibility and suitability of designating the valley as a unit of the National Park System.

The majority party in the House schedules bills for floor debate under this procedure known as "suspension of the rules" if the leadership deems them to be non-controversial. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) argued that, given the Hudson River Valley's unique characteristics and history, it ought to be made part of the National Park Service system: "The Hudson River Valley is one of the most significant river corridors in our country.?Passage of this bill and the subsequent study would position the Hudson River Valley to gain the full attention of the National Park Service for all of the significant and substantial historic contributions this region has made to the development, establishment, and the continuation of the United States, as well as for the area's pristine natural beauty."

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) argued the bill could lead to additional federal regulations with respect to various recreational activities in the valley (such as hunting and fishing): "As we in the West painfully know, national park designation comes with an abundance of regulations and direct federal management. It is important that people living in the affected area know ahead of time how much authority over their local affairs will be ceded to the federal government."

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill by a vote of 293-115. 243 Democrats and 50 Republicans voted "yea." 114 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation requiring the National Park Service (NPS) to conduct a study evaluating the the feasibility of designating the Hudson River Valley in New York as a unit of the National Park System.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 142
Mar 19, 2010
(H.R. 3644) Passage of legislation authorizing funding for two programs intended to educate the public about water resources issues

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered to a bill authorizing funding for an environmental literacy grant program (which would educate the American public about water resources issues) and additional funding for an environmental education program "promoting stewardship" of coastal and marine resources for students in Kindergarten through 12th grade.

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) urged support for the bill: "?My bill, H.R. 3644, seeks to formally authorize these two innovative and important NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] education programs that were established through the annual appropriations process so we can ensure that they are here for our children now and in the future. It also ensures that certain standards and criteria for positive implementation are met by the agency when they spend these funds. To me, this represents a responsible oversight effort on the part of our committee to exercise our proper duties."

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) argued the bill would help educate the students about the Chesapeake Bay:  "I come from the state of Maryland, and we have the largest estuary, the Chesapeake Bay, in and around the State of Maryland, and this notion of educating young people, investing them in science and also educating them about the deep impacts that we have through all of our communities onto this estuary is so important."

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: "There are two simple and compelling arguments for why I am opposed to this legislation: first, it spends too much money that our government just doesn't have, and it singles out two of the more than one dozen NOAA education programs for special treatment when the entire effort is subject to a top-to-bottom review."

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) objected to annual increases in spending for programs funded by the bill: "?We have a bill which has a wonderful name with a wonderful purpose; but it appears that we are forgetting the fact that we're broke. As I understand this bill, this will be a 10 percent increase per year for 5 years for this education program."

The House passed the bill by a vote of 244-170. 236 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted "yea." 161 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing funding for two programs intended to educate the public about water resources issues.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 141
Mar 19, 2010
(H.R. 3644) Legislation authorizing funding for two programs intended to educate the public about water resources issues -- On a "motion to recommit with instructions" -- or an amendment to freeze federal spending on programs funded by the bill at 2010 levels

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered to a bill authorizing funding for an environmental literacy grant program (which would educate the American public about water resources issues) and additional funding for an environmental education program "promoting stewardship" of coastal and marine resources for students in Kindergarten through 12th grade.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. 

This amendment, offered by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), would have frozen federal spending on programs funded by the bill at 2010 levels. The amendment would also have prohibited any entity currently suing the federal government from receiving funding under the bill.

Chaffetz argued his amendment was fiscally responsible: "We're $12 trillion in debt. We're spending more than $600 million a day just in interest on our debt. At some point, some way, we're going to have to curb spending in this body. This bill authorizes a 10 percent increase every year for the 5 years covered in this bill. This is just too much?.This motion to recommit simply will freeze funding at the current year appropriated levels?"

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) urged opposition to the amendment, and argued a 10% annual increase in funding was appropriate: "The modest increases in this bill were negotiated with my colleague, Mr. [Rep. Bill] Cassidy [R-LA], in the Natural Resources Committee, in a very bipartisan discussion with negotiations that we made between the two sides, and I urge Members to oppose this motion and support the underlying bill."

The House rejected the motion to recommit with instructions by a vote of 200-215. All 169 Republicans present and 31 Democrats voted "yea."  215 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House rejected an amendment to the water resources education bill freezing federal spending on programs funded by the measure at 2010 levels.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 140
Mar 19, 2010
(H.R. 3644) Legislation authorizing funding for two programs intended to educate the public about water resources issues -- On an amendment to increase the amount of money authorized to be spent on both programs by 10% each year

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered to a bill authorizing funding for an environmental literacy grant program (which would educate the American public about water resources issues) and additional funding for an environmental education program "promoting stewardship" of coastal and marine resources for students in Kindergarten through 12th grade. The bill authorized as much money "as is necessary" to be spent on both programs.

The amendment, offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), would authorize $13.2 million for the environmental literacy program in 2011, and increase that funding level by roughly 10% per year -- providing 19.3 million by 2015. The amendment would provide the same annual 10% increase in funding for the coastal and marine resources program, providing $10.7 million in 2011, and $15.6 million by 2015.

Capps urged support for her amendment: "?My amendment will authorize a gradual increase in authorized appropriations for fiscal years 2011 through 2015. This modest annual increase of 10 percent will allow for the responsible expansion of both programs to incorporate new regions that are not currently served?"

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) argued the amendment would prove too costly: "Is there no recognition that this country is over $12 trillion in debt? We are paying over $600 million a day in interest on the debt, and yet we continue to fund these programs at record levels, and giving them amazingly high increases without recognition of the fact that this body has got to make difficult decisions."

The House agreed to the Capps amendment by a vote of 233-178. 229 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted "yea." 167 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House agreed to an amendment to the water resources education bill increasing by 10% annually the amount of money authorized to be spent on programs funded by the legislation.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 137
Mar 19, 2010
(H.R. 3671) Legislation authorizing $6.25 million to be spent annually on a program to monitor the Mississippi River Basin -- Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote to suspend the rules and pass a bill authorizing $6.25 million to be spent annually on a program to monitor nutrients and sediment in the Mississippi River Basin. The program would keep a record of the loss of nutrients and sediment in the Basin over time. It would also identify "major sources of sediment and nutrients within the Basin" -- which could then reduce sediment and nutrient loss.

The majority party in the House schedules bills for floor debate under this procedure known as "suspension of the rules" if the leadership deems them to be non-controversial. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) argued the bill would help to maintain the health of the Mississippi Rive Basin: "What we're trying to do is put the science in place in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The greatest threat that this great national treasure that we have running through the middle of America, comprising roughly 50 percent of the landmass of our Nation, is the amount of nutrients and sediments that flow into the river basin doing incalculable ecological damage. We've heard of the stories of the dead zone being created in the Gulf of Mexico. Well, 40 percent of the nutrients that are flowing south through the river and ending up deposited in the Gulf, contributing to the dead zone, emanates in the Upper Mississippi River Basin."

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said: "Based on the history of this legislative proposal, we're not opposing the measure; however, Members should note that today's bill has been changed from prior versions. The 10-year sunset has been removed." The "sunset" refers to the date at which the program would expire without a new bill authorizing additional money to be spent on that program.

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill by a vote of 289-121. 240 Democrats and 49 Republicans voted "yea." 117 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed a bill authorizing $6.25 million to be spent annually on a program to monitor nutrients and sediment in the Mississippi River Basin.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 136
Mar 19, 2010
(H.R. 3644, H.R. 1612) A bill authorizing funding for two programs intended to educate the public about water resources issues, as well as a separate bill requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs (The PLSC provides for youth volunteer opportunities in national parks) -- On the resolution setting time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to both bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two different bills. The first bill, H.R. 3644, would authorize funding for an environmental literacy grant program (which would educate the American public about water resources issues) and additional funding for an environmental education program "promoting stewardship" of coastal and marine resources for students in Kindergarten through 12th grade. Priority for funding in these programs would be given to given to the Great Lakes states, U.S. territories, Alaska, and mid-Atlantic states. The measure authorized as much money "as is necessary" to be spent on these programs.

The second bill, H.R. 1612, would require the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs. The PLSC provides youth with volunteer opportunities relating to repair and restoration projects in national parks. H.R. 1612 would also officially change the name of the  Corps from the "Public Lands Corps (PLC)" to the "Public Lands Service Corps (PLSC)." That bill would also remove annual $12 million limit on funding for the PLSC.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) argued the bills would improve the public's scientific understanding of a number of environmental issues: "Our society is faced with a fundamental lack of scientific understanding, where special interests on all sides frequently undermine the vast scientific consensus on key issues simply by flashy public relations campaigns. We need to make sure that our country is the world leader in innovation and science in order to ensure that our country can overcome new challenges and protect its public health and natural wonders."

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) did not address the bills for which the resolution set the terms for debate, but rather criticized the process by which the Democratic leadership had planned to debate and vote on health care legislation. Under this process -- which the Democrats later chose not to use --  the House would vote on a resolution setting the terms for floor debate on a bill making changes to the Senate-passed health care measure. When the House passed that resolution, the Senate health care bill would have been "deemed passed" by the House. The House would then have voted on the bill making the changes to the Senate health care reform legislation. Republicans sharply criticized this procedure as undemocratic, although both parties have used the tactic to pass major legislation.  Diaz-Balart said: "On Sunday, it is expected that the majority will deem the [Senate health care] bill passed, and in a few days it would be law, the signature issue of this President and this congressional majority. You would think, Madam Speaker, that they would proudly embrace their signature accomplishment. You would think that they would welcome debate on it. But they do not, because they know that the Senate bill is fatally flawed. The American people deserve a full and complete debate in the House on the Senate health care bill, but they won't get it."

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to these different bills by a vote of 236-171. 235 Democrats and 1 Republican voted "yea." 165 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to floor debate on a bill authorizing funding for two National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs intended to improve water resources education, as well as a bill requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 132
Mar 18, 2010
(H. Res. 1194) A resolution "disapproving" of the manner in which Democratic leaders planned to bring up and vote on health care reform legislation -- On a motion to table (kill) the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on tabling (killing) a resolution offered by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) "disapproving" of the manner in which Democratic leaders planned to bring up and vote on health care reform legislation. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) made a motion to table the resolution.

Republicans had repeatedly criticized the process by which the Democratic leadership chose to debate and vote on health care reform legislation. Under this process, the House would have voted on a resolution setting the terms for floor debate on a bill making changes to the Senate-passed health care measure. When the House passed that resolution, the Senate health care bill would have been "deemed passed" by the House. The House would have then voted on the bill making the changes to the Senate health care reform legislation.

The resolution that Hoyer moved to table referenced a story in McClatchy Newspapers reporting that "Representative John Larson, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, stated, 'Many of our members would prefer not to have voted for the Senate bill.'" The resolution then states that the House "disapproves of the malfeasant manner in which the Democratic Leadership has thereby discharged the duties of their offices."

There was no debate on the resolution, but Republicans had charged that the  procedure chosen by Democratic leaders was undemocratic, although both parties have used the tactic to pass major legislation.

The House voted to table the resolution relating to health care reform legislation by a vote of 232-181. 232 Democrats voted "yea," All 171 Republicans present and 10 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House tabled (killed) a resolution requiring the House to take a separate vote on the Senate-passed health care reform bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Won
Roll Call 130
Mar 18, 2010
(H. Res. 1190) On a resolution allowing the House to bring up legislation under a procedure that limits debate time and prohibits amendments -- and thus giving the Democratic leadership additional time to finalize plans to bring up major health care legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution allowing the House to bring up and vote on legislation under a procedure known as a "motion to suspend the rules."

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. House rules, however, only allow the chamber to use this procedure to consider to legislation on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays. In order bring up bills under suspension of the rules on any other day, the House must first pass a resolution allowing it to do so. The Democratic majority had tentatively scheduled a vote of major health care legislation on Sunday. This resolution enabled the House to carry out legislative business until that vote occurred.

Republicans did not address the resolution directly, but rather used the opportunity to criticize the proposed health care overhaul. They also criticized the process by which the House would debate and vote on the health care reform bill. Under this process, the House would vote on a resolution setting the terms for floor debate on a bill making changes to the Senate-passed health care measure. When the House passed that resolution, the Senate health care bill would be "deemed passed" by the House. The House would then vote on the bill making the changes to the Senate health care reform legislation. Republicans sharply criticized this procedure as undemocratic, although both parties have used the tactic to pass major legislation.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) bristled at Republican criticisms and urged adoption of the resolution: "Give me a break. That somehow Republican ideas have helped anybody in this country dealing with the high cost of insurance, it's ridiculous?.I mean, this is crazy. The fact is that people are struggling to pay for their health insurance. And people who pay for it ought to be able to get the insurance that they think they're going to get. We have a situation now where it's not just we have to worry about the uninsured; we have to worry about people with insurance who all of a sudden find themselves sick or a loved one sick and find for crazy reasons that they are somehow going to be denied coverage."

Rep. Paul Broun(R-GA) assailed Democratic efforts to pass their health care reform bill: "I want to ask three questions of my Democratic colleagues: Are you so arrogant that you know what's best for the American people? Are you so ignorant to be oblivious to the wishes of the American people? Three-fourths of America does not want this bill. Are you so incompetent that you ignore the Constitution; that you have to use tricks and deception to ram down the throats of the American people something that they absolutely do not want?"

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 232-187. 231 Democrats and 1 Republican voted "yea." 171 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House was able to bring up legislation on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday under a procedure that limits debate time and prohibits amendments.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Won
Roll Call 129
Mar 18, 2010
(H. Res. 1190) On bringing to a final vote a resolution allowing the House to bring up legislation under a procedure that limits debate time and prohibits amendments -- and thus giving the Democratic leadership additional time to finalize plans to bring up major health care legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution allowing the House to bring up and vote on legislation under a procedure known as a "motion to suspend the rules."

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. 

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. House rules, however, only allow the chamber to use this procedure to consider to legislation on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays. In order bring up bills under suspension of the rules on any other day, the House must first pass a resolution allowing it to do so. The Democratic majority had tentatively scheduled a vote of major health care legislation on Sunday. This resolution enabled the House to carry out legislative business until that vote occurred.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) argued the resolution would allow the House to move forward with noncontroversial legislation until the vote on health care legislation could take place: "I want to remind my colleagues that any legislation passed under suspension of the rules still must receive at least a two-thirds vote. This rule will help us move important bipartisan legislation before we recess for the upcoming district work period [Easter recess]?.We expect a number of important bills to be considered. Additionally, we expect the Rules Committee to meet again to make several other rules in order. Before I reserve my time, let me just state the obvious. We are waiting for the health care bill to ripen and be ready for floor consideration. While we wait, there is business that this House must attend to, and this rule helps us do that."

Republicans did not address the resolution directly, but rather used the opportunity to criticize the proposed health care overhaul. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said: "This insurance should be a state issue; it should not be a Federal issue. Maybe changes need to be made in the State of North Carolina, but that is up to the State of North Carolina. This is a federal government takeover, which is inappropriate."

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged the House to defeat the previous question motion so that the House could consider a GOP proposal addressing the procedure in which the House debated and voted on the health care reform bill. Under the process to which Dreier referred, the House would vote on a resolution setting the terms for floor debate on a bill making changes to the Senate-passed health care measure. When the House passed that resolution, the Senate health care bill would be "deemed passed" by the House. The House would then vote on the bill making the changes to the Senate health care reform legislation. Republicans sharply criticized this procedure as undemocratic, although both parties have used the tactic to pass major bills.

Dreier said: "When we defeat the previous question--I hope, Madam Speaker, we will be able to do that--we will take the initiative that has been launched by our newest Republican colleague, Parker Griffith [R-AL], who has come forward and offered a proposal to say that if we're going to debate this health care bill, we should have an up-or-down vote and we should have extended debate, because the process that's being contemplated right now, Madam Speaker, would not allow one single minute of debate on the floor of the people's House to debate the health care bill."

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 222-203. 222 Democrats voted "yea." All 175 Republicans present and 28 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceed to a final vote on a resolution allowing the House to bring up legislation on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday under a procedure that limits debate time and prohibits amendments.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Won
Roll Call 122
Mar 17, 2010
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 109
Mar 12, 2010
(H.R. 3650) On passage of a bill to establish a program to address harmful algal bloom and hypoxia (decayed algal blooms that deplete oxygen in the water, and can be deadly to freshwater and marine mammals)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of a bill to establish a program to control and prevent harmful algal bloom and hypoxia. Death and decay of algal blooms deplete oxygen in the water. This process has proven to be deadly for freshwater and marine mammals, and hazardous to human health. The bill would authorize $41 to be spent annually on the program for the next four years.

The House had considered the bill earlier under a procedure known a "motion to suspend the rules." That procedure requires a two-thirds majority vote in favor of the bill for passage. While 263 members had previously voted in favor of the bill, the measure failed to receive the required two-thirds majority. Therefore, the bill failed. Thus, Democrats scheduled the measure for consideration again -- this time under procedural rules that require only a simple majority vote for passage.

Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) argued the bill would save lives, noting that harmful algal blooms  can be lethal to humans: "Indeed, it does kill some of our citizens every year. It kills countless numbers of fish life, it destroys tourism, and it costs hundreds of millions of dollars. That seems to me a pretty good reason to take something up?.The bill represents a focused effort to address the specific issues of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia."

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) also praised the bill: "This is just the kind of action we need to take more often. We need to provide our federal science agencies the tools they need to gather the scientific data necessary to help us develop an effective solution to this problem."

Very few members spoke in opposition to the bill, although Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) argued the measure could prove to be fiscally irresponsible: "While supportive of the goals of the measure, I and several of my Republican colleagues, and there is a difference among us on this side, have some concerns about the authorization levels in this bill as well as the potential for unfunded mandates on states and localities. This bill authorizes funding that is almost three times the amount that had been appropriated in recent years and is 50 percent higher than the last reauthorization in 2004. In authorizing legislation, we must be mindful of fiscal constraints both at the federal and the state level."

The House passed the harmful algal blooms bill by a vote of 251-103. (76 members did not vote.) 213 Democrats and 38 Republicans voted "yea." 98 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation to establish a program to address harmful algal bloom and hypoxia.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 98
Mar 10, 2010
(H. Res. 248) Legislation directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan -- On the resolution outlining the terms for debate on the measure

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution outlining the terms for debate on a measure directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

Specifically, the president would be required to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan within 30 days of the measure's enactment. If the President determines that U.S. forces could not be safely withdrawn by that date, he would be required to remove them by December 31, 2010, or an "earlier date that the President determines that they can be safely removed."

U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan began following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Obama administration had previously indicated a drawdown of troops could begin by July 2011. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, however, has said that a withdrawal of U.S. forces could begin sooner, depending on conditions on the ground.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) argued that the House must act to preserve its constitutional role with respect to military action: "Mr. Speaker, in 2001 I joined the House in voting for the Authorization for Use of Military Force. In the past 8 1/2 years, it has become clear that the Authorization for Use of Military Force is being interpreted as carte blanche for circumventing Congress' role as a coequal branch of government."

Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-NY) warned that the U.S. forces could not succeed in bringing an end to a civil war in Afghanistan: "I am not convinced that the United States and its allies can end the 35-year civil war in Afghanistan, nor is that our responsibility. We should not use our troops to prop up a corrupt government. It is simply not justifiable to sacrifice more lives and more money on this war. We must rethink our policy. If we do not, we are doomed to failure and further loss of American lives."

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) contended that a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan would be interpreted by America's enemies as a sign of weakness: "Our retreat would be seen around the world by friends and opponents alike as a surrender, as a sign that America no longer has the will to defend herself. We might attempt to fool ourselves into believing that it was merely a temporary setback, that we have suffered no long-term blow, but no one else would be fooled. It would be proof to every group that wishes to attack and destroy us that we can be fought and we can be beaten, that eventually America will just give up, regardless of the consequences."

Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) argued a withdrawal of U.S. forces would be irresponsible: "?The notion that at this particular moment we would demand a complete withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year, without regard to the consequence of our withdrawal, without regard to the situation on the ground, including efforts to promote economic development, expand the rule of law, and without any measurement of whether the ``hold'' strategy now being implemented is indeed working, I don't think is the responsible thing to do."

The House rejected the measure calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan by a vote of 65-356. 60 Democrats -- including a majority of the most progressive members -- and 5 Republicans voted "yea." 189 Democrats and 167 Republicans voted "nay." As a result, the House rejected legislation directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 95
Mar 10, 2010
(H. Res. 248) Legislation directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan -- On the resolution outlining the terms for debate on the measure

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution outlining the terms for debate on a measure directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

Specifically, the president would be required to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan within 30 days of the measure's enactment. If the President determines that U.S. forces could not be safely withdrawn by that date, he would be required to remove them by December 31, 2010, or an "earlier date that the President determines that they can be safely removed."

U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan began following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Obama administration had previously indicated a drawdown of troops could begin by July 2011. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, however, has said that a withdrawal of U.S. forces could begin sooner, depending on conditions on the ground.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) praised the measure, arguing a debate on U.S. policy in Afghanistan was long overdue: "Last summer, I had the privilege of traveling to Afghanistan and meeting with our brave troops?.They deserve to know that we are thinking about them and do not take their lives or their fate for granted. It has been far too long since Congress had a full and open debate on the issue of U.S. policy in Afghanistan?.Over 1,000 U.S. servicemen and women have sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan. Over 670 more lives have been lost by our NATO military allies. Thousands more have been wounded, many severely, in ways that will affect the rest of their lives. Suicide and post-traumatic stress among our troops and veterans continue to increase at alarming rates?.We have sacrificed too much--in the lives and well-being of our soldiers, in the cost to our economy--to wait another year or 2 or 3 for Congress to do its job. We must continue to ask the hard questions and demand straight answers."

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) argued that a withdrawal of U.S troops from Afghanistan would lead to chaos: "Although they have far to go, Afghanistan has made demonstrable progress. But if this resolution were to become U.S. policy, all the improvements made by the Afghan people would disappear. Afghans would no longer be given the chance to vote in elections. The Taliban would rule by the edict of terror. It would mean the return of a nightmarish tyranny to Afghanistan. Women would see the rights they have gained disappear as the Taliban once again made women noncitizens and banned young girls, who for the first time are learning to read, from schools. Mr. Speaker, I believe that now is not the time to turn our backs on the Afghan people. It is not the time to counter the mission of our troops, especially when they are engaged in the first major offensive of President Obama's reaffirmed counterinsurgency strategy. Let us send a message to the terrorists that the United States is committed to our mission to prevent the return to power of the Taliban."

The House agreed to the resolution outlining the terms for debate by a vote of 225-195. 220 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted "yea." 167 Republicans and 28 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to floor debate on a measure directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Won
Roll Call 92
Mar 09, 2010
(H.R. 3650) On passage of a bill to establish a program to address harmful algal bloom and hypoxia (decayed algal blooms that deplete oxygen in the water, and can be deadly to freshwater and marine mammals) -- Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of a bill to establish a program to control and prevent harmful algal bloom and hypoxia. Death and decay of algal blooms deplete oxygen in the water. This process has proven to be deadly for freshwater and marine mammals, and hazardous to human health. The bill would authorize $41 million per year to be spent on the program for the next four years.

Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) argued that the bill "represents a timely and necessary step to address a large and growing problem?[that] affects virtually every coastal waterway in America as well as freshwater ecosystems. Let me share with you an example of how serious this problem is. In a small lake in my own district recently, a person was out with their dog, playing fetch in the water. They threw their favorite tennis ball in the water. The dog jumped into the water, retrieved the tennis ball, swam back up on the shore, and promptly died?.I mentioned already the tragic loss of this animal, but on a human scale, red tides pose a serious neurotoxin that can actually affect your ability to remember things over the long run. So we have a serious problem. It is growing in the case of harmful algal blooms."

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) contended the bill would preserve jobs in her district, where tourism is a thriving industry: "This is a jobs bill because, let me tell you, coming from the great State of Florida, the Sunshine State, we depend on folks from all across the country coming to vacation in Florida, to swim and to fish?.But there is a real threat to our tourism economy and jobs in the State of Florida, like there is in other parts of the country, and it's these very harmful algal blooms that cause red tide. In a State that employs over 1 million Floridians and where tourism has a $65 billion impact on our State's economy, when the red tide rolls in, it's a serious threat, because what the red tide does is it causes you difficulty breathing. It burns your eyes. Dead fish will roll up on the beaches. It's really bad news."

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) expressed concerns that the bill was too costly: "Given this era of fiscal constraint, we must be mindful of how we spend taxpayers' dollars. This bill authorizes funding that is almost three times the amount that has been appropriated in recent years. The authorization levels are 50 percent higher than the last reauthorization in 2004. The federal government did not spend more than $15 million per year when the authorization level was at $26 million per year, so it's hard for me to support raising the level to $41 million per year in 2011?.While I support the overarching goals of research into these issues and the development of technologies and procedures to lessen their harmful consequences, I remain concerned that this bill is too expensive and does not protect against unfunded mandates."

The motion to suspend the rules failed, even though a majority voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 263-142. While a majority of members voted in favor of passing the bill, a motion to suspend the rules requires a two-thirds majority vote. 231 Democrats and 32 Republicans voted "yea." 135 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted "nay." Since two-thirds of the members present and voting did not support the motion to suspend the rules, the measure failed. This does not, however, prevent the Democratic leadership from bringing the bill up under a rule requiring only a simple majority vote for passage at a later date.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 90
Mar 04, 2010
(H.R. 2847) Passage of legislation intended to aid job creation through tax credits and highway construction funding

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of a bill intended to aid job creation through tax credits and highway construction funding.

The job creation bill contained $20 billion for highway construction and mass transit funding. In addition, it would provide payroll tax breaks to businesses that hire unemployed workers. Specifically, businesses that hire such workers would be exempt from payroll taxes through December 31, 2010, and would receive a $1,000 tax credit if the newly hired workers stay on for at least one year.

The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 70-28 on February 24. The House, however, amended the bill to offset its cost by raising additional tax revenue.. As amended by the House, the bill would crack down on people who try to hide offshore earnings from the Internal Revenue Service to avoid paying taxes. Before the president can sign the measure into law, the Senate would need to pass the amended version of the bill.

Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) contended the bill would create 1 million new jobs: "The HIRE Act builds on legislation that the Senate passed last week, including direct hiring tax incentives for business, support for Recovery Act bond incentives that put local dollars to work creating jobs all across this country, and transportation funding that improves our communities, builds infrastructure, and supports local businesses. All told, more than 1 million jobs will be created by this legislation. This bill really is help for small businesses on Main Street and millions of Americans who are ready to see the benefits of a growing economy. Across this great country, our economy is showing signs of recovery. But consumers need more confidence, and employers need incentives to hire workers. Today, we give business direct incentives to hire new workers. I am pleased that the HIRE Act accomplishes this in a responsible manner. Not only does it fully pay for all of the important investments in job creation, but it actually contributes to reduce our deficit by nearly $1 billion. Let me repeat that again, reduce the deficit by $1 billion. The bill is a good step to rebuild our job market, but we still have a ways to go. I expect that this will just be a downpayment on our continuing work to create jobs and restore our economy."

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) urged the entire House to rally around a bill he characterized as imperfect, but critical to reviving the economy: "Madam Speaker, the theme of this bill is very clear: Back to work. I would think that would unite us and not divide us. Recently, we have seen economic growth. What we have not seen enough of at all is growth in jobs, and that's what this is really all about. There is no easy or perfect way to bring this about. It takes a number of steps. The tax credit in this bill is one approach. We are going to need additional steps. Another way that it relates to economic growth and jobs is through infrastructure. We can argue about how many jobs and about what the estimates are as to how many millions will be created, but it's clear. The Secretary of Transportation has said that he can verify $60 billion to $70 billion in infrastructure--roads, bridges--ready to go this spring and this summer. We should be united in providing the authorization for this to happen. It should not divide us."

Rep. Kevin Nunes contended the bill would fail to create jobs but succeed in expanding the federal bureaucracy: "Put simply, you cannot create jobs by dumping a trillion dollars into Federal agencies. The administration claims that $1.5 billion in stimulus moneys saved or created 1,664 jobs in California's San Joaquin Valley where I live. Even if one charitably assumes the accuracy of these numbers, the Federal Government has spent a whopping $900,000 to save or create one job in the San Joaquin Valley. Despite spending $900,000 per job, there are still communities in the valley that suffer from 20 to 40 percent unemployment. In fact, in the wake of the stimulus, we saw 3 million additional Americans lose their jobs rather than the 3.7 million jobs that are now being promised by the Obama administration. Sadly, a record 16 million Americans are now unemployed because the stimulus promises were empty and unaffordable. Is it any wonder why the American people continue to ask, Where are the jobs? It appears that the stimulus was not very stimulating outside of Washington. So here we are back again with yet another multibillion-dollar plan slapped together by the Democrats that will probably, once again, fail. Madam Speaker, the Soviet Union experience, sadly, taught us that just because you're going to grow 1 billion bushels of potatoes does not mean that there will be potatoes on the shelves. Similarly, just because the Democrats have chosen to message this as a ``jobs'' bill does not mean that it will actually create a job."

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) contended the bill would fail to create jobs and urged the House to long-term tax cuts instead: "Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition of this so-called jobs bill. The incentives in this bill are a rehashing of the failed policies of the Carter Administration's stimulus in 1977, and I do not believe these measures will truly create jobs?.Last year, stimulus legislation was passed in this House, promising that a trillion dollars robbed from future generations of Americans would create jobs immediately and unemployment would not rise above 8 percent. The truth, however, is that since this boondoggle became law, unemployment hasn't fallen below 8 percent; it has risen to over 10 percent, and still hovers at just under 10 percent?.While it is noble for Washington to suspend payroll taxes for employers that hire new workers, enact a $1,000 tax credit for retaining employees, and increase the expensing of new equipment purchased by small businesses, I fear that these measures are merely a superficial solution. Employers will not be able to take advantage of these incentives if they do not have work to offer. It is common sense that employers hire workers because they have work that needs to be done, not because they will get a tax credit. The fact remains that businesses in this country are scared. They are scared by the uncertainty that Congress is projecting. The threat of increased taxes, increased government regulation, and costly government mandates are creating an environment that does not bode well for job seekers. We must focus on increasing businesses' confidence that their government will not further hamper their abilities to create work. At the end of the day, this legislation is a drop in the bucket, it is not the solution. Only after long-term tax relief can we realize long-term economic recovery."

Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI) ? expressing the sentiment of a number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus ? criticized the bill as insufficient, and urged the House to reject it: ?The best stimulus package is a job. H.R. 2847, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, is not that bill. This legislation?is not the answer. How Congress can walk away with more than 680,000 people unemployed in Michigan, and more than 15 million people unemployed in our nation, is shameful.?

The House passed the measure by a vote of 217-201. 211 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted "yea." 166 Republicans and 35 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation intended to aid job creation through tax credits for new employees and highway construction funding, setting up a final vote in the Senate to clear the measure for the president's signature.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 88
Mar 04, 2010
(H.R. 2847) Legislation intended to aid job creation through tax credits and highway construction funding -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution outlining the terms for debate on a bill intended to aid job creation through tax credits and highway construction funding.

The job creation bill contained $20 billion for highway construction and mass transit funding. In addition, it would provide payroll tax breaks to businesses that hire unemployed workers. Specifically, businesses that hire such workers would be exempt from payroll taxes through December 31, 2010, and would receive a $1,000 tax credit if the newly hired workers stay on for at least one year.

The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 70-28 on February 24. The House, however, amended the bill to offset its cost by raising additional tax revenue. As amended by the House, the bill would crack down on people who try to hide offshore earnings from the Internal Revenue Service to avoid paying taxes.. Before the president can sign the measure into law, the Senate would need to pass the amended version of the bill.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) argued the legislation would be critical to reviving the American economy: "It's kind of ironic that our friend from California got up and talked about why we don't do what Ronald Reagan and President Kennedy would have done. We've done that. We've cut taxes. We cut taxes several times before that. In fact, his facts are completely wrong when he says that American taxes on companies that create jobs are the second-highest in the world except for Japan. That is the effective tax rate. That's what's on the books. That's not what they pay. When we get through all of the gimmicks, and loopholes, and exemptions, those tax rates for American businesses are actually the second-lowest in the world. Effective tax rates and what people actually pay, that's not the problem. The problem is we need to get the economy unfrozen. We need to have people stop playing political games. We need to invest in infrastructure to rebuild and to renew America, and we need to do so in a way that doesn't have us talking past one another and playing games with jobs across America that are at risk if we don't pass this bill."

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) criticized the Democratic leadership for barring amendments to the bill, and argued the legislation would do little to create jobs: "This is another gag rule. It is a closed rule, and we are going to talk about, not only the bad underlying bill, but the bad rule. This isn't a jobs bill. I have great admiration for the gentlewoman from California, the manager on the majority side of this rule, but my admiration has grown today because she has been able during this debate to call this a ``jobs bill'' with a straight face. She has not giggled once. But she should have. This isn't a jobs bill. This is a no jobs bill. This is a faux jobs bill. This is a snow jobs bill. Mr. Doggett, with whom I rarely agree, I think was right on the money. The centerpiece of this bill is $13 billion for a tax credit--$13 billion out of $15 billion. The way this things works is, if you're a small business person in this country, struggling, and if you hire somebody at $30,000 a year, do you know what? You don't have to pay the payroll taxes, 6.2 percent payroll taxes, which is about $1,500. I had three chambers back in Ohio--chambers of commerce, small business people, Republicans, Democrats, Independents. I said, You know what? Here's the deal. How many of you are going to hire anybody? Nobody. Nobody raised their hands. This is not going to create one job, and it's the centerpiece of the bill."

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 212-209. 212 Democrats voted "yea." All 171 Republicans present and 38 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceed to floor debate on legislation intended to aid job creation through tax credits for new employees and highway construction funding.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 87
Mar 04, 2010
(H.R. 2847) Legislation intended to aid job creation through tax credits and highway construction funding -- On bringing to a final vote a resolution outlining the terms for debate on the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to a bill intended to aid job creation through tax credits and highway construction funding.

This particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

The job creation bill contained $20 billion for highway construction and mass transit funding. In addition, it would provide payroll tax breaks to businesses that hire unemployed workers. Specifically, businesses that hire such workers would be exempt from payroll taxes through December 31, 2010, and would receive a $1,000 tax credit if the newly hired workers stay on for at least one year.

The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 70-28 on February 24. The House, however, amended the bill to offset its cost. As amended by the House, the bill would crack down on people who try to hide offshore earnings from the Internal Revenue Service. Before the president can sign the measure into law, the Senate would need to pass the amended version of the bill.

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA) argued the bill, while imperfect, was an important step and would build on the success of legislation already enacted: "While the jobs package we are considering today is not as broad as the version passed by this House, it is an important step in the right direction and one we cannot afford not to enact. Today's bill is one that I hope will be the first of a series of job creation proposals that we will consider in the coming weeks and months because the reality is that the unemployment rate in this country is at an unacceptable level of 9.7 percent, and this bill will help incentivize employers to start hiring immediately. ?.The proposal before us today offers a key strategic tax incentive for employers to hire new workers. The proposal would exempt employers from paying Social Security taxes through the end of this year for hiring new workers who have been out of work for at least 60 days. If the newly hired workers remain on the payroll for at least a year, the bill provides an additional $1,000 income tax credit to employers. This new hiring tax credit could spur as many as 250,000 jobs, according to leading economists. To help small businesses, the proposal offers an immediate writeoff, up to $250,000 for equipment purchased this year. To invest in additional transportation infrastructure, the proposal extends the Highway Trust Fund, otherwise known as SAFETEA-LU, for 15 months to pay for transportation projects ready to break ground. Using the rule of thumb in highway contracting where every $1 billion in transportation spending creates about 35,000 jobs, this $77 billion investment means that more than 2 million jobs will be retained or created?."

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) argued the measure would prove ineffective: " ?What we need to do is increase the demand for our product. Those are the kinds of things that we should be doing. So, Madam Speaker, again I say, as I regularly do from this well, when it comes to job creation and economic growth, what we should be doing is pursuing the bipartisan John F. Kennedy/Ronald Reagan vision: marginal rate reduction and a reduction of the top rate on capital gains. Job creators deserve the kind of relief that is necessary since Japan is the only nation in the world with a higher tax on those job creators than ours. We know what it takes; we know what it takes. It worked under a Democratic administration, and it's worked under a Republican administration. So let's defeat this rule and go back and come up with a bill that will, in fact, create exactly what I said at the outset: good, long-term private sector jobs."

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 236-184. 236 Democrats voted "yea." All 171 Republicans present and 13 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to vote on a resolution outlining the terms for debate on a bill intended to aid job creation through tax credits for new employees and highway construction funding.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 82
Mar 03, 2010
(H.R. 4247) Passage of legislation prohibiting abusive restraint and seclusion as a means of disciplining students

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation to prohibit abusive restraint and seclusion as a means of disciplining students.

The bill would bar schools from using mechanical restraints, including duct-taping any parts of their bodies, and strapping them to chairs. Schools would also be prohibited from using "chemical restraints" on children -- such as medications intended to control behavior. (Such medications could only be administered in a manner consistent with a doctor's prescription.) The legislation prohibits schools from restricting students' breathing, or denying them food, water, clothing, or access to toilets in order to control their behavior.

Under the bill, students could be restrained or secluded only if there is an "imminent danger" of injury. If such disciplinary methods were used, the schools would be required to notify the parents of disciplined students following the incident.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the chairman of the committee that drafted the legislation, argued that a federal law was essential to guarantee children's safety in school: "Hundreds of students across the U.S. have been victims of this abuse. These victims include students with disabilities and students without disabilities. Many of these victims were children as young as 3 and 4 years of age. In some cases, children died. Restraint and seclusion are complicated practices. They are emergency interventions that should be used only as a last resort and only by trained professionals. But GAO found that too often these techniques are being used in schools under the guise of discipline or convenience. Last year, in my home State of California, there were more than 14,300 cases of seclusion, restraint, and other ``emergency interventions.'' We don't know how many of these cases were actual emergencies. We have Federal laws in place to prevent these types of abuses from happening in hospitals and other community-based facilities that receive Federal funding, but currently there are no Federal laws on the books to protect children from these abuses in the schools, where they spend most of their time. Without a Federal standard, State policies and oversight, they vary widely, leaving children vulnerable. Of the 31 States that have established some law or regulation, many are not comprehensive in approach and several only address restraint or address seclusion, not necessarily both."

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) contended the bill would provide much needed protection for students with "unique behavioral issues," such as autism: "This legislation is an important step toward ending inhumane treatment of children with autism and other disabilities who, like all students, should be able to trust their educators and feel completely safe in their school environments. There are, of course, rare and extreme emergencies where it may be necessary to physically intervene. But we affirm today, Mr. Speaker, that any behavioral intervention must be consistent with a child's right to be treated with dignity and to be free from abuse. With the help of this bill, teachers and school personnel will be trained regularly, and parents will be kept informed on the policies which keep our schools orderly and safe and on the alternatives available to traditional forms of restraint and seclusion. I'm grateful to my friends in the autism advocacy community, including Autism Speaks and the Greenwich-based Friends of Autistic People, for their tireless work on this issue. Children with autism deserve the same rights available to all children, a free and appropriate education, safety and dignity."

Rep. John Kline (R-MN) argued the problem of abuse or injury in schools is a matter best left to the states, and contended the bill would lead to an explosion in litigation : " The question today is: Who is best equipped to create and enforce those policies? To answer that question, I would point to a letter from the Council of the Great City Schools, which States, ``Every injury to a student in school is a matter of serious concern, but all such incidents are not necessarily matters of Federal law.'' In fact, until recently, the U.S. Department of Education was not even collecting data on the use of seclusion and restraint tactics in schools. The Department has no experience or expertise regulating in this area. Yet, H.R. 4247 would establish a new, one-size-fits-all Federal framework that overrules the work of these states?.Another likely consequence of H.R. 4247 is increased litigation. The bill's vague and overly broad language is an invitation to trial lawyers who will eagerly take every opportunity to sue school districts who grapple with confusing and stringent new requirements. H.R. 4247 creates a climate of legal dispute by expanding the role of the protection and advocacy system of State-based trial lawyers, a clear recognition that seclusion and restraint are to become litigation magnets. In fact, there's a very real danger that schools will stop addressing safety issues entirely out of fear they could be sued. Instead, schools may resort to law enforcement to manage physically disruptive or threatening students. This will mean fewer students in the classroom and more students in police handcuffs."

Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) argued that Democrats were using isolated incidents and insufficient data to justify a new federal law: "This is one of these bills you kind of go, Well, how could you possibly favor tying kids up and putting tape across them or letting people abuse them? That isn't what this is really about. I am going to make four basic points, which I know we have been making all afternoon, but there is no harm with repetition because they are important. One, there is no reliable data on how much use there is of these techniques. We've heard all sorts of individual horror stories that my sociology prof used to call ``my Aunt Annie stories.'' We have some real cases of abuse that need to be addressed. We have others of a wide variety. I, for example, would abhor most of them. I don't find being made to stand in a corner quite the same as some others might, but I think there is a wide range. We need to know how many of these are serious, how many of these justify intervention, and how many of them are things where there is a difference of opinion?.We are saying that basically state legislators believe that their kids should be tied up, mouths taped, they should be abused, and they're too ignorant to fix this. Since when do we get to always determine the speed and kind of satisfactory level of intervention that a state does, particularly since we don't have the data to prove our case?"

The House passed the bill by a vote of 262-153. 238 Democrats and 24 Republicans voted "yea." 145 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation to prohibit abusive restraint and seclusion as a means of disciplining students.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 78
Mar 03, 2010
(H.R. 4247) Legislation prohibiting abusive restraint and seclusion as a means of disciplining students -- On the resolution setting the terms for debate on the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution setting the terms for debate on a bill to prohibit abusive restraint and seclusion as a means of disciplining students.

The bill would bar schools from using mechanical restraints, including duct-taping parts any parts of their bodies, and strapping them to chairs. Schools would also be prohibited from using "chemical restraints" on children -- such as medications intended to control behavior. (Such medications could only be administered in a manner consistent with a doctor's prescription.) The legislation prohibits schools from restricting students' breathing, or denying them food, water, clothing, or access to toilets in order to control their behavior.

Under the bill, students could be restrained or secluded only if there is an "imminent danger" of injury. If such disciplinary methods were used, the schools would be required to notify the parents of disciplined students following the incident.

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) urged adoption of the rule and argued the bill: "?responds to a shocking and urgent need to protect our children in their schools. Last year, the Committee on Education and Labor held a hearing where they were told horrifying accounts of young, innocent children who were subjected to abusive uses of restraint and seclusion in their classrooms, and they were told of some who died as a result of this abuse. These were, unfortunately, not isolated incidents. The committee also heard from the Government Accountability Office's managing director of Forensic Audits and Special Investigations, who testified that the GAO found ``hundreds of cases of alleged abuse and death related to the use of these methods on schoolchildren.'' In Texas and in California alone, the GAO found there were over 33,000 reported incidents of restraint or seclusion during the school year of 2007-2008. I shudder at the thought that, while innocent children are supposed to be learning about reading, writing and arithmetic, they may be subjected to unspeakable abuse while they are at the hands of their trusted educators. It is abuse which will affect their lives forever. Our Nation's youth already have to overcome many obstacles in their lives, and they should not be subjected to such scars which may never ever heal."

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued that while Republicans were concerned by cases of abuse in schools, the legislation amounted to an infringement on states' rights: "Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they assembled the U.S. Constitution and the protections it guarantees, specifically in the Tenth Amendment? Nowhere in the Constitution does it empower the Federal Government to override States' rights. When it comes to the education of our Nation's children, we can all agree again that students should be able to learn in a safe, productive, and positive environment?.What the bill before us fails to recognize is that 31 States currently have laws and regulations in place which govern the use of seclusion and restraints in schools. An additional 11 States have policies and guidelines in place. In some cases, school districts may also have their own guidelines governing the use of such practices in the classroom."

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 228-184. 228 Democrats voted "yea." All 170 Republicans present and 14 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to floor debate on a bill to prohibit abusive restraint and seclusion as a means of disciplining students.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 73
Feb 26, 2010
(H.R. 2701) Passage of legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies.

The intelligence budget -- which is classified -- includes funding for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The bill also creates a new position of Inspector General to exercise independent oversight over the intelligence community.

The Obama administration had threatened to veto the bill over a provision requiring intelligence agencies to brief all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees on highly sensitive matters. Such briefings have historically been restricted to the so-called "Gang go Eight," which includes: the chairmen of the intelligence committees; the ranking members from the minority party on those committees; the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader; and the House and Senate minority leaders. The Obama administration contended the House bill would "impede the smooth and efficient functioning of the intelligence community?."

The bill would require a 15-year criminal sentence for intelligence officials who engage in certain interrogation techniques regarded by critics as torture. Such techniques include: "forcing the individual to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner," "beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of inflicting physical pain," waterboarding, depriving the individual of "necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care," and simulating "mock executions of the individual."

The measure would also impose new record keeping requirements for intelligence briefings provided to Congress. Such briefings have historically been restricted to the so-called "Gang go Eight," which includes: the chairmen of the intelligence committees; the ranking members from the minority party on those committees; the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader; and the House and Senate minority leaders. The bill would require the president to maintain a record of all Gang of Eight briefings.

If the president determines that a briefing must be restricted to the Gang of Eight, the amendment provides that her or she must certify that extraordinary circumstances required such a briefing.

Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), the chairman of the committee that drafted the legislation, argued the bill would provide for overdue reforms in the way in which members of Congress receive intelligence briefings: "In addition to providing authorization for intelligence activities, this bill takes the initial important steps to improve congressional oversight of that intelligence community?.When this bill was marked up in committee, we made significant changes to the so-called ``Gang of Eight'' procedures. As Members know, the President has had the statutory authority to limit briefings to the Gang of Eight when they involve sensitive covert actions. It was the sense of the committee that the Gang of Eight statutory authority had been overused, and that, on matters of critical importance, the committee as a whole should have been informed. For that reason, that earlier version of the bill removed the statutory authority for limiting briefings to the Gang of Eight. Last July, the administration issued a statement of policy on H.R. 2701 that included a veto threat with respect to the provisions that would modify the Gang of Eight notification procedures. I believe that some level of concern at that point was justified, and I have been working with the administration over the past several months to resolve those differences. Since July, there have already been noticeable improvements in the way the administration and the intelligence community are communicating and briefing Congress. Accordingly, the manager's amendment I will offer includes a revised provision on Gang of Eight reform. I know that many Members have strong feelings about this issue on both sides of the aisle. The provision that is in the manager's amendment is intended to be a strong and significant step towards better oversight which still respects the constitutional authorities of the President. It recognizes that both elected branches have a role in national security."

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, also praised the bill: "From my perspective as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, it's a good bill, one that will support the intelligence needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Every day, American men and women who are deployed into harm's way depend on the intelligence capabilities authorized by this bill to achieve their missions. I cannot state strongly enough about how those in uniform who are in harm's way depend upon the intelligence that they receive. This legislation ensures continued delivery of quality intelligence products and capabilities through our warfighters. It will lead to important improvement in the future. As I've said before, the relationship between the intelligence community and the Department of Defense is fundamental to the success on the battlefield. This bill strengthens the relationship by expanding the intelligence community's technical and human collection capabilities?.This measure will improve oversight of the intelligence community by creating a statutory and independent intelligence community-wide inspector general?.I congratulate Chairman Reyes on bringing this bill to the floor and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very, very important measure."

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) criticized the Democratic majority for failing to consider the bill earlier in the year, and contended it did not sufficiently address various national security concerns held by Republicans: "Madam Chairman, annual Intelligence authorization bills should be bipartisan legislation designed to address critical national security issues and deal in a deliberate and considered way with legislation affecting the intelligence community, the personnel within the intelligence community. Unfortunately, this bill does neither. I'm forced to rise in strong opposition. When this bill was first reported almost 8 months ago, the bill failed to address critical national security issues such as Guantanamo detainees, attempts by this administration to convert intelligence and counterterrorism into matters of criminal law and meaningful reforms to the congressional notification process. In the nearly 8 months since this bill was reported out of committee, our country has suffered two major terrorist attacks and a significant number of near misses. During that time, the majority took no time and no action to bring this bill to the floor. In 8 months nothing was done to fix the flaws in our intelligence community that were apparent to every American in the wake of the first attack at Fort Hood and, later, the Christmas bombing attack on an American airliner?.In 8 months, nothing was done to provide a long-term renewal of our critical intelligence authorities under the USA PATRIOT Act?.In 8 months, nothing has been done to clarify how covert actions should be conducted or authorized when they could have deadly effects on American citizens. Nothing has been done.'

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) argued the bill would make a "fundamental shift, from proactive intelligence overseas to find them where they train, to where they finance, to where they recruit, to a law enforcement effort to bring them back to the United States. We're bringing foreign-trained terrorists to the United States and putting them in mainstream courtrooms. We're prosecuting CIA officers for following legal advice from the Department of Justice in interrogation. So we're treating CIA officers like criminals, and we're treating foreign-trained terrorists like Americans with all of the benefits and the privileges therein. You almost couldn't make this up. You couldn't come to this conclusion. And with it, we've got consequences. When you look at the series of events from the Fort Hood shootings to the Christmas Day bomber and the mistakes that were made and the lost opportunity for disruption, we all ought to sit down and work this out and get us back to where we're putting the interests of Americans first versus the interests of the rights of terrorism before the safety and security of the United States."

The House passed the intelligence authorization bill by a vote of 235-168. 234 Democrats and 1 Republican voted "yea." 159 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation to authorize funding for U.S. intelligence agencies, impose new record keeping requirements for intelligence briefings provided to Congress, and require a 15-year criminal sentence for intelligence officials who engage in interrogation techniques regarded by critics as torture.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD People in Jails and Prisons
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
Y Y Won
Roll Call 72
Feb 26, 2010
(H.R. 2701) Legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies -- On a motion to recommit with instructions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) requiring the Inspector General (IG) of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) compile any objections raised by a Member of Congress to a covert operations after September 11, 2001. (IGs are generally responsible for conducting internal investigations within departments and agencies.) The IG would then assess whether the CIA addressed those objections. In addition, he or she would be required to make publicly available an unclassified version of "all memoranda for the record memorializing briefings made to members of Congress on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques."

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

Hoekstra argued his amendment protect the intelligence community from unwarranted prosecutionand hold members of Congress accountable with respect to their knowledge of intelligence operations: "The motion to recommit would stop the criminalization of our national security policy and ensure that Members of Congress would be as accountable for their conduct as the majority wants to hold the men and women of the CIA. The motion would ask the CIA Inspector General to conduct an independent review of whether any Member of Congress objected to the use of the techniques to review what steps were taken and to require the release of all of the briefing memos. If the majority was not briefed or raised concerns, it should have nothing to fear from an independent and objective review by the facts of the Inspector General. And, secondly, the motion would also clarify once and for all that the Director of National Intelligence should be in charge of coordinating interrogation of terrorists and should ensure we have collected all actionable intelligence before reading terrorists their Miranda rights."

Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) argued the amendment would jeopardize anti-terrorism operations: "Mr. Speaker, to me, it seems that the minority would have us fight terrorism with one hand tied behind our back. This motion to recommit would require that before a Miranda warning can be issued, an investigator or a beat cop would have to get permission from a gaggle of Cabinet-level officials in Washington. This is simply absurd. The minority would put FBI agents who arrest potential terrorists in a bitter catch-22. The courts require that Miranda warnings be given in certain circumstances. The minority would have an FBI agent ignore those rules and shut down the possibility of ever building a criminal case, or the agent can stop an interrogation while someone tries to get signatures from half of Washington. The provision doesn't even include authority for these officials to delegate the required certification. This means that if one official happens to be traveling, it's just going to take that much longer for that beat cop or that FBI agent to start gathering evidence. Let's get the facts straight about Miranda. Federal agents are not required to Mirandize terrorism suspects when there is an imminent risk to public safety. They are free to interrogate suspects on concerns about any immediate or ongoing threat to our country. Federal agents questioned the Christmas Day bomber without the Miranda warnings under this very public safety exemption. Federal agents also don't need to give Miranda warnings when an interview is voluntary. The FBI routinely secures intelligence from suspected terrorists without Miranda in this manner."

The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 186-217. ." All 158 Republicans present and voting and 28 Democrats voted "yea." 217 Democrats voted "nay As a result, the House did not agree to an amendment requiring the Inspector General (IG) of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) compile any objections raised by a Member of Congress to a covert operations after September 11, 2001."


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD People in Jails and Prisons
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
N N Won
Roll Call 69
Feb 26, 2010
(H.R. 2701) Legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies -- On an amendment to make a number of technical and substantive changes to the bill, including requiring a 15-year prison sentence for intelligence officials engaging in certain interrogation techniques, and imposing new record-keeping requirements for intelligence briefings provided to Congress

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment to legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. The intelligence budget -- which is classified -- includes funding for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The bill also creates a new position of Inspector General to exercise independent oversight over the intelligence community. 

The amendment, offered by Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), the chairman of the committee that drafted the legislation, would make a number of technical and substantive changes to the bill. It would require a 15-year criminal sentence for intelligence officials who engage in certain interrogation techniques regarded by critics as torture. Such techniques include: "forcing the individual to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner," "beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of inflicting physical pain," waterboarding, depriving the individual of "necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care," and simulating "mock executions of the individual."

In addition, the amendment would impose new record keeping requirements for intelligence briefings provided to Congress. Such briefings have historically been restricted to the so-called "Gang go Eight," which includes: the chairmen of the intelligence committees; the ranking members from the minority party on those committees; the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader; and the House and Senate minority leaders. The amendment would require the president to maintain a record of all Gang of Eight briefings.

If the president determines that a briefing must be restricted to the Gang of Eight, the amendment provides that her or she must certify that extraordinary circumstances required such a briefing.

Reyes urged the House to agree to the amendment: "This reform is a substantial improvement over the language we included in previous authorization bills and which some of my colleagues still support. This earlier language would have actually expanded the President's authority to conduct restricted briefings, going so far as to include all intelligence activities, not just covert actions. It would also result in more restricted briefings and not fewer."

Reyes also argued his amendment would simply reassert existing law with respect to torture: "The manager's amendment includes language?that reiterates existing law on torture and provides statutory criminal penalties for individuals who knowingly commit an act of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. Torture is a reprehensible and counterproductive practice....Executive Order 13491 prohibits interrogators from engaging in any of the activities highlighted in the manager's amendment language. This Executive Order limits interrogations to the interrogation techniques that are authorized by the Army Field Manual. It also spells out the terms of Common Article 3 and relevant provisions of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as the minimum standard for the United States to follow. ?.It provides a specific criminal penalty for those who knowingly cause the death of a detainee. It is already a crime for an interrogator to knowingly murder a detainee. This provision merely adds a concrete statutory penalty to that conduct. This language does not, does not, give terrorists greater rights than ordinary criminals."

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) argued the amendment would impose unreasonable requirements on the intelligence community, and expose intelligence officials to prosecution for using necessary interrogation techniques: " We are talking about enhanced interrogation techniques. The record indicates that even people as high as the Speaker of this House knew about it. Yet this House is supporting those efforts to perhaps go back and prosecute this. Now we open up a whole new set of legal risk for our people in the intelligence community. I wish this thing just said, ``Follow the rules,'' but it doesn't. It's 11 pages of legalese, creating all types of new and ambiguous rules for our people in the intelligence community?.The amendment would make it a crime for depriving the individual of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care. How does the bill define ``necessary''? How will we explain that to the people in the intelligence community? The amendment would make it a crime to require someone to participate in acts intended to violate the individual's religious beliefs. Is there any objective standard to define that term or is it a subjective standard? Is there any requirement of reasonableness? The amendment would make it a crime to exploit phobias of the individual. Phobias? Could you explain why this would be a criminal offense for a member of the intelligence community but not a criminal offense for a prosecutor who threatens a detainee with increased jail time if he does not cooperate?"

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) argued the amendment would harm national security: "?Just to further again tell you how dangerous the amendment is on making it a criminal act for CIA officers to try to conduct interrogations, again I just want to read--this goes after specifically any intelligence officer or employee of the intelligence community. So saying we're just restating law simply isn't true. And then it goes on to say ?interrogation knowingly commits, attempts to commit, or conspires to commit an act of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.?....And, again, al Qaeda, Madam Chair, uses the technique, and we know this through a whole series of sources, to allege abuse. They use it in their media campaign, and they know it makes us chase our tail for weeks on end. This only enhances, this only strengthens their cause and al Qaeda's operational tactic to slow us down in the obtaining of that information. I can't tell you how serious this amendment is with no debate and no discussion. It's dangerous."

The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 246-166. 245 Democrats and 1 Republican voted "yea." 162 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House agreed to an amendment to make a number of technical and substantive changes to the bill, including imposing new record-keeping requirements for intelligence briefings provided to Congress.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD People in Jails and Prisons
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
Y Y Won
Roll Call 67
Feb 25, 2010
(H.R. 3961) Final passage of legislation to extend several expiring provisions of the anti-terrorism law known as the USA PATRIOT Act

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on legislation to extend for one year several expiring provisions of the anti-terrorism law known as the USA PATRIOT Act.

Specifically, the House voted on Senate amendments to H.R. 3961. The Senate had inserted the extensions of anti-terrorism provisions into an unrelated bill (H.R. 3961). If the House were to agree to those amendments, the legislation would be cleared for the president's signature.

The legislation would extend a provision allowing the federal government to seek court orders for records relating to to a terrorism investigation, as well as a provision providing for wiretaps on terrorism suspects. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, urged support for the legislation and reminded members that it could still be revisited at a later date: "Please understand, Members, that this extension is not the final word on the PATRIOT Act, and what we will do is use the time between now and the year that will elapse to improve and pass real reform. Now, while I would prefer to do this now, it is not to me strategically wise nor logistically possible to accomplish this at this time. And with the provisions expiring in a matter of 3 days, the other body has sent us this extension bill, so there is no reasonable possibility that they could pass a broader measure such as a Judiciary-passed bill at this time."

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) urged passage of the bill: "The Senate amendments to H.R. 3961 extend for 1 year several expiring provisions essential to our fight against terrorism?.The Senate amendments we are considering today will extend for 1 year a provision first enacted in 2004 that allows the government to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, the FISA court, for surveillance orders involving suspected lone wolf targets. These are suspects who are engaging in or preparing for international terrorism activities, but don't necessarily have ties to a larger organization, such as a terrorist group or a foreign nation. The provision does not apply to any U.S. citizen or illegal immigrant. These three programs are vital tools our Nation cannot let expire."

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) praised the legislation, arguing it was vital to national security: "The safety of this Nation, protecting America from terrorists, is of high and vital concern not only to this Member, but I think every single Member, as we have been reminded time after time that we cannot take our eye off the ball, that the security of this country is a job that must be done all day, every day, by a group of savvy professionals that I believe we presently have in this country. It is a combined effort of not only law enforcement and intelligence, but also it involves bright minds from this body also."

A number of Democrats opposed the bill on the grounds that the legislation needed to be amended to protect Americans' civil liberties. Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-NY) said, during debate on the bill: "I regret that we are not going to continue this process of improving the PATRIOT Act. I regret we do not have before us a very short-term extension designed to give us more time to finish this work in the balance of this Congress. But we are punting to the next Congress, which for all practical purposes means that we are extending the PATRIOT Act unchanged for the indefinite future. I believe that our Nation and our liberties will suffer as a result of this. I hope that this vote today, contrary to what I expect, will not stop my colleagues from continuing to improve our intelligence-gathering laws, and specifically continuing to examine and improve the PATRIOT Act in a timely manner."

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) concurred: "Mr. Speaker, in 2001, I voted against the USA PATRIOT Act because it granted law enforcement powers too broad, too removed from oversight, and at the expense of Americans' civil rights. I am disappointed that H.R. 3961 simply extends three of these provisions without any additional protections or oversight. [These provisions include a secret FISA court that grants warrants for wiretaps without requiring the government to identify the target of those wiretaps; a provision authorizing the FISA court to grant warrants allowing the government to obtain business records, which include medical records; and the so-called ?lone wolf? provision, which authorizes the FISA court to issue warrants allowing the government to monitor an individual even if that individual is not known to be an ?agent of a foreign power.?] This a missed opportunity to rebalance the need to pursue violent extremists with the need to respect our own citizens. Continuing to allow the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' relevant to a terrorism investigation, including library records, is a disturbingly low bar. We can do better.  Committees in the House and Senate have offered drafts to improve the PATRIOT Act, and I strongly suggest that we move forward immediately to amend this law."

The House agreed to the Senate amendments by a vote of 315-97. 162 Democrats and 153 Republicans voted "yea." 87 Democrats -- including a majority of the most progressive members -- and 10 Republicans voted "nay." As a result, the House passes legislation to extend for one year several expiring provisions of the anti-terrorism law known as the USA PATRIOT Act -- and thus cleared the measure for President Obama's signature.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Government Surveillance of Citizens
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 66
Feb 25, 2010
(H.R. 2701) Legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies -- On the resolution outlining the terms for debate on the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution outlining the terms for debate on legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. The intelligence budget -- which is classified -- includes funding for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The bill also creates a new position of Inspector General to exercise independent oversight over the intelligence community.

The Obama administration had threatened to veto the bill over a provision requiring intelligence agencies to brief all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees on highly sensitive matters. Such briefings have historically been restricted to the so-called "Gang go Eight," which includes: the chairmen of the intelligence committees; the ranking members from the minority party on those committees; the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader; and the House and Senate minority leaders. The Obama administration contended the House bill would "impede the smooth and efficient functioning of the intelligence community?."

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) argued the bill would institute some long-overdue reforms: "As we have seen, the intelligence community is in dire need of independent oversight. Sadly, when we created the Director of National Intelligence, we did not create an independent Inspector General. This bill would remedy that flaw by making clear that the Inspector General does not serve at the whim of the Director of National Intelligence and also has an independent responsibility to keep Congress informed. Some of my colleagues on the other aisle have argued against the creation of a new Inspector General. I would respectfully disagree with their assessment. It is clear that this provision will help to streamline and coordinate oversight. This bill also contains a provision in the manager's amendment providing sensible reforms to the Gang of Eight process. As vice chairman of the committee, I have seen that process abused in the past, and I am glad that we are taking a careful step towards reform. I believe that the administration has a statutory and constitutional duty to keep members of the Intelligence Committee, all members of the Intelligence Committee, fully informed on certain intelligence matters. Therefore, by reforming this process, the bill enhances transparency and bolsters Congress' capacity to conduct important oversight."

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) criticized the rule as overly restrictive, and contended the bill was outdated. He also raised the prospect of a presidential veto: ?Now is the time to take, Mr. Speaker, these new insights and reform our intelligence agencies and policies to better protect our homeland and the American people, and that has to remain the top priority. That is where all of the attention should be focused. And yet, inexplicably, we are considering a bill today that is nearly 8 months old. This legislation was reported out of committee in June of last year. It was written before any of these recent attacks and attempted attacks took place, before any of these new revelations of flaws in our system and before any analysis was conducted on how to fix them. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Democratic majority's decision to bring up this hopelessly outdated bill is made all the more inexplicable by the fact that it was known to be a seriously flawed bill even back in June when it was being finalized. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration released a scathing criticism of this legislation and even issued a veto threat."

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 237-176. 237 Democrats voted "yea." All 166 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to floor debate on legislation authorizing funding for U.S. intelligence agencies.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 63
Feb 24, 2010
(H.R. 4626) Legislation to repeal the health insurance industry's exemption from antitrust regulations -- On a motion to recommit with instructions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment to legislation repealing the health insurance industry's exemption from antitrust regulations.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

The amendment, offered by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) would allow for an antitrust exemption for exchanging and pooling of certain insurance information. Republicans contended this was necessary to ensure that smaller insurers can compete in the health insurance market. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) said the amendment "simply allows historical data to be utilized by insurance companies large and small. This is something that is requested by the small insurance companies, this is something supported by the American Bar Association. Their representative who testified before our subcommittee on behalf of or in support of the underlying legislation supported this amendment so that in fact small insurers would not be disadvantaged."

Democrats contended the amendment amounted to a loophole in antitrust regulation. Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) argued: "   I know this business. I was the Insurance Commissioner in California for 8 years. And I know that if an insurance company is able to collude in collecting, compiling, classifying, or disseminating historic data and determining a loss development factor, and finally, using actuarial services, they have the power to collude. This is an incredible loophole. It should never be allowed. And the final point having to do with the insurance commissioners collecting data, nowhere in any antitrust laws are States precluded from any collection of data.."

The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 170-249. 165 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted "yea." 246 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted "nay." As a result, the House rejected an amendment allowing for an antitrust exemption for exchanging and pooling of certain insurance information, and proceeded to a vote on final passage of legislation to repeal the health insurance industry's exemption from antitrust regulations.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Won
Roll Call 60
Feb 24, 2010
(H.R. 4626) Legislation to repeal the health insurance industry's exemption from antitrust regulations -- On the resolution outlining the terms for debate on the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution outlining the terms for floor debate on a bill repealing the health insurance industry's exemption from antitrust regulations. A law enacted in 1945 law shielded the industry from such regulations, and left the state to police anti-competitive behavior.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) argued the bill would repeal an indefensible antitrust exemption: "Even though the broader effort to pass the final health care bill is underway, we have an opportunity today to make a simple, straightforward statement about how we think health insurance should operate in this country. By repealing this unjustifiable exemption, we will enable--this is very important. People do not understand that during the last 60 years the Justice Department has not been able to enforce anything against them because they were exempt. This will enable the Justice Department to begin aggressively enforcing the laws that protect the consumers against the cartel of health insurance who wield such outsized influence in the health care industry."

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) argued the insurance industry should be held to the same standard as any other industry: "Mr. Speaker, during this health care debate over the last 6 months, we have heard we should listen to our constituents. And you know, I did. I did 14 town halls in August, and they were attended by over 8,000 people. And there was one item of agreement between the extremes in the debate, between the folks representing the tea party and those representing single payer, and that was consensus that this industry, the health insurance industry, should not enjoy a special exemption under the law. They should not be able to collude to drive up prices, limit competition, price gouge consumers. They should play by the same rules as every other industry in America. And this archaic exemption from antitrust law passed in the 1940s should go to the dustbin of history. There was consensus on that. Now come the Republicans, oh, wait a minute, we are not protecting the industry, we don't want to allow them to still have antitrust exemption, it is about the little guys. It is always about the little guys, isn't it? So let's give the little guys a loophole. And oops, wait a minute, the big guys can use the same loophole."

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) questioned the Democrats' timing in bringing the bill to the floor: "It is hard to understand what is the sudden rush. Yesterday, the gentlewoman from New York said we have waited 60 years to get this bill; today, she says this is long overdue. But she doesn't point out that in all that period of time, the Democrats have been in charge of Congress except for 2 years in the fifties during the Eisenhower administration and the years 1995 to 2006. So why didn't they get it passed when they were in control before? Why have they been waiting 60 years to get it done?"

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) criticized the Democratic majority for prohibiting amendments to the bill: "Last year, we set a record. For the first time in the 220-, almost 221-year history of the Republic, we went through a year without a single rule that allowed for an open debate. In fact, since my California colleague, Ms. Pelosi, has been Speaker of the House, we've gone through now a 3-year period. In that 3-year period of time, save the appropriations process, we have had a grand total of one bill considered under an open rule.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 238-181. 238 Democrats voted "yea." 171 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to floor debate on legislation repealing the health insurance industry's exemption from antitrust regulations.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 59
Feb 23, 2010
Passage of legislation to establish a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation establishing a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government. Native Hawaiians are descendants of indigenous Polynesian people who first settled the Hawaiian Islands. They are currently classified as a racial group in the eyes of the federal government rather than an entity entitled to sovereignty within the United States, such as Indian tribes (Native Americans).

Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) urged passage of the bill and criticized state government officials for failing to support it. She contended the bill "reflects a compromise between the Hawaii delegation--who I might add are also duly elected by the people of Hawaii--the State of Hawaii, the Obama administration, Indian Country, and the Native Hawaiian community. Much has been made of remarks and statements by Hawaii's Governor and Attorney General on the substitute amendment. Let me say that the Hawaii delegation took their concerns, which were first raised in December, very seriously and many of their recommendations are reflected in the Abercrombie substitute before you today. Under this bill, the Native Hawaiian governing entity will have the same inherent powers--no more, no less--as other native governments possess, namely, American Indians and Alaska Natives. Hawaiians historically have been the object of unjust and unfair treatment at the hands of our government. Why should we perpetuate such treatment??It is disappointing that when we are on the cusp of reaching a historic milestone in the history of our State and our country, our Governor and Attorney General have withdrawn their support of this bill. But Congress can and should do the right thing by passing this bill. In spite of all of the race-based, technical, and other rhetoric you will hear against this measure, it is high time that Native Hawaiians through this bill can once again embark on a journey of historic proportions."

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) argued that to pass the bill over the objections of Hawaii's governor amounted to an attack on state sovereignty: "Governor Lingle, as I mentioned, last night formally announced her opposition to this substitute. In referring to the changes made by the substitute, the Governor said, ``I do not believe such a structure, of two completely different sets of rules--one for `governmental' activities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and its officers and employees, and one for everyone else--makes sense for Hawaii.'' Mr. Speaker, perhaps this impasse could have been avoided if the Governor and the Attorney General had been privy to those negotiations, at least to the details where they could or could not agree?.Mr. Speaker, then what will be the practical result of this substitute if it becomes law? Does it mean the native entity can construct a government building for its officers and employees in violation of State zoning laws? Does it permit the entity to discharge waste material in violation of State law? Will it prevent anyone from enforcing contracts made with the entity? Mr. Speaker, if this bill becomes law, those questions are left unanswered. And so perhaps we will learn the answers to these questions after it's too late."

The House passed the bill by a vote of 245-164. 239 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted "yea." 160 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation to establish a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
Y Y Won
Roll Call 58
Feb 23, 2010
(H.R. 2314) Legislation to establish a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government -- On a substitute that would make a number of changes clarifications to the bill, including a provision requiring that that a U.S. attorney assist the new Native Hawaiian government in confronting legal challenges

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a substitute offered by Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) to legislation to establish a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government. . Native Hawaiians are descendants of indigenous Polynesian people who first settled the Hawaiian Islands. They are currently classified as a racial group in the eyes of the federal government rather than an entity entitled to sovereignty within the United States, such as Indian tribes (Native Americans).

The substitute, while generally similar to the underlying bill, would make a number of changes to the bill. The amendment provides that, until the legislation takes effect, the Native Hawaiian governing entity could not exercise jurisdiction over Native Hawaiians without their consent. In addition, the state of Hawaii would retain regulatory and taxation authority over Native Hawaiians and the Native Hawaiian governing entity until the legislation takes effect. The substitute also provides that a U.S. attorney would assist the new Native Hawaiian government in confronting legal challenges.

Abercrombie argued his substitute was in keeping with established federal law: "Mr. Speaker, in support of our substitute amendment, the amendment ensures that the Native Hawaiian governing entity will have the same governmental authorities and sovereign immunity of other native governments. The Abercrombie amendment, the substitute amendment, follows centuries of well-established Federal law. The amendment is supported by the National Congress of American Indians, the Alaska Federation of Natives and other tribal organizations. President Obama supports the substitute amendment, and I quote, ``as it adds important clarifications to craft a durable pathway forward.'' Mr. Speaker, the amendment in the nature of a substitute further clarifies that pending negotiations and subsequent implementation legislation with that, the following will occur: There will be no Indian Country within Hawaii. The United States will not take land into trust nor restrict alien ability of land owned by the Native Hawaiian governing entity. The governing entity may not exercise certain powers and authorities such as jurisdiction over non-Native Hawaiian individuals without their consent. And the State of Hawaii will retain regulatory and taxation authority over Native Hawaiians and the Native Hawaiian governing entity."

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) contended the substitute would preempt Hawaii state law: "?This substitute short circuits that public process. It immediately preempts the State of Hawaii's jurisdiction over civil, tax, and possibly criminal matters. All the Native Hawaiian entity would have to do is undertake any activity in the name of an official government action and immunity from the State authority applies. The substitute makes a number of major revisions, all written in secret, away from public view?. Mr. Speaker, I just want to emphasize this point. It is not reasonable to roll over the sovereign rights of a State. And it is especially not reasonable when the Governor of that State, in this case Governor Lingle--who has long been a proponent of the principles embodied in this issue--disagrees and cannot support the amendment in the nature of a substitute that we are discussing here tonight. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge and ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this substitute."

The House agreed to the substitute by a vote of 245-164. 239 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted "yea." 160 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House agreed to a substitute to make a number of changes and clarifications to the underlying bill, including a provision requiring that that a U.S. attorney assist the new Native Hawaiian government in confronting legal challenges.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
Y Y Won
Roll Call 57
Feb 23, 2010
(H.R. 2314) Legislation to establish a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government -- On an amendment stating that the bill would not exempta Native Hawaiian governing authority from complying with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to legislation establishing a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government. Native Hawaiians are descendants of indigenous Polynesian people who first settled the Hawaiian Islands. They are currently classified as a racial group in the eyes of the federal government rather than an entity entitled to sovereignty within the United States, such as Indian tribes (Native Americans).

The amendment stated that no provision in the bill would exempt ?a Native Hawaiian governing authority from complying with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution."

Native Hawaiians are currently classified as a racial group in the eyes of the federal government rather than an entity entitled to sovereignty within the United States.

Flake contended his amendment merely required the bill to comply with the constitution: "This amendment, I would hope, would not be controversial?.But it would simply ensure that the equal protection clause, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, applies to the Native Hawaiian governing authority established by this legislation?.I think that this amendment simply clarifies, I would hope, that this does not violate any portion of the Constitution. Now, it has been said here many times by the proponents of the legislation that it does not, but there are still a lot of questions out there?.The 14th Amendment states, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'?.So what we are saying here is, why not adopt language that says that it simply complies, or no language in this legislation shall be contrary to the 14th Amendment? "

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) argued the amendment was gratuitous: "?Mr. Flake wants to require any native governing entity to comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. If I had to summarize it in a sentence, that's the way I would put it. In the course of his remarks, he asked, Why not make sure? I think that's a perfectly reasonable request, but my contention would be, in asking that the amendment not be voted favorably upon, that precisely what he seeks to succeed in with his amendment is exactly what is in the bill, itself, which is in the amendment as a substitute. Mr. Flake's amendment then is duplicative of current Federal law."

The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 177-233. 159 Republicans and 18 Democrats voted "yea." 225 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted "nay." As a result, the House voted down an amendment stating that the bill would not exempta Native Hawaiian governing authorityfrom complying with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
N N Won
Roll Call 56
Feb 23, 2010
(H.R. 2314) Legislation to establish a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government -- On an amendment that would require Hawaii voters approve the agreement establishing a Native Hawaiian government before the federal government grants it official recognition

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) to the Native Hawiians bill. Native Hawaiians are descendants of indigenous Polynesian people who first settled the Hawaiian Islands. The substitute would require Hawaii voters to approve an agreement establishing a sovereign Native Hawaiian government before the federal government grants it official recognition.

Native Hawaiians are currently classified as a racial group in the eyes of the federal government rather than an entity entitled to sovereignty within the United States, such as Indian tribes (Native Americans).

Hastings contended his substitute was consistent with the wishes of Hawaiians: "In a Zogby poll from December 2009, a couple of months ago, only 34 percent of Hawaiians supported the concept of the Federal Government's imposing a new racially based subpopulation of citizens on the islands. Like their fellow Hawaiians who voted overwhelmingly for Statehood in 1959, Hawaiians today want a say in the future of their archipelago. The same poll found that 58 percent want a Statewide vote on this issue. So, Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment that will be offered which would require just such a Statewide vote, and I hope all Members will join me in adopting that amendment."

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) argued that Hawaii was ill-equipped to hold a state-wide referendum: "Mr. Speaker, the Hastings amendment would require a referendum by all the registered voters of Hawaii for approval of the Native Hawaiian governing entity's organic governing documents. The Hastings amendment is inconsistent with State law as the State of Hawaii has no mechanism for a statewide referendum, thereby forcing the State of Hawaii to change its laws to comply with the Hastings amendment. This raises the question of it being an unfunded mandate on the State. The Abercrombie substitute proposes to treat the Native Hawaiian governing entity the same as other native governments. Neither the States nor non-native citizens have the authority to approve the organic governing documents of other Native governments."

The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 163-241. 162 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted "yea." 236 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted "nay." As a result, the House did not agree to an amendment requiring Hawaii voters to approve an agreement establishing a sovereign Native Hawaiian government before the federal government grants it official recognition.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
N N Won
Roll Call 51
Feb 23, 2010
(H.R. 2314) Legislation to establish a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government -- On the resolution outlining the terms for debate on the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution outlining the terms for debate on a bill establishing a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government. Native Hawaiians are descendants of indigenous Polynesian people who first settled the Hawaiian Islands. The bill would essentially grant Native Hawaiians the same legal status as Indian tribes.

Native Hawaiians are currently classified as a racial group in the eyes of the federal government rather than an entity entitled to sovereignty within the United States, such as Indian tribes (Native Americans).

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) contended the legislation was consistent with U.S. policy with respect to indigenous peoples: "As we have seen in Colorado, with the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute and across the country, the U.S. has a longstanding policy of providing its indigenous people--those who exercised sovereignty until the United States expanded its borders into their homeland--with an opportunity to organize, to protect and to perpetuate their cultures and traditions and to look out for their interests. It is only right that all indigenous people should have a right to determine how they should interact with our government. This bill merely brings about parity in the U.S. treatment of its indigenous people--American Indians, Alaska natives and Native Hawaiians. H.R. 2314 would establish a Native Hawaiian interim governing council to develop elements of the organic governing documents and other criteria for the Native Hawaiian governing entity. These documents would detail the powers and authorities of the governing entity, but they would also include membership criteria as well as requirements for the election of government officials."

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart criticized the Democratic majority for considering Native Hawaiians legislation at a time when unemployment remains high: "Why do I mention the stimulus and the state of our economy? To point out that, while our economy continues to stumble and to stutter and as jobless claims rise, the majority has decided to pass legislation that would recognize Native Hawaiians as a sovereign governing entity. Now, just 2 months ago, the distinguished Speaker declared that her party should be judged on the issue of 'jobs, jobs, jobs.' How does the bill before us today have anything to do with job creation? I understand that this is the last week in Congress for my good friend, one of the most respected Members of this House, Representative Abercrombie. I know I join all Members of the House in thanking him for his great work as a Member of this House and also for his friendship. As I say, I have great respect for him?.Yet there is an undeniable issue here that I have made reference to that was pointed out in terms of its importance to the American people by a recent opinion research poll which found that 84 percent of Americans think that Congress has not done enough for the creation of jobs. I think what the majority is doing today will simply reinforce that belief by the American people."

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 238-165. 235 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted "yea." 162 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to floor debate on legislation to establish a process by which the federal government would recognize a sovereign Native Hawaiian government.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
Y Y Won
Roll Call 48
Feb 04, 2010
(H. J. Res. 45) On passage of a joint resolution that would enact statutory "pay-as-you-go" rules" requiring that all tax cuts and spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts, and, in effect, increase the debt limit by $1.9 trillion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a joint resolution that would enact statutory "pay-as-you-go" rules" requiring that all tax cuts and spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts, and, in effect, increase the debt limit by $1.9 trillion.

The resolution set up two votes on two distinct sections of the bill. The first section, dealing with the debt limit, would be automatically passed once the resolution was adopted. The second section, dealing with PAYGO, would be put to a separate vote. If the House voted down the PAYGO measure, the chamber would have taken no official action on the debt limit. This procedural strategy allowed members to vote against raising the debt limit, but in favor of the new PAYGO rules.

As part of the House 2010 budget resolution, the chamber voted to raise the debt limit on April 30, 2009. The Senate amended the debt limit measure (H. J. Res. 45), adding PAYGO language, and sent it back to the House on January 28. Thus, House passage of the measure would clear it for the president's signature.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) argued the PAYGO rules would be key to reducing the deficit, and eventually returning to a balanced budget: "Under President Clinton, PAYGO helped turn record deficits into a $5.6 trillion projected surplus. We also know that PAYGO was disregarded, waived and finally allowed to expire under the last administration. And as I have pointed out on this chart, our deficits exploded and, indeed, our economy was hurt as well as those deficits exploded. Some argue that the PAYGO legislation on the floor today is too weak. But I'd point out that it brings our country more fiscal discipline than it has seen in nearly a decade. The perfect ought not to be the enemy of the good. PAYGO can't get us out of our fiscal hole, but it can keep us from digging it deeper. When my Republican colleagues raise their concerns about our growing debt, I absolutely agree with them. They're right. All of us understand this debt is not sustainable. But it's not enough to complain about the debt; we have to do something about it. If my colleagues are sincere in their concerns, I hope they'll work with us to pass PAYGO and contribute to the bipartisan fiscal commission announced by President Obama?.America's dangerous fiscal condition threatens our prosperity and our place in the world. If my colleagues will forgive a Democrat for paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, there are no easy answers to this mess, but there is a simple answer. The answer lies in recommitting ourselves to the principle that has served our prosperity so well in the past, the principle of responsibility. Ronald Reagan was right. Let us pass this legislation."

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) argued the legislation would prove ineffective in addressing the nation's budget woes, and criticized the manner in which the Democratic leadership chose to handle the question of raising the debt limit: "If this so-called PAYGO legislation fails, there is no increase in the debt limit and you cannot separate the two concepts. If this legislation passes, the debt limit increases by an astounding $1.9 trillion, the largest one-time increase in the debt limit ever. Since the majority came into control of Congress 3 years ago, the debt limit has been increased by over $5.3 trillion, or by nearly 60 percent. Despite this massive heap of debt thrust on the American people, Democrats plan to pile on even more debt next year. According to the President's newest budget proposal, the amount of debt subject to the limit will increase by nearly $1.4 trillion from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2011. A number that large is hard to put into perspective, but let me offer a few points of reference. The President intends to increase the debt in just 1 year by an amount equal to the entire GDP of Canada. This 1-year increase in the debt is larger than the GDP of India, Mexico, Australia, or South Korea. It is larger than the GDP of Ireland, Poland, and Belgium combined. We've heard a lot of talk recently from the President about the need to get America's fiscal house in order. However, according to the President's own budget, Congress will have to raise the debt limit again before 2011 is over."

The House passed the joint resolution by a vote 233-187. 233 Democrats voted "yea." All 172 Republicans present and 15 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed a joint resolution that would enact statutory "pay-as-you-go" rules" requiring that all tax cuts and spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts, and, in effect, increase the debt limit by $1.9 trillion.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 46
Feb 04, 2010
(H. J. Res. 45) Legislation to enact statutory "pay-as-you-go" rules" requiring that all tax cuts and spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts -- On the resolution that would outlining the rules for floor debate, and raise the debt limit by $1.9 trillion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a measure to raise the debt limit by $1.9 trillion, and enact statutory "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO) rules -- which require that any tax cuts or spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts so as not to increase the federal budget defect.

The resolution set up two votes on two distinct sections of the bill. The first section, dealing with the debt limit, would be automatically passed once the resolution was adopted. The second section, dealing with PAYGO, would be put to a separate vote. If the House voted down the PAYGO measure, the chamber would have taken no official action on the debt limit. This procedural strategy allowed members to vote against raising the debt limit, but in favor of the new PAYGO rules.

As part of the House 2010 budget resolution, the chamber voted to raise the debt limit on April 30, 2009. The Senate amended the debt limit measure (H. J. Res. 45), adding PAYGO language, and sent it back to the House on January 28. Thus, House passage of the measure would clear it for the president's signature.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) argued that such PAYGO rules were vital to deficit reduction during President Clinton's two two terms in office: "I find it interesting that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, say that this is a sham. You know what? It was the law for a decade under the Clinton administration, and I guess it wasn't a sham because the first thing the Republicans did was to repeal PAYGO so that they could run up the massive deficits of the Bush years. We're asking to put this back in place because this is how we cleaned up the unsustainable deficits of the Reagan years. This is how we got, for the first time, a surplus for this country that evaporated in the Republican irresponsibility. PAYGO's not a sham. There's no more sacred cows?. Finally, under President Clinton we did it and the deficits came down, and we left you with an inheritance of $5 trillion that you squandered, you wasted. And now you want not to play by the rules. The rules are you should pay as you go."

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) denounced the PAYGO rules and criticized Democrats for presiding over an expansion of the national debt: "I rise today to express great concern on behalf of our children and our grandchildren who are going to bear the burden of this expansion of our national debt. Today we're going to vote on the sixth increase in the debt limit in the past 2 1/2 years. After today we will have added $4 trillion to the government credit limit. Who's going to pay this bill? Congress must address the root of this debt limit increase. It's the spending?.This whole PAYGO thing is a sham. We just had a gentleman in New York that was doing a kind of a sham transaction, and he's probably going to--in fact, he is in prison for a Ponzi scheme. That's what this whole situation is is a Ponzi scheme, because what we're doing is we're borrowing and spending and borrowing and spending; we're borrowing the money to make the interest payments on the debt that we already have. And what do the Democrats want to do? They want to borrow some more money."

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 217-212. 217 Democrats voted "yea." All 175 Republicans present and 37 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House voted to raise the national debt limit by $1.9 trillion and proceeded to the question of enacting statutory "pay-as-you-go" rules requiring that all tax cuts and spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 45
Feb 04, 2010
(H. J. Res. 45) Legislation to enact statutory "pay-as-you-go" rules" requiring that all tax cuts and spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts -- On bringing to a final vote the resolution to outline the rules for floor debate and raise the debt limit by $1.9 trillion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a measure to enact statutory "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO) rules -- which require that any tax cuts or spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts so as not to increase the federal budget defect.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.   

The resolution set up two votes on two distinct sections of the bill. The first section, dealing with the debt limit, would be automatically passed once the resolution was adopted. The second section, dealing with PAYGO, would be put to a separate vote. If the House voted down the PAYGO measure, the chamber would have taken no official action on the debt limit. This procedural strategy allowed members to vote against raising the debt limit, but in favor of the new PAYGO rules.

As part of the House 2010 budget resolution, the chamber voted to raise the debt limit on April 30, 2009. The Senate amended the debt limit measure (H. J. Res. 45), adding PAYGO language, and sent it back to the House on January 28. Thus, House passage of the measure would clear it for the president's signature.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) argued that while raising the debt limit may be unpopular, it was the only responsible course of action. In addition, he praised the new PAYGO rules, arguing they would put the country on a path to fiscal responsibility: " Madam Speaker, this vote is both historic and difficult. It is historic because it is reinstating the pay-as-you-go law, or PAYGO. This is one tool in the effort to reduce the deficit and return fiscal common sense back to our budget. And it is difficult because this resolution includes a $1.9 trillion increase in the debt limit....None of us are eager to increase the debt limit. But we have a responsibility to take action. The Treasury Department has informed Congress that the United States will reach the current statutory limit on the national debt on February 11. That is next Thursday. If the debt limit is not increased before that date, Treasury will not be able to meet the obligations of the U.S. Government."

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) denounced the measure, accusing Democrats of showing no commitment to fiscal discipline or an open legislative process:"I rise in opposition to this closed rule. The charade of Speaker Pelosi running ``the most open, honest, and ethical Congress'' is once again confirmed today that that's not happening. That is not happening here again on the floor, and it's related to this activity that we went through in the Rules Committee upstairs just yesterday.  At a time of record deficits and record unemployment, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are simply trying to blame Republicans and George Bush rather than looking at their own responsibility of what they have done in the last year that has placed enormous, enormous financial strain on this country?.I think it would have been appropriate this morning for the gentleman from Massachusetts or anybody from the Democratic Party to stand up and say, You know, we did guess. I know those Republicans told us this wouldn't work, but we really guessed and we guessed wrong. The Vice President has the guts to say that. I think this body should say the same thing, rather than trying to blame this on George Bush."

The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 233-195. 233 Democrats voted "yea." All 175 Republicans present and 20 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a measure to raise the debt limit by $1.9 trillion, and enact statutory "pay-as-you-go" rules requiring that all tax cuts and spending increases be offset with tax increases or budget cuts.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 30
Feb 03, 2010
(H.R. 4061) Legislation to reauthorize National Science Foundation programs designed to guard against unauthorized access to computers and networks/On a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on legislation to reauthorize National Science Foundation "cybersecurity" programs -- that is, programs designed to guard against unauthorized access to computers and networks. In addition, the bill would require the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish standards for managing personal information saved on computers.

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) urged a vote in favor of the resolution, and argued the bill would strengthen safeguards against threats to the security of the nation's computer systems: "Cyberthreats and attacks are real, and they threaten our financial and defense networks every day. Nearly every aspect of everyday life in our global society is dependent on the security of our cyber networks. We rely on these systems to carry virtually all our business transactions, control our electric grid, emergency communication systems, and traffic lights. The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act reauthorizes and expands the programs aimed at strengthening the Nation's cybersecurity, including a new scholarship program to train the thousands of cybersecurity professionals that are needed to defend our Nation?.H.R. 4061 requires NIST to undertake research and development programs to improve identity management systems, which include health information technology systems, in order to improve interoperability, authentication methods, privacy protection, and usability of these systems. These systems hold great potential for streamlining the delivery of services and care to individuals, but they must be secure in order to function properly and efficiently. This legislation will ensure that they are."

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) criticized the resolution for limiting the number of amendments Republicans could offer, and contended the bill was fiscally irresponsible: "While the bill before us today authorizes several important programs, it also authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary for activities to improve cybersecurity.'' When American families are facing tough economic challenges, Congress should be tightening its own belt and setting funding limits rather than authorizing blank checks on the backs of the American taxpayers. We can do better than this, and we owe it to the American people to do better than this. This bill also provides for annual increases in authorization levels. At a time of record budget deficits, it is crucial that we hold the line on spending. The Obama administration likes to talk about fiscal restraint, but we have yet to see those words put into action. In fact, talk of fiscal restraint is nothing but talk. This bill is a classic example of legislation that could be trimmed back by keeping the authorization levels static rather than increasing them each year. But the Democrats refuse to allow such restraint and instead continue to govern as though they are not aware of the fact that our Federal deficit is growing each day. Perhaps they are not aware. So many have been in Washington for so long that they are out of touch with average citizens and the common sense that our citizens represent."

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 237-176. 237 Democrats voted "yea." All 169 Republicans present and 7 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to floor debate on legislation to reauthorize National Science Foundation programs designed to guard against unauthorized access to computers and networks.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Cyber Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 29
Feb 03, 2010
(H.R. 4061) Legislation to reauthorize National Science Foundation programs designed to guard against unauthorized access to computers and networks/On bringing to a final vote a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on legislation to reauthorize National Science Foundation "cybersecurity" programs -- that is, programs designed to guard against unauthorized access to computers and networks.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.  

Democrats praised this legislation as taking unprecedented steps to improve cyersecurity. Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) said: "H.R. 4061 sets that course by authorizing funding for a Scholarship for Service program through the National Science Foundation that will provide scholarships for students pursuing cybersecurity fields. The scholarships would be provided for up to 1 to 2 years for students pursuing a bachelor's or master's degree and up to 3 years for students pursuing a doctoral degree in the cybersecurity field, provided that the recipient serves as a cybersecurity professional in government agencies for an equal amount of time. This investment in cybereducation is necessary to meet our enemies on the cyberfrontlines and repel their attacks. Through increased workforce development and continued strengthening of our public-private partnerships, we can and will ensure that the IT systems, on which so much of our way of life depends, are safe from cyberattack. The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act contains the strategic plan necessary to focus our resources to meet these challenges."

Rep. Virginia Foxx urged opposition to the resolution, and to the motion ordering the previous question, citing limitations on Republicans' ability to offer amendments:   "I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this structured rule that restricts my colleagues from offering amendments to the bill. We certainly are concerned about cybersecurity, but nothing is going to matter if we don't get our fiscal house in order. The Democrats are basically wasting the American people's time by bringing this bill, which they know has widespread support, to the floor today, as it could, instead, have been on the suspension calendar for this week, leaving us more time to debate legislation that would address the major problems facing the American people and my constituents in North Carolina, such as the status of our economy and what are we going to do about dealing with the national security issues that are facing us in this country. Instead of using the suspension calendar productively, Democrats have consistently used the majority of our time debating legislation that is not relevant to the challenges that American families are facing on a daily basis."

The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 238-175. 238 Democrats voted "yea." All 170 Republicans present and 5 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to vote on the resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a bill to reauthorize National Science Foundation programs designed to guard against unauthorized access to computers and networks.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Cyber Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 23
Jan 27, 2010
(H.R.3726) On passage of legislation to establish the Castle Nugent estate in the Virgin Islands as a "national historic site"  to be maintained by the National Park Service

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a bill to establish the Castle Nugent estate in St. Croix (in the Virgin Islands) as a "national historic site." Such sites are owned by the federal government and managed by the National Park Service. The bill was introduced by Del. Donna Christensen (D-VI). Castle Nugent is a historic plantation overseer?s estate that dates back to the 1700s. The site spans approximately 2,900 acres of land. 

The House had previously considered the bill under a procedure known as "suspension of the rules." Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. While a majority of members voted in favor of the bill, it did not receive the two-thirds majority required for passage. Thus, Democrats rescheduled the measure for floor debate under a closed rule prohibiting amendments.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), the chairman of the committee that drafter the legislation, argued in favor of the bill, and praised the family that had owned the land for generations: "The pending legislation establishes the Castle Nugent National Historic Site on the island of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Castle Nugent area possesses a wide range of historic resources, including the remnants of small Danish cotton, sugar, indigo, and cattle plantations. Pre-Columbian archaeological sites also exist on the property. The cattle ranch there is one of the oldest in the West Indies. The diverse and undisturbed natural resources of the site include the most substantial black mangrove stand left in the Virgin Islands, sea turtle nesting areas, large and healthy coral reefs, and a lagoon that is home to many different species of birds and wildlife?.The proposed park would include 2,900 acres of privately owned ranch lands as well as 8,600 acres of submerged lands owned by the Government of the Virgin Islands. The family which owns the majority of the site has fought off aggressive developers for years, seeking instead to have their land preserved for future generations to enjoy."

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) criticized the bill as fiscally irresponsible: "With 10 percent unemployment nationwide and with millions of Americans without jobs and the fact that we are running record budget deficits and the public debt is skyrocketing, now is not the time to potentially spend up to $50 million of the taxpayers' money to buy nearly 3,000 acres of beachfront property on a Caribbean island. And on top of that, it will probably cost an estimate of $1 million a year to maintain. Madam Speaker, we can't afford the price tag for a new park in St. Croix, just as many Americans will never be able to afford a visit there."

The House passed the bill by a vote of 240-175. 240 Democrats voted yea. All 171 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation to establish the Castle Nugent estate in the Virgin Islands as a "national historic site"  to be maintained by the National Park Service.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 20
Jan 27, 2010
(H.R. 3726, H.R. 4474) Legislation to establish the Castle Nugent estate in the Virgin Islands as a "national historic site" to be maintained by the National Park Service, as well as a bill to extend certain private landowners' permits to maintain and repair water projects on national forest land in Idaho -- On the resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on both bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on two different bills. The first would establish the Castle Nugent estate in St. Croix (in the Virgin Islands) as a "national historic site." Such sites are owned by the federal government and managed by the National Park Service. The bill was introduced by Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands). Castle Nugent is a historic plantation overseer?s estate that dates back to the 1700s. The site spans approximately 2,900 acres of land. 

The second measure would extend permits granted to private landowners to repair and maintain water diversions -- or projects that alter the the natural flow of water and divert it to another location, often by using dams or pipelines -- on national forest land in Idaho. Specifically, the measure pertains to land in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.

The House had previously considered both bills under a procedure known as "suspension of the rules." Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. While a majority of members voted in favor of the bills, they did not receive the two-thirds majority required for passage. Thus, Democrats rescheduled both measures for floor debate under a closed rule prohibiting amendments.

In a speech in favor of the rule, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) praised both bills: ?From the early times of Yosemite and Yellowstone to the national monuments right here in Washington, D.C., our country has had the foresight to preserve the tangible places which house our Nation's character, identity and history. Today, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010 does the same for the history and identity of a unique place in our country, the U.S. Virgin Islands?. H.R. 4474 would give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to issue special use authorization to owners of these water storage transport or diversion facilities to allow for their continued maintenance of their water facilities, allowing local water rights and ensuring that they continue to access their water?. Mr. Speaker, this rule and both these bills are straightforward and provide a great deal of benefit, not only to our country, but also to the communities and residents who are most directly involved and impacted. I urge passage of the rule."

Republicans opposed the rule, arguing that the Democratic majority was stifling debate by denying them the opportunity to offer amendments. They also criticized the bills as fiscally irresponsible. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) said: "I rise in opposition to this closed rule, yet another closed rule before the Congress, and I object to the process by which this bill was brought to the floor. Last week, both of the bills we're discussing today under this rule failed to get the two-thirds vote in this body. Instead of working together to resolve the differences with the bills between the leadership, my friends on the other side of the aisle, the majority, simply rescheduled them for floor action today with no Republican input?.Today, Mr. Speaker, we're going to debate these bills, and once again, the Democrat leadership's priorities in this Congress--let's be honest about that--it's about spending money. Spending money, Mr. Speaker, is what this Democrat leadership priority is all about."

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 234-174. 232 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted "yea." 166 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to floor debate on both a bill to establish the Castle Nugent estate in the Virgin Islands as a "national historic site" to be maintained by the National Park Service -- and on a bill to extend certain private landowners' permits to maintain and repair water projects on national forest land in Idaho.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Absent Y Won
Roll Call 14
Jan 21, 2010
(H.R. 1065) On passage of legislation to ratify a water rights settlement agreement between the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the state of Arizona, and local governments

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation to ratify a water rights settlement between the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the state of Arizona, and local governments. The bill was one of three water settlement measures considered by the House as a package. As part of the settlement, the bill would authorize federal funding for the construction of a rural water system to deliver water to tribal lands.

While an "authorization" of funding is part of the process by which the government spends money, it cannot actually result in an expenditure without further Congressional action. After funding is authorized, it must then be "appropriated." Only after appropriations legislation is enacted can the government actually spend money.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) praised the bill, arguing it would end decades of litigation and provide a stable water supply for tribe: "The waters of the White Mountain Apache Reservation feed to the Salt River of Arizona. The Salt River is a primary water source for the metropolitan area of Phoenix, Arizona, along with thousands of acres of agricultural land. Coming to closure on water rights is imperative to protect the water supply for thousands of people in Arizona. Equally important is the fulfillment of commitments made to the White Mountain Apache people to provide them a clean reliable water supply, and to repair their irrigation system, which has fallen into disrepair."

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) argued that the bill was fiscally irresponsible -- particularly when considering the total cost of all three bills combined: "I will just add one other point. And that is that these three bills have a cost to the taxpayer of a half a billion dollars, $500 million. And there certainly is an unrest in this country as to what this Congress has done in a fiscal manner. This is small. We are talking about millions, when other programs we are talking about in this Congress unfortunately total trillions. But if we need to get our house in order, this is simply something that we need to have more information on before we pass judgment on it."

The House passed the bill by a vote of 262 to 147. 243 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted "yea." 143 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation to ratify a water rights settlement between the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the state of Arizona, and local governments.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
Y Y Won
Roll Call 13
Jan 21, 2010
(H.R. 3342) On passage of legislation to ratify a water rights settlement agreement between the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque; the state of New Mexico; and local governments

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on legislation to ratify a water rights settlement agreement between the the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque -- known as "the Four Pueblos" -- and the state of New Mexico, as well as local governments. The bill was one of three water settlement measures considered by the House as a package. As part of the settlement agreement, the bill would "authorize" the federal funding for the construction of a regional water system in the Rio Grande River Basin.

While an "authorization" of funding is part of the process by which the government spends money, it cannot actually result in an expenditure without further Congressional action. After funding is authorized, it must then be "appropriated." Only after appropriations legislation is enacted can the government actually spend money.

Rep. Nick Rahall, the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, argued that it would bring an end to decades of litigation: This legislation would settle the water rights of four pueblos in New Mexico under an agreement with the State of New Mexico, Santa Fe County, the city of Santa Fe, and individual water users. It would end 44 years of active litigation involving over 2,500 defendants by ratifying the settlement agreement and funding a regional water system for all water users in the valley."

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) -- echoing the sentiments of other Republicans -- contended that the cost of a settlement should not fall to taxpayers: "I believe, and we believe on this side, that settlement agreements are in the best interests for all parties involved. But there is an element that needs to be highlighted because settlement agreements generally at the end cost money, and the missing part of these agreements on these three bills that we are considering today is, What is the cost to the taxpayer?"

The House passed the bill by a vote of 249-153. 234 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted "yea." 149 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation to ratify a water rights settlement agreement between Four Pueblos, the state of New Mexico, and local governments.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
Y Y Won
Roll Call 12
Jan 21, 2010
(H.R. 3254) On passage of a bill to implement a water rights settlement between the Taos Pueblo Indian tribe and the state of New Mexico.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on legislation to ratify a water rights settlement between the Taos Pueblo Indian tribe, the state of New Mexico, and the town of Taos. The bill was one of three water settlement measures considered by the House as a package. This agreement -- signed in May 2006 -- settles the tribe's claim to water rights in the state. The bill would establish a trust fund to help the Pueblo maintain its water infrastructure.

Democrats praised the bill, citing its support from both tribal and non-tribal communities in New Mexico. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) praised the bill, arguing it save money over the long term by reducing the costs of litigation involved in water rights disputes: "Under this settlement agreement, funds would be authorized for the Taos Settlement Fund, the Taos Infrastructure and Watershed Fund, and for various projects that are mutually beneficial to the pueblo and non-pueblo parties. I would note that the Taos Pueblo has settled for a water right that is far less than what the claims asserted in litigation by the United States and the pueblo. This potential value is much more than the amount that is authorized to be appropriated in H.R. 3254, a clear financial benefit to all taxpayers."

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) criticized the bill as fiscally irresponsible: "While I applaud the idea that local groups are working it out in their best interests, which I think is a positive statement, these do have to be paid for by the American taxpayers. So we must be able to answer this question: Is this the best deal that can be reached and is it in the interest of the parties to the settlement, as well as to the taxpayers of this country??The American people are highly concerned about the spending that's gone on in this Congress. Whether it's the stimulus spending that has failed to create the promised jobs or the government takeover of health care with a price tag of well over a trillion dollars, the spending in this Congress is out of control. Congress needs to get serious about the record debt being run up during President Obama's first year in office."

The House passed the bill by a vote of 254-158. 240 Democrats and 14 Republicans voted "yea." 153 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted "nay." As a results, the House passed legislation to ratify a water rights settlement between the Taos Pueblo Indian tribe and the state of New Mexico.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
Y Y Won
Roll Call 11
Jan 20, 2010
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

N N Won
Roll Call 10
Jan 20, 2010
(H.R. 3726) On passage of a bill to establish the Castle Nugent estate in the Virgin Islands as a "national historic site" to be maintained by the National Park Service -- Motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a bill to establish the Castle Nugent estate in St. Croix (in the Virgin Islands) as a "national historic site." Such sites are owned by the federal government and managed by the National Park Service. The bill was introduced by Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands). Castle Nugent is a historic plantation overseer?s estate that dates back to the 1700s. The site spans approximately 2,900 acres of land.

The House considered the bill under a procedure known as "suspension of the rules." The majority party in the House schedules bills for floor debate under this procedure if the leadership deems them to be non-controversial. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D- Guam) praised the bill:  "The lands to be included in this new historic site represent the largest undeveloped natural area remaining on the island, and there is very strong local support for protecting it as parkland for future generations?.The National Park Service has studied the site and testified that it meets their criteria for addition to the system."

Rep. Christensen echoed those sentiments and expressed gratitude to the family that owned the land: "The family which owns the majority of this property has been incredibly patient--the pressure to sell their land to developers has been overwhelming--and yet they have continued to try to do what they feel, and I agree, is best for all concerned. There is no intent here to interfere with privately held property. The sole purpose of this bill is to protect and preserve the historic, cultural, and environmental assets and the opportunity for the people of the Virgin Islands as well as their fellow Americans to continue to enjoy the area and to preserve it for future generations."

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible, and an assault on the rights of private property owners: "The National Park Service testified that the cost to acquire the private property to establish this park could be as much as $50 million, in addition to nearly $1 million a year to operate the park?.Nearly every acre of the dry land that is to be acquired is privately owned. It's our understanding the majority of this land is owned by one family....We heard that it is their desire that this land not be developed, but be preserved in its current condition. It seems to me that they are in a perfect position to accomplish that goal as landowners. May I suggest that they also possess the power to determine the future of the property without any interference of Congress."

A motion to suspend the rules requires a two-thirds majority. A majority of members ? 241 --voted in favor of the bill, while 173 voted against it. But because the bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. 241 Democrats voted "yea." All 169 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House failed to pass legislation to establish the Castle Nugent estate in the Virgin Islands as a ?national historic site.? As a result, the House failed to pass legislation to establish the Castle Nugent estate in the Virgin Islands as a ?national historic site.? The House could still schedule the bill for consideration under normal rules.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 9
Jan 20, 2010
(H. Res. 1017) Legislation to approve water rights settlements between state governments and Native American tribes -- on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on three separate bills -- all of which would approve water rights settlements made by native American tribes.

These types of resolutions, drafted by the House Rules Committee (and typically favorable to the majority party, in this case Democrats), set the rules for debate for bills on the House floor, including how long the bill will be debated and what, if any, amendments may be offered. This particular rule made in order only certain amendments, a restriction that drew protests from Republicans.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) defended the rule, saying: "Each bill allows for the consideration of a separate amendment...which is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also allows a motion to recommit, with or without instructions, for each of the three bills?.This is a good rule. I urge my colleagues to support it today."

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) accused the Democratic majority of abandoning a promise to allow for full, open debate, saying: "I sincerely doubt that an open rule would garner more than a handful of amendments. It would allow the majority to say for the first time, and to prove, at least offer some evidence, that they are living up to their pledge to run an open Congress. I believe the real reason is that the majority is afraid of an open debate even on uncontroversial bills, and so they restrict debate consistently. It has become their standard operating procedure to close debate in the House. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact."

McGovern quickly shot back: "I appreciate how well my colleague on the Rules Committee adheres to the Republican talking points, but I will again reiterate that all the amendments that were brought to the Rules Committee last night were made in order."

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 239-175. 239 Democrats voted "yea." All Republicans present and 8 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House was able to begin floor debate on three bills to approve water rights settlements negotiated with Native American tribes.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
Y Y Won
Roll Call 2
Jan 13, 2010
(H J Res 64) On sustaining the president's veto of a short-term Defense Department spending bill and rejecting his authority to "pocket veto" the measure.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on sustaining the president's veto of legislation to keep the Defense Department running in the event that the annual Defense spending bill is not enacted. Procedurally, the vote was technically on whether to pass the legislation in spite of the president's objections. Therefore, a "nay" vote was a vote in favor of sustaining the veto.

On December 16, Congress passed a Defense spending bill that provided for Iraq and Afghanistan war funding. However, Congress also passed a short-term spending bill to keep the Defense Department running for one more week, and give the president more time to read the long-term war funding legislation. President Obama, however, immediately signed that long-term bill, rendering the short-term measure unnecessary.

The president sent the short-term spending measure back to Congress, with a memorandum explaining that it had become "unnecessary." In that memorandum, Obama cited his "pocket veto" authority -- in which a president simply withholds his signature from a bill while Congress is out of session.

Many members of Congress view ?the pocket veto? as an affront to the institution's constitutional prerogatives. To show their displeasure with Obama's action (but not their disagreement with the legislation), House Democrats decided to schedule a vote on sustaining the president's veto, and thus publicly disagree with the pocket veto.

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) argued that members of Congress "do not consider it a pocket veto. Therefore, we feel that the appropriate action to be taken is to sustain the veto and take this action to demonstrate that, in our judgment, a pocket veto is not appropriate, that the President exercised a regular veto and it should be treated as such."

Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee joined Obey in criticizing the White House. "I wanted to rise in support of the position taken by my friend, Mr. Obey?. I find it a bit ironic that here we are having to defend the constitutional prerogatives of the Congress on a joint resolution that was originally sent to the President to respect his constitutional prerogatives," said Rep. Bill Young (R-FL).

No members spoke in opposition to sustaining the president's veto, according to the Congressional Record -- although a majority of GOP members did ultimately vote against doing so.

The vote on the bill was 143-245. 140 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted "aye" -- which was essentially a vote to overturn the president's veto. 223 Democrats and 22 Republicans vote "nay" -- which was a vote to sustain the veto. As a result, the House voted to sustain the president's veto of a short-term spending bill that had become redundant, rejecting his authority to use a pocket veto in this particular instance.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
N N Won
Roll Call 991
Dec 16, 2009
(H.R. 2847) On passage of legislation redirecting funds previously used to bail out distressed major financial institutions to economic stimulus programs; the legislation also provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government agencies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on final passage of legislation that redirected a portion of the ?TARP? funds, previously used to bail out distressed major financial institutions, to economic stimulus programs. The bill also provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other agencies.

Rep. Obey (D-WI), the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, was leading the support for the bill. He focused his remarks on the provisions that redirected the use of the TARP funds. Obey noted that they previously ?have been directed to help Wall Street? and are now being directed ?to Main Street to try to help Americans who are struggling to hang onto their jobs, their houses, and their health care.?

Rep. Oberstar, who chairs the Public Works and Transportation Committee which has jurisdiction over many of the programs to which the TARP funds will be redirected, expressed his support for the legislation. Oberstar claimed ?a highly successful record? on that portion of the stimulus that had already been devoted to transportation and infrastructure development. Specifically, he said: ?There are 220,000 direct jobs on over 8,000 projects . . . There is $10 billion paid in payroll checks and $179 million in unemployment insurance compensation checks avoided, and there is $230 million in taxes paid to the federal government by those on these jobs, and there is more to come . . . That is an investment in America.?

Rep. Lewis (R-CA) was leading the opposition to the legislation. He also focused on the redirected use of the TARP funds, calling it ?economic insanity.? Lewis argued  that the redirection of the funds is a policy that ?repeats the failures of the previous ?so-called ?Recovery Act' by pouring another $150 billion into programs included in the original stimulus package that have so far failed to produce real results or real jobs.? He went on to claim that the redirection ?adds an additional $150 billion to a budget deficit that has already tripled in the last year.?

Lewis attacked the bill generally because it had only become available very shortly before it was brought to the House floor for consideration. He said its provisions were ?a virtual mystery?, claiming that Chairman Obey had ?instructed his (Democratic) staff not to share any details or information with the (Republican) staff about the bill? and noting that its contents ?were released just shy of midnight last night . . . and there is no way for anyone to have read or understood it completely.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 217-212.  All two hundred and twenty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members .Thirty-eight other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate legislation redirecting funds previously used to bail out distressed major financial institutions to economic stimulus programs, and providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other agencies.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 988
Dec 16, 2009
(H.R. 4314) On passage of legislation that increased the legal national debt ceiling, which was necessary to allow the government to continue operating

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The federal government operates by borrowing funds through the issuance of Treasury bonds and other debt instruments of the U.S. Government. Congress periodically increases the total amount of those instruments that can be issued, which is known as the ?national debt ceiling?. The Treasury Department advised Congress late in 2009 that it had issued the total amount of the then-current national debt ceiling, and that the government would no longer have the funds to operate after December 31, 2009 unless it could issue additional debt. That additional issuance of debt would require an increase in the national debt ceiling.

This was on final passage of the legislation that increased the national debt ceiling. The measure raised the ceiling by $290 billion, which was projected to be a sufficient amount to keep the government operating through early February of 2010.

Rep. Stark (D-CA) was leading support for the debt limit increase. He began his statement by noting that: ?The Treasury Department has told us we will reach our current limit on the national debt on December 31--Happy New Year.?  Stark acknowledged: ?I don't like to raise the debt limit?, but noted: ?Unlike past years, the Treasury Department has informed us they don't have the ability to maneuver and buy more time, so the United States would begin to default on its debt if we do not act.? Stark said: ?It's important that we do this to keep the government running . . . (and) pay our bills because we have an international obligation to many of our creditors.?

Stark went on to say: ?Unfortunately, we will have to revisit this issue early next year. I wish we could have avoided that, but to do so, we would have had to resolve differences with the Senate (which is) . . . preoccupied on other matters (including the health care bill and), that would be impossible before the holidays. Even if the Senate were to pass the larger debt limit increase we sent over to them, we would still have to act again next year.?

Rep. Neal (D-MA) also supported the debt limit increase. He claimed that the measure increasing the debt ?is simply about continuing operations for the federal government . . . getting the Social Security checks out on time . . . providing support for our troops and keeping our museums and our parks open . . .  this is about bills that have already been incurred . . . What this bill does not do is increase or decrease spending.?

Rep. Heller (R-NV), who was leading the opposition to the debt limit increase, began his statement by saying ?here we go again. Christmas is a week away and . . . Americans are doing last-minute holiday shopping (while) the majority (Democratic) party is doing its last-minute spending. This year, many families are cutting back on their holiday shopping . . . You would think that during these tough times when most Americans are forced to tighten their belts, Congress would do the same. No chance under this majority. This majority stumbled into 2009 with a budget that raised the deficit by $1.8 trillion. Then Congress decided to pass an $800 billion stimulus bill, $3 billion on Cash for Clunkers, $1.3 trillion on the Democratic health care bill, a trillion dollars on cap-and-trade and, recently, another $447 billion was spent on Washington, D.C., bureaucrats. After all this spending, the national debt is now $12 trillion. Every American citizen will now owe more than $39,000 to pay for Washington's spending.?

Heller concluded his remarks by claiming: ?Now Democrats want to raise the debt limit to allow even more spending in 2010. The real fat cat is the federal government which spends, spends, while the American public gets stuck with the bill. I urge my colleagues to reject raising the debt limit. Give the gift that America deserves: a responsible federal budget.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 218-214.  All two hundred and eighteen ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. Thirty-nine other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate legislation increasing the national debt ceiling to enable the government to continue operations through February of 2010.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 983
Dec 16, 2009
(H.Res. 976) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government operations - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government operations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for considering the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government departments and agencies. Among the terms of the rule was one that prevented Members from offering any amendments to the legislation.

Ret. Pingree (D-ME) was leading the support for the rule. She argued that the provisions of the legislation related to the military and to domestic programs were connected and were all critical. Referring to the ongoing economic downturn, she said: ?Our economic security and our national security are inextricably linked, and our economic security is still in dire straits.?

Pingree also said that the legislation ?invests in our nation's infrastructure, and it puts more Americans back to work by providing $48 billion to rebuild and repair our national transportation system. This investment provides a measurable return, not only by creating and preserving jobs but by literally building the foundation for a long-term economic recovery. This bill will also preserve the jobs of teachers, of police officers, and of firefighters. For those who have already lost their jobs, the Jobs Act extends unemployment benefits for 2 months, and it maintains the current COBRA subsidy (that extends health care to those who lose their jobs). These programs--these investments, the economic lifelines--have a real impact.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the rule. She first acknowledged that the bill for which the rule would set the terms of debate ?contains funding for several important and necessary initiatives . . . .? However, Foxx argued that the bill overemphasized non-defense programs over those for defense and claimed that this difference ?represent the wrong priorities of the Democrats . . . (and reflects) a dangerous, wrongheaded policy that does not rightly prioritize the security of our nation.?

Foxx then noted her objection to the portion of the rule that did not permit amendments to be offered to the bill and said that the Democratic majority had ?gone to great lengths to shut down debate. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ?no? on the rule so the bill can be returned to the committee and can be brought back under regular order.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 228-201.  All two hundred and twenty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. Twenty-six other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other departments and agencies.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 982
Dec 16, 2009
(H.Res. 976) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government agencies - - on the motion that the House immediately vote on the resolution setting the terms for considering the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion that the House immediately vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for considering the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government departments and agencies. Among the terms of the rule was one that prevented Members from offering any amendments to the legislation.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME) was leading the effort on behalf of the rule and the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. Her arguments in support of both focused on the legislation for which the rule set the terms for debate. She first said that the legislation provides ?over $363 billion towards protecting our troops abroad and taking better care of their families at home.? She then enumerated some of the programs and benefits which the funding would provide. These included a 3.4% pay increase for all service members, more than $29 billion for what Pingree called ?top-of-the-line medical care? for injured soldiers, increases for the wounded, the ill and injured warrior programs, and more than $472 million for programs designed to prevent child abuse and domestic violence.

Pingree argued that the provisions of the measure related to the military were connected to domestic programs. She said: ?Our economic security and our national security are inextricably linked, and our economic security is still in dire straits.? Pingree went on to say that the ongoing economic crisis has forced American families to decide between ?cutbacks on food or cutbacks on health care.? She added that ?there are millions of Americans who want to get back to work, but they need us to lend the same helping hand that we gave to Wall Street in its time of need (and) the rule before us today allows for the consideration of the (legislation) which will move us down that road.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the rule and to the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. She first acknowledged that the bill for which the rule would set the terms of debate ?contains funding for several important and necessary initiatives . . . .? However, Foxx went on to note her ?disappointment in the overall funding levels . . . .? Specifically, she noted that the bill increases overall defense spending by ?roughly? 4.5%, which ?is not comparable to nondefense appropriations bills we have voted on this year, which average a 12 percent increase in funding levels.?

Foxx claimed that this difference ?represent the wrong priorities of the Democrats, who are in charge of the Congress, and of the Obama administration. Increasing spending for domestic priorities by double digits while, in comparison, shortchanging national defense represents a dangerous, wrongheaded policy that does not rightly prioritize the security of our nation.?

Foxx also objected to the fact that the legislation was originally intended only to provide defense spending, but that the Democratic majority had ?put into it things that are not related . . . .? She claimed that it contained a ?variety of additional legislation that has been cobbled together without committee consideration.? Foxx then noted her objection to the portion of the rule that did not permit amendments to be offered to the bill and said that the Democratic majority had ?gone to great lengths to shut down debate. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ?no? on the rule so the bill can be returned to the committee and can be brought back under regular order.?

The motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule passed by a vote of 235-193.  All Two hundred and thirty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eighteen other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the term for debating legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government operations.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 980
Dec 16, 2009
(H.Res.973) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government agencies - - on the motion that the House waive a procedural rule so it could begin to consider the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Democratic majority wanted to move quickly on legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce. To accomplish this, it needed to have the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the funding bill approved on the same day as the rule was submitted to the House. However, there is a procedural regulation that ordinarily requires two-thirds of the Members to vote in favor any rule, if the rule is to be approved on the same day as it is submitted. There was not sufficient support to achieve the necessary two-thirds waiver vote for the same-day consideration of the rule for this legislation. This was a vote on a waiver of the procedural regulation. A simple majority was required to waive that two-thirds requirement.

The Democratic majority wanted to move quickly on legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce. To accomplish this, it needed to have the rule for the bill approved on the same day as it was submitted. However, there was not sufficient support to achieve the necessary two-thirds waiver vote for the same-day consideration of the rule for this legislation. The purpose of this motion was therefore to eliminate the application of that two-thirds vote requirement to the rule on the legislation.

Rep. Pingree (R-ME) was leading the effort on behalf of the waiver. She said that its approval ?will allow the House to consider today important legislation, including legislation to ensure the funding of our military in addition to measures to put people back to work . . . we must act quickly to deliver the bills before us today . . . .? Pingree added that, if the waiver were approved, ?the House will (be able to) take up (legislation) that will . . . make critical investments in the nation?s infrastructure in order to put people back to work.? She added: ?There is real urgency in the actions before us today, and I truly hope that my colleagues . . . will join me . . . to allow us to move forward.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the effort to waive the two-thirds vote regulation. She referred to the waiver vote as ?same-day martial law.? Foxx argued this was another example of the Democratic majority ?short-circuiting the legislative process so (they) can jam through another major spending bill without the benefit of Members or, more importantly, the citizens of this country having the opportunity to read it.? She claimed that the reason the Democrats were trying to accelerate the process was that it was near the end of the session and ?our Speaker and several Members are going to leave today to go to (a conference) . . . .?

The resolution waiving the procedural rule was approved by a vote of 218-202.  All Two hundred and eighteen ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. Twenty-nine other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-three Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House waived a procedural regulation that was preventing it from considering  legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government agencies.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 979
Dec 16, 2009
On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 973 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Democratic majority wanted to move quickly on legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce. To accomplish this, it needed to have the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the funding bill approved on the same day as the rule was submitted to the House. However, there is a procedural regulation that ordinarily requires two-thirds of the Members to vote in favor any rule, if the rule is to be approved on the same day as it is submitted. There was not sufficient support to achieve the necessary two-thirds waiver vote for the same-day consideration of the rule for this legislation. The purpose of this motion was to move to an immediate vote on eliminating the application of that two-thirds vote requirement to the rule on the legislation.

Rep. Pingree (R-ME) was leading the effort on behalf of the waiver. She said that its approval ?will allow the House to consider today important legislation, including legislation to ensure the funding of our military in addition to measures
to put people back to work . . . .? Pingree went on to say: ?For those hit hardest by the recession, this bill also provides emergency relief . . . These are measures that we must pass to build a foundation for long-term economic recovery.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the motion and to the effort to waive the regulation requiring a two-thirds vote. She referred to the proposed waiver vote as ?same-day martial law.? Foxx said she understood ?that there are times when we need to move quickly when we are faced with an immediate crisis. However, I think the word ?crisis? has been overused particularly this year.?

Foxx noted that the Rules Committee had met at 8:45 PM the previous evening and ?we?ve had very little time to be able to deal with the (rule or the full substance of the H.R. 2847 legislation).? Foxx added that ?we?ve known about this for a long, long time . . . what have we been doing during that period of time when we should have been preparing for this day??

Foxx claimed this was another example of the Democratic majority ?short-circuiting the legislative process so (they) can jam through another major spending bill without the benefit of Members or, more importantly, the citizens of this country having the opportunity to read it. This (waiver) . . . will let the House consider more than $1 trillion in spending , all done almost in the blink of an eye . . . let us not be fooled by this attempt to say that something is a crisis.?

The motion to have an immediate vote on waiving the two-thirds requirement passed by 226-192.  All two hundred and twenty-six ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-two Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on waiving a procedural regulation that was preventing it from considering  legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government agencies.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 978
Dec 16, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 968
Dec 11, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On passage of legislation designed to prevent the kind of major financial crisis that had recently occurred, and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation designed to prevent the kind of major financial crisis that had recently occurred, and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression.

Among other things, the bill created a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, strengthened the enforcement abilities of the Federal Trade Commission, included provisions intended to end the potential of  federal bailouts to institutions that are  ?too big to fail", gave shareholders an advisory vote in executive compensation, strengthened the SEC's powers, initiated regulation of sensitive financial instruments known as ?derivatives, toughened anti-predatory lending practices, imposed a higher liability standard on the rating agencies, and created a Federal Insurance Office.

Rep. Waxman (D-CA) speaking in support of the bill, referenced hearings he had chaired on the financial crisis. He said the hearings demonstrated that ?government regulators were asleep at the switch while Wall Street banks drove our economy off a cliff. Change is necessary, and I believe this legislation will strengthen the federal government's ability to prevent and respond to future crises.?

Rep. Frank (D-MA) chairs the Financial Services Committee, which developed the legislation. He first said that ?the lack of regulation over many years allowed big problems to grow up . . . (and this) led to the largest crisis in recent memory since the Depression.? Frank argued that the provisions in the bill impose the kinds of regulations that will not permit that situation to reoccur. He went on to claim: ?The Republican proposal is . . . (D)o not interfere with the ability of an AIG, Lehman Brothers, Citicorp, Countrywide or any of those other financial entities. Do not prevent them from doing again what they did before. If and when they have done such a bad job that they are collapsing, then let them go bankrupt and don't do anything to deal with the consequences. Let's have another Lehman Brothers.?

Rep. King (R-IA) opposed the legislation. He said the difference between  supporting and opposing it is ?the difference between believing the federal government can regulate more aspects of our society, more aspects of our economy, and the difference in believing whether people can become and entities can become too big to be allowed to fail, or whether small businesses might be too small to be allowed to succeed. And it's about the difference between a free enterprise economy and a managed and controlled economy. It's about the difference between liberty and the difference between a socialized economy.?

Rep, Barton (R-TX), another opponent of the legislation, focused on the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency it created. He argued that the ?nearly limitless power? given to the new agency by the bill is ?questionable at best and tyrannical at worse.? Rep. Royce (R-CA), who also opposed the bill, focused on the powers it gave to regulators ?to rescue certain companies and liquidate others . . . to pay off some creditors and counterparties and not others, and keep failed or failing companies operating and competing in the market for years.? Royce claimed ?the likely outcome? will be that ?larger, politically connected institutions will have the edge over their competitors.? Rep. Lucas (R-OK), another opponent, said the increased regulation it creates will discourage productive new investment.

The vote on final passage was 223-202. All 223?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. Twenty-seven other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and voted  ?nay?. As a result, the bill implementing the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression passed the House and was sent on to the Senate.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Accounting Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 967
Dec 11, 2009
(H.R. 4173) Legislation designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression - - on a motion to remove all the regulatory reform provisions and substitute language terminating the program that provided ?bail out? funds to major financial institutions and companies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Dent (R-PA) that would have sent back to committee legislation designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. The motion would also have instructed the committee to delete all the reform provisions  in the bill, add language terminating the Troubled Assets Relief Program (?TARP?), and requiring all outstanding TARP loans to be repaid with the proceeds used to reduce the national debt. TARP loans had been used to ?bail out? major financial institutions and companies during the recent financial crisis.

Rep. Dent noted that TARP ?was originally enacted as a temporary plan to address an extraordinary crisis in our financial markets as a result of the collapse of financial firms that the government said were just ?too big to fail? . . . (T)hose who voted for . . . TARP did so with the assurance that the money would be returned to taxpayers. It is unfortunate that the President chose to extend the TARP . . . .?

Dent then referenced recent reports that the Obama Administration was planning to use repaid TARP funds for a jobs-creation program. He said: ?Haven't we learned that if we want to create jobs and grow our economy, we must support the private sector and invest federal dollars sparingly and wisely . . . Raiding TARP to fund more government programs that don't create jobs verges on the reckless.?

Rep. Frank (D-MA), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, spoke against the motion. He referred to it as ?a cover? that uses ?anger over the TARP to frankly make sure we'll need another one because (the motion would) kill all regulation.? Referring to the fact that the TARP was instituted in response to the recent financial crisis, he noted that ?it ain't over until it's over on Main Street all throughout America (and) . . . most of us know the emergency is not over.?

Frank then noted: ?The original TARP legislation said . . . any TARP shortfall will be made up by an assessment on the financial community. We've gone further than that. The amendment we (previously added to H.R. 4173) . . . instructs the FDIC . . . to assess the financial institutions to make up any shortfall from the TARP. (This motion would)  kill that . . . (The Republicans) are very upset that we might levy on JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs and the others some responsibility financially for what's gone on.?

Frank went on to say: ?So here's what (the Republicans) do (with this motion): First of all, they kill all reform, and . . . secondly, say now that TARP money has gone to the big banks, and they don't have to pay it back . . . they want to get rid of it, and to whose benefit? The big banks.?  Frank concluded his remarks by saying that, if the motion carried, it will be saying ?let's not do anything to change the financial system . . . Let's just . . . save the big banks from having to pay their fair share when the TARP is repaid.?

The motion to send the bill back to committee was defeated by a vote of 190-232. One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and nineteen Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and thirty-two ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, the provisions in H.R. 4173 remained in the bill implementing the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression and language ending the TARP was not added to the bill.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Accounting Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Won
Roll Call 966
Dec 11, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On the Bachus of Alabama amendment, which was put forward as a Republican substitute for the bill designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Bachus (R-AL), which was put forward as a Republican substitute for the bill designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression

Rep. Bachus acknowledged that ?we have a need to reform the financial industry. . . .? He claimed that H.R. 4173, as it was currently written, ?isn't the answer.? Bachus said his amendment would make H.R. 4173 ?a financial recovery and reform bill, not a permanent Big Brother government bailout program.? He claimed it would implement ?reforms that will facilitate competition in the market place and generate more choices for consumers. (It will also implement) reform that will equip consumers with the information that they need to shop around and make the financial decisions . . . We need a stronger regulatory regime to quickly expose, stop, and put behind bars any Wall Street crooks that break the law. And financial firms that fail should do just that: fail through a new, orderly bankruptcy process.?

Rep. Royce (R-CA) supported the amendment and said its provisions that ?reform? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were critical because these companies were ?at the heart of the housing market (and) the root cause of the (recent) financial collapse?. Royce then said that H.R. 4173, which he referred to as ?the Democratic bill?, would ?bail (those companies) out forever in their legislation . . . .? 

Rep. Kanjorski (D-PA) opposed the amendment. He said it ?seems designed to protect Wall Street rather than to reform it. The Republican (Bachus) plan also does little to improve investor protections (and) . . . the GOP substitute does absolutely nothing to address the issue of liability. And without liability, the Republican plan provides no accountability for the rating agencies. The GOP plan additionally chooses bankruptcy for systemically significant firms. Well, Lehman Brothers went through bankruptcy and is still in bankruptcy, which resulted in credit markets freezing up around the world. This is not a real solution. In sum, H.R. 4173 reforms Wall Street for the protection of the consumer and the investor on Main Street. The Republican alternative, in contrast, represents business as usual for Wall Street.?

Rep. Meeks (D-NY) said he opposed the amendment because H.R. 4173, as written, would ?strengthen our system of capitalism and free enterprise. To those who criticize this legislation as anti-markets, I would counter that this legislation is good for consumers and good for businesses because investors are staying out of the market right now and companies across the nation are struggling to stay in business, let alone creating desperately needed jobs. By strengthening protections for consumers and investors and bringing transparency and accountability to the market place, we are restoring the cornerstone of a healthy and sustainable economy . . . .?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 175-251 along almost straight party lines. One hundred and seventy-two Republican and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-eight Democrats and three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the provisions put forward in the amendment to substitute for the bill designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Accounting Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Won
Roll Call 965
Dec 11, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On the Minnick of Idaho amendment that would have moved the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency into the Treasury Department, and required that the standards used by the new agency be in accordance with those already used by the Federal Trade Commission

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Minnick (D-ID) that would have moved the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency into the Treasury Department, and required that the standards used by it be in accordance with those already used by the Federal Trade Commission.

The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a bill designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. H.R. 4173 also created the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The debate on the amendment focused on where in the federal bureaucracy the proposed new agency would be located and on what standards it would use to promote consumer projections.

Rep. Minnick began his statement in support of the amendment by saying ?we all support the goal of stronger, more uniform consumer protection regulation. . . .? He then said ?but you don't achieve that by splitting the responsibility between two regulators (the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency and the existing Federal Trade Commission) . . . each with half the responsibility. And you compound that mistake by creating exemptions to the new regulation which create gaps and inconsistency . . . To split the responsibility between two inherently feuding regulators will lead to conflict, inaction, failure, and frustration.? Minnick claimed that the adoption of his amendment would create ?a strong mandate for consumer protection in all of the existing regulators?.

Rep. Boren (D-OK), who supported the amendment, first acknowledged that the ?need to reform the way America's banking and financial regulatory system is important.? He then said: ?The question, though, is: Just how many new government agencies are necessary to accomplish this task? If we create a new federal agency to regulate consumer credit, will it improve the current regulatory framework or will it end up costing American jobs? I think we need to be cautious in our approach.?

Rep. Bean (D-IL) opposed the amendment. She said: ?Reforming our financial system is vitally important to creating a functional, sustainable financial system that American families and businesses can count on. We must not fail to enact adequate safeguards (to prevent fraud and promote disclosure) so that the mistakes of the past do not reoccur . . . In order to accomplish this goal, we need an independent agency whose sole purpose is to protect and empower consumers to make informed financial decisions. The new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, would go a long way towards that end, restoring vital protections that were absent and duly needed during the buildup to America's recent financial fallout.?

Rep. Moore (D-KS) also opposed the amendment. He claimed that it would create ?a bureaucratic nightmare.? Moore also suggested that making the changes proposed by the amendment would diminish the capacity of the proposed new agency to control the major institutions that contributed to the recent financial crisis.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 208-223.  One hundred and seventy-five Republicans and thirty-three Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and twenty-three ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. As a result, no language was added to H.R. 4173 moving the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency into the Treasury Department and requiring it to use the same standards as the Federal Trade Commission.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Won
Roll Call 964
Dec 11, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On the Schakowsky of Illinois amendment that required additional regulatory review of ?reverse mortgage? lenders to protect senior citizens from abusive lending practices

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Schakowsky (D-IL) that required additional regulatory review of ?reverse mortgage? lenders to protect senior citizens from abusive lending practices. Reverse mortgages are loans that allow borrowers over the age of 62 to borrow against a portion of the value of their home, and defer the repayment of the loan until they sell the home or die. The number of these mortgages had been increasing.

The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a bill designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. The amendment called for the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which H.R. 4173 created, to conduct the additional regulatory review.

Rep. Schakowsky began her statement in support of the amendment by saying that ?all is not well in the reverse mortgage market.? She noted that a recent report by the National Consumer Law Center ?found many of the abusive practices that were common in the subprime lending market before its collapse are also common in reverse mortgage transactions. Those practices include high fees, incentives for brokers that are harmful to borrowers, and lenders steering consumers to products that are more costly than necessary.?

Schakowsky then added: ?Unfortunately, the complexity of the loans and the age of the typical borrower have made the reverse mortgage market ripe for scam artists. We have to make sure that seniors who use reverse mortgages are protected against unlawful and unfair practices.? She also noted that her amendment was supported by the AARP.

Rep. Garrett (R-NJ) led the opposition to the amendment. He began his remarks by acknowledging that that ?reverse mortgages sometimes in the past have a history in certain cases . . . of causing problems for our seniors, and that is certainly something that regulators need to and have the ability to take a look at. But this (amendment) certainly is not the answer.?

Garrett then argued generally against the creation of the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency which was designated to conduct the additional regulatory review. He said that the result of establishing this agency and giving it broad powers would be the ?contracting (of) consumer choice, putting limitations on the consumers' ability to buy products that they need and want . . . causing a cost to the overall system of credit . . . .? He said: Experts have shown that the Consumer Financial Protection Agency alone would add . . . about 1.5 percentage points to the cost of credit in this country . . . in the case of reverse mortgages . . . if you have a 6 percent loan now (it) would go up to around . . . 7.5 percent. Just the act of borrowing will be made harder by the cost of the underlying bill.?

Garrett added that ?if the Consumer Financial Protection Agency was not omnipotent enough with their power to reach in basically every single corner of the economy of this country, now we are going to let them go even a little bit further (with this amendment).

The amendment passed by a vote of 277-149.  Two hundred and fifty-one Democrats and twenty-six Republicans voted ?aye?. The other one hundred and forty-nine Republicans all voted ?nay?. As a result, language requiring additional regulatory review of reverse mortgage lenders was added to the bill designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 963
Dec 11, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On the of Marshall of Georgia amendment that would have allowed bankruptcy courts to modify home mortgages to prevent foreclosures

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Marshall (D-GA) that would have allowed bankruptcy courts to modify and reduce the amount of home mortgages, extend the mortgage repayment periods, and reduce the interest rate and fees on them to prevent foreclosure. Under existing law, bankruptcy courts have the authority to modify many loans, including car loans and mortgages on vacation houses. That modification authority does not extend to first mortgages on primary residences.

The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression.

In his statement in support of the amendment, Rep. Marshall said it ?is intended to address (the) foreclosure crisis without taxpayers having to put money into the deal. It essentially forces the parties to deal with their problems without having vacancies and foreclosures in our neighborhoods. In that sense, it helps all lenders with real estate portfolios. It helps the individuals whose homes might be foreclosed upon. It actually helps the creditors, who . . . in almost every instance (would have) their portfolios improved by not having as many houses in foreclosure, and in almost every instance, they get better deals . . . than they would in the normal foreclosure process.?

Rep. Smith (R-TX) began his opposing statement by saying that the ?number one cause of foreclosures today is job loss. The number two cause is homes which are mortgaged for more than they are worth (and) . . . (T)he jobless (who are losing their homes) do not have the steady incomes that are required to (continue paying on the mortgages even if their principal and interest were reduced)? Smith also argued: ?Allowing bankruptcy courts to (reduce) mortgage principal will only lead to higher interest rates and tougher mortgage terms for all future homeowners.?

Rep. Marshall responded first by noting that, under his amendment: ?If, in fact, you are jobless and don't have income, you are not eligible for (the reduction) . . . It is those who do have jobs and who do have income who could survive if they had the opportunity to restructure their debt. They would be eligible. It's only those folks.  As far as increasing the cost of credit is concerned, this bill . . .  doesn't apply to future credit. Many, many experts have looked at this and have concluded that it will not increase the cost of future credit.?

Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA), who also opposed the amendment, said that its ultimate effect would be to ?make the (foreclosure) crisis deeper, longer, and wider.? He claimed that reducing the amount of mortgages ?will invariably lead to higher interest rates and to less generous borrowing terms for future borrowers.? Goodlatte then claimed that ?many borrowers walk away from their homes, not because they can't afford their monthly payments, but because their homes are mortgaged for more than they are worth. These borrowers should live with the responsibility of their decisions and not receive bailouts from bankruptcy courts. ?

Goodlatte concluded his remarks by noting that the reductions that would be allowed as a result of the amendment ?will not only impact lenders but investors as well. These investors often include pension funds, which represent the retirement savings of millions.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 188-241.  One hundred and eighty-four Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and seventy-one Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was not added to the major financial reform bill that would have allowed bankruptcy courts to modify home mortgages to prevent foreclosures.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 962
Dec 11, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On the of Peters of Michigan amendment that permitted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to charge assessments to large financial institutions to help pay for any shortfall in the ?TARP? funding that was used to bail out troubled banks

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Peters (D-MI) that permitted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to charge assessments to large financial institutions to help pay for any shortfall in the ?TARP? funding. That funding was used to helped bail out troubled banks. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression.

Rep. Peters introduced his amendment by saying that its purpose is to see to it ?that taxpayers are not asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's past mistakes . . . .? He also said that the amendment ?will ensure that the Wall Street bailout does not increase the national debt one bit . . . . Instead, large financial institutions that caused the credit crisis will be required to make taxpayers whole. As large banks return to health, there is no reason why taxpayers should pay to clean up Wall Street?s mess.?

Peters also argued that, if his amendment were adopted, it would give ?the American taxpayer certainty that all TARP funds will be recouped from the large financial companies that caused this financial crisis.? He also said that it would guarantee that ?taxpayers will never again be on the hook for bailing out financial institutions. Institutions would pay assessments based on their potential risk to the financial system and broader economy if they were to fail.? Rep. Schauer (D-MI), speaking in support of the amendment, said it would ?ensure American taxpayers will get their money back and that those that created this mess will pick up the tab.?

Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) led the opposition to the amendment. He began by arguing that if the House ?really cares about protecting the taxpayer against losses in TARP, they will . . . vote to end the TARP program . . . .? Hensarling went on to say ?some of the companies that received funds under the (TARP) have now repaid them back with interest. So now we are in the position to tax companies that have proven successful and paid back their funds, tax them for failing companies that didn't pay back theirs. Chrysler and GM received funds under TARP and Ford didn't. So under this, I suppose that we could assess Ford a tax to pay for losses the taxpayers will incur on GM and Chrysler . . . Is that smart? Is that fair? The answer is no.?

Hensarling also claimed:?This is yet another tax to go on capital. You can't have capitalism without capital. And so we have a $150 billion tax for the revolving bailout fund . . . Every time you increase the cost of taxes on capital, you get less lending, you get less credit, more expensive credit. And less credit is fewer jobs.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 228-198.  All two hundred and twenty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One hundred and seventy-three Republicans and twenty-five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to the major financial reform bill that permitted the FDIC to charge assessments to large financial institutions to help pay for the ?TARP? funding.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 961
Dec 11, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On the McCarthy of California amendment that would have removed language intended to enhance the protection of investors by strengthening the liability standards for national credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poors and Moody?s

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. McCarthy (R- CA) that would have removed language that was designed to strengthen the liability standards for national credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poors and Moody?s. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression.

Rep. McCarthy began his remarks in support the amendment by saying: ?I'm not here to defend credit rating agencies. I am supportive of other credit rating agency reforms that the committee passed . . . (but) I think the government and the private sector should use credit ratings for what they are--predictive opinions about inherently uncertain futures.?

McCarthy then cautioned that: ?Increased liability may lead to (the rating) agencies being hesitant to even allow their ratings on security offerings, thereby providing potential investors with less information.? He went on to argue that adding language increasing the ratings? potential liability would force them to ?practice defensive ratings for fear of being sued, (and) this would ultimately increase costs and restrict credit. Opening the ratings agencies to unlimited civil liability will not guarantee more accurate credit ratings. Litigating an industry to death does not solve any problems.?

Rep. Kilroy (D-OH) opposed the amendment. She noted that ?the credit rating agencies played a huge role in the collapse of our markets a year ago. In fact, they bragged that they could rate anything, even a cow. And they continue to play a critical role in millions of financial transactions as pension funds, mutual fund managers, and others rely on the ratings from Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch as they make their investment decisions.?

Kilroy claimed that H.R. 4173, as written, ?will provide for greater scrutiny and more responsibility from the credit rating agencies protecting . . . investors. But the amendment . . . would weaken credit rating agency reforms.? She noted that accountants, lawyers, investment bankers, directors, officers, and executives of the issuers are already subject to the liability that the McCarthy amendment would remove from rating agencies.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 166-259.  One hundred and sixty-two  Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-nine  Democrats and ten Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the language strengthening liability standards for national credit rating agencies remained in the financial reform legislation.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
N N Won
Roll Call 960
Dec 11, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On the Kanjorski of Pennsylvania amendment that would have maintained federal audit requirements designed to protect investors for all public companies, regardless of whether they are large or small

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered to H.R. 4173, a bill designed to prevent the kind of major financial crisis that had recently occurred, Although the bill included provisions imposing greater regulation on public companies, it also contained language exempting public companies with less than $75 million in market value from the audit of internal controls requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These audit requirements were originally imposed to provide protection to all those who invest in publicly-traded companies. This amendment, offered by Rep. Kanjorski (D-PA), would have eliminated the language in H.R. 4173 exempting those smaller public companies. Its passage would have meant that all public companies would be subject to federal audit requirements regardless of their size.

Rep. Sarbanes (D-MD), whose father was the co-author of the original Sarbanes-Oxley Act, spoke in support of the amendment. He argued that it would maintain ?critical investor protections (even though) those who oppose this (amendment) say that the smaller publicly traded companies can't handle the burden of compliance. (But the) costs (of compliance) have come way down . . .  because the Securities and Exchange Commission has been careful to work with these smaller companies to make sure that that burden is not too heavy.?

Sarbanes added: ?The fact of the matter is that if you are an investor, it doesn't matter to you whether you are investing in a smaller company or a larger company. What you want to know is that that company is not cooking the books. If we don't pass this amendment, then almost half of the publicly traded companies in this country will be exempt from these basic transparency requirements.?

Rep. Frank (D-MA), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, supported the amendment. He said that the Securities and Exchange Commission ?has recognized the potential problems for people under $75 million. . . The question is . . . whether they should be given a permanent exemption without giving us a chance to have the commission continue its development of more appropriate rules (for these smaller companies) . . . But they are in the process of doing this . . .  I understand the desire of people to help smaller businesses. But at this point it is a license for people who might want to be abusive by guaranteeing them that they will never be audited despite any effort to make an appropriate audit.?

Rep. Garrett (R-MD) spoke in opposition to the amendment.  He first noted that ?small businesses are not the cause of our current financial situation, but they are the ones who are going to get us out of it.? He then added that the exemption the amendment sought to remove from the bill ?does not exempt (these smaller companies from) . . . all auditing requirements.? Garrett then argued that the exemption would ease the regulatory burden on smaller businesses and said: ?The hundreds of thousands of dollars that it will cost them to comply with (the regulations that this amendment sought to reimpose) . . . would be much better spent  . . . to make sure that we can provide more jobs as we see the joblessness rate rise.?

Rep. Adler (D-NJ) also opposed the amendment. He said there was ?clear evidence? that the provision of Sarbanes-Oxley that the amendment would reinstate ?has chased companies out of the United States. We know companies that are doing Initial Public Offerings, not in New York, but in London.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 153-271.  One hundred and fifty-two Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and one hundred and one Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language exempting public companies with less than $75 million in market capitalization from the audit of internal controls requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act remained in the financial reform legislation.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 959
Dec 10, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On the Stupak of Michigan amendment that would have given additional authority to federal regulators to prohibit certain transactions the regulators believed posed a risk to the financial market place

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Stupak (D-MI) that would have given the Securities and Exchange Commission and other federal regulators the authority to prohibit certain ?swap? transactions they believed posed a risk to the financial market place. A ?swap?is a financial instrument that can be used to lock in the future price for a commodity or as a form of financial insurance. Participating in one can sometimes place an entity in a financially risky position. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression.

Stupak said that the amendment provides ?additional assurances that the swaps market will be policed and prevents speculative financial companies from evading regulations or otherwise ignoring the law. Under this amendment . . . (C)ertain swaps (which) . . . are pure speculative bets that a company will fail . . . should be banned. As we learned in 2008, credit default swaps and other swap transactions pose a systemic risk to our economy and accelerated the economic collapse.?

Stupak noted: ?This amendment also narrows the definition of determining which companies are and are not bona fide (swap) users. Commercial companies that use commodities and securities to lock in prices and hedge the risk of their products . . . did not create the current financial crisis. H.R. 4173 reflects this reality, but its exception for (certain) . . . swaps . . . is written so broadly that financial speculators and private pools of capital can be treated as bona fide hedgers.?

Rep. Peterson (D-MN), the chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over the regulation of swaps, opposed the amendment. He said it reflected ?good intentions?, but expressed concern ?that if we ban these products, they will simply move overseas and outside of our ability to regulate them. And if they are dangerous products and if they are something that shouldn't be done, I don't know if it makes any sense if we are just going to transfer that over to a foreign country.?

Peterson also objected to the fact that ?the amendment limits the applicability of legal certainty of swaps. This amendment asks the question why illegal swaps should be enforceable. The answer is that otherwise you will encourage illegal behavior. If a swap dealer or an end user finds itself in a money-losing swap, it would be easy to engage in some illegal behavior to negate the swap and escape its financial liability.? He also objected to the fact that, based on the language of the amendment, ?(T)he standard of illegality is not very high. You wouldn't have to commit fraud to invalidate a swap; you just don't have to follow the regulations.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 150-279.  One hundred and forty-five Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and five Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and one hundred and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was not added to the major financial reform bill, which gave regulators the authority to prohibit certain swaps they believe pose a risk to the financial market place.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 958
Dec 10, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On the Stupak of Michigan amendment that would have required all financial transactions known as ?swaps? to be executed on an exchange registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Stupak (D-MI) that would have required all financial transactions known as ?swaps? to be executed on an exchange that had registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A ?swap? is a financial contract that can be used to lock in the future price for a commodity or as a form of financial insurance; participating in one can sometimes place an entity in a financially risky position. The requirement that swaps be traded on an exchange registered with the Commission was designed to promote the control and standardization of these transactions. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression.

Stupak noted that the purpose of H.R. 4173 was to provide a ?comprehensive and thorough regulation of the financial sector?. However, he added that ?it would be meaningless if we continue to leave loopholes in place to evade regulation.? He noted that ?swaps? represent a huge amount of financial transactions, but that the vast majority of them are traded ?in unregulated dark markets (and) . . . (T)hese unregulated markets create a systemic risk across the financial system and helped bring Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and AIG into bankruptcy and our economy to the verge of disaster.?

Stupak said: ?The best way to address this problem is to require Wall Street financial houses to post collateral and clear their swaps contracts on regulated exchanges . . . we should at least require that these trades be made in the open, transparent markets.? He said his amendment ?establishes a simple requirement (that swaps) . . . be reported on an exchange (to insure) . . . a competitive, transparent market.?  He quoted the recent testimony of a federal regulator that ?lack of regulation in these (swap) markets has created significant information deficits''. Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of progressive organizations, including The AFL-CIO, The Consumer Federation of America and AARP expressed its support for the amendment on its web site. The site included the statement that passage of the amendment would provide ?greater transparency to market participants.?

A consumer protection organization known as Stop Oil Speculation Now also expressed its support for the amendment on its web site. The site included the statement that the use of swaps encourages ?reckless speculation (that) artificially raises the price of gasoline . .  , (and the Stupak Amendment would) increase transparency and close known loopholes in the regulation of commodities futures markets.?

Rep Lucas (R-OK) opposed the amendment. Lucas first asked:?What risk is this amendment looking to eliminate?? He noted that the financial reform legislation already contained language recognizing ?that there are swaps that need not go through the cost and formality of . . . an exchange or swap execution facility. As long as the regulator can see the swap and has the appropriate tools to mitigate risk to the U.S. financial system, what more does the exchange execution requirement add??  Lucas also argued: ?Forcing these swaps to be executed on an exchange  will only artificially increase the cost of managing risk or (will) discourage legitimate risk management activity altogether.?

Rep. Peterson (D-MN), the chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over the regulation of swaps, opposed the amendment. He first acknowledged that: ?In theory, this (amendment) all makes sense.? His opposition was based in part on the fact that many of those with who use swaps as financial management tools were concerned that the passage of the amendment would interfere with the normal operation of the swap market. These included members of the American Gas Association, the Public Gas Association, and the Public Power Association, as well as 3M, Cargill, John Deere, and Caterpillar.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 98-330.  Ninety-five Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and three Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and one hundred and sixty Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was not added to the major financial reform bill requiring that all financial transactions known as ?swaps? be executed on an exchange that had registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 957
Dec 10, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On the Frank of Massachusetts amendment that would have permitted federal regulators to set the requirements for the amount investors would have to deposit as collateral to cover their credit risk on certain financial instruments

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Frank (D-MA) that would have permitted federal regulators to set the requirements for the amount investors would have to deposit as collateral to cover their credit risk on financial instruments known as ?derivatives?. Derivatives are sensitive financial instruments whose value is tied - - or derived - - from other instruments such as bonds whose value is backed by the amount of mortgages that are paid in a timely manner.

The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. A number of commentators had expressed the view that the improper use of derivatives had contributed significantly to the recent financial crisis the country had experienced.

Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of progressive organizations, including The AFL-CIO, The Consumer Federation of America and AARP expressed its support for the amendment on its web site. The site included the statement that passage of the amendment ?would significantly reduce systemic risk by giving regulators a more comprehensive view of market size, players, and dynamics as well as the tools to mitigate . . . risk.?

Speaking in support of his amendment, Rep. Frank noted that its language would allow the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators to establish the amounts require. He emphasized that this would not be a mandate that the commission establish that amount. Frank said ?the question is should we say that the regulators should be denied what they have asked for . . . where they think this is important to avoid the kind of imbalances we had before.?

Franks also said: ?The purpose (of the amendment) is . . . to prevent again the situation where one party or the other makes commitments it is unable to live up to. And this is a requirement--this is an empowerment of the regulators to act where they think there's a problem to prevent this from happening.?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce web site expressed its opposition to the amendment. Part of the explanation given for that opposition was that: ?(M)argin requirements imposed upon end-user transactions would require companies . . .  to divert significant amounts of working capital to margin accounts ? capital that companies could otherwise use to grow, create jobs or invest in new technologies.? The description of the amendment on the House Republican web site noted that, ?Members may be concerned that, (if it passed), many businesses may abandon the derivatives markets or pass (some of their financial) costs to the consumer.?

Rep. Garrett (R-MD) was among those who opposed the amendment. He first claimed that ?neither the administration nor the (Democratic) majority nor the (Securities and Exchange Commission) chairman has provided any substantial evidence whatsoever of (how) . . . derivatives . . . cause a financial crisis . . . Derivatives are something that the companies use to try to hedge the risk. Clearly, we must make sure there's transparency and accountability . . . and we can do so in a way . . . that will not hamper their ability to control costs . . . This (amendment) would all hurt that.?

Garrett went on to argue: ?Derivative dealers and their customers, the end users, they're in the best position to determine what are the appropriate margin requirements, not giving more authority to the Securities and Exchange Commission or . . . any other financial regulators.? Rep. Bachus (R-AL) also opposed the amendment. He argued: ?Requiring greater margin and capital requirements on companies that never got in trouble leads to fewer jobs.? Bachus cited testimony by an official of the John Deere tractor company who said: ?We have a number of (derivative) contracts that extend well into the future. If these existing contracts are not permitted an exemption from . . . collateral requirements, we would have to terminate the transactions at a significant cost.''

Frank responded to the opposition by claiming: ?As to it costing a lot of money, the amendment specifically says that they should be allowed to use noncash collateral. That means they could pledge certain of their own assets, which could mean no cost.?  

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 150-280.  One hundred and forty-nine Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-three Republicans and one hundred and seven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was not added to the major financial reform bill, which required that all swap transactions be executed on a registered facility.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 956
Dec 10, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On the Murphy of New York amendment that would substitute a new definition for the term ?major swap participant?, which would place many additional financial companies under more intense regulation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Murphy (D-NY) to substitute a new definition for the term ?major swap participant?, which is an entity that engages in a type of risky financial transaction to which certain regulations apply. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression.

The term ?major swap participant? generally refers to any entity that maintains a substantial financial position, based on the movement of a factor such as interest rates or stock prices. A ?swap? is an agreement between two parties that allows one or both to lock in a future price on anything from currency to oil. Participating in a ?swap? can leave one or both of the parties in a financially risky position.

The definitional change in the amendment would result in a greater number of financial companies being subject to more intense regulation, and a lower number of manufacturing companies being subject to that regulation. The National Association of Manufacturers supported the amendment. It wrote a letter to Members of Congress noting that many manufacturers use swaps as a tool to manage and control their borrowing costs and other operating risks, including those associated with fluctuating currency exchange, interest rates and commodity prices. The Association?s letter said that, without the amendment, the new financial requirements imposed by the legislation ?could unnecessarily subject some end-users (of swaps) to burdensome margin and collateral requirements aimed primarily at those whose activities present risk to the financial system.?

Rep. Murphy said the reason for the change was that financial companies ?are systemically risky (and should) be held to a higher standard of accountability, while manufacturing companies use swaps in the normal course of (doing) their business (to hedge) . . .  their actual risk.?

Murphy also said that manufacturing companies should be allowed to make ongoing business decisions without being unduly monitored. He added that, in attempting to address the true underlying issues causing the financial crisis, Congress should see to it that it does not limit ?the ability of responsible companies to access the (markets) . . . they need to keep their businesses up and running.?

Rep. Kratovil (D-MD) co-sponsored the amendment. He argued: ?These (swaps) are not just used by the larger broker and dealer banks who do, in fact, present a systemic threat to the market, but also by smaller companies who use them to manage the risk associated with running an effective business. The fact of the matter is the legislation needs to distinguish between the two. Without this amendment, H.R. 4173 could subject some end users to burdensome costs and penalties that were primarily aimed at companies whose activities do, in fact, present a real risk to the stability of the financial system. Our amendment clarifies that (certain) end users do not pose a systemic risk and should not be designated as ?major swap participants? and incur the unintended costs.

Opponents of the amendment took the position that these additional regulations were needed to reduce the risks and potential abuses inherent in all swap transactions, regardless of whether those transactions were engaged in by financial institutions or by manufacturers.

Rep. Frank (D-MA), who chairs the Financial Services Committee that developed H.R. 4173, was one of those who opposed the amendment. He argued that if any party ?is engaged in an activity that can cause financial problems, then we want them not to be exempt from regulation . . . .? Frank added: ?We don't want to wait for systemic risk. I don't want to wait until people are at the edge of the cliff to start to pull them back. . . . (Those engaging in swaps) can avoid this regulation by being careful . . . (to) use some prudence before (they) engage in a transaction with a counterparty who will be at risk and could begin the kind of chain that we hope would not happen . . . .?

The amendment was approved by a vote of 304-124.  One hundred and seventy-three Republicans and one hundred and thirty-one Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and twenty-four Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to the major financial reform bill, which redefined the term ?major swap participant.? 


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 955
Dec 10, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On the Lynch of Massachusetts amendment designed to prevent a few major financial institutions from controlling the sale and transfer of certain sensitive and risky financial instruments ; the amendment was offered to the legislation designed to prevent major financial crises and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Lynch (D-MA) to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. The amendment was designed to prevent a few major financial institutions from controlling the sale and transfer of all ?derivatives?; these are sensitive financial instruments whose value is tied - - or derived - - from other instruments. An example is investment whose value is dependent on the amount of mortgages that are paid in a timely manner. Problems with large amounts of these derivatives had contributed significantly to the financial crisis the country recently faced.

 Lynch began his statement in support of the amendment by noting that H.R. 4173 ?would require over-the-counter trading to be conducted through clearinghouses, which are set up to police derivatives trading and to make sure there is sufficient protection from the reckless behavior that these ?too big to fail? banks have engaged in. Clearinghouses are a good idea. Think of them as financial police stations.? He then went on to note that ?97 percent of the derivatives trading in this country is controlled by just five banks (and four) . . . of those five banks were top recipients (of federal bailout money). During their recent financial meltdown, these same banks engaged in very risky behavior involving complex derivatives, which endangered the entire financial system.?

Lynch said that, without his amendment: ?The big banks would be allowed to own and control the clearinghouses and to set the rules for how their own derivatives deals are handled.?  He noted that his amendment ?would prevent those big banks . . . from taking over the police station--these new clearinghouses.? Rep. Frank (D-MA), who chairs the Financial Services Committee that developed H.R. 4173, supported the amendment. Frank said he disagreed ?with the premise that the large financial investment houses and large financial institutions have earned the degree of trust that our voting against this amendment would require . . . If you let people who have a financial interest in there not being clearing be in charge of clearing, it would take an extraordinarily selfless group of people not to give in to temptation . . . The fact is that if you reject this amendment, you are giving people, who have an incentive to make these things not work well, control over them.?

Rep. Price (R-GA) opposed the amendment. He said ?it would significantly limit competition and undermine the ultimate goal that all of us ought to have, and that is to make certain that the market is, in fact, able to work for more individuals across this land.? He added that the ?New York Stock Exchange . . . Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (and other similar groups) . . . oppose this amendment because they believe strongly that it will decrease the choices available to the American people . . . What this amendment does (is say) . . . government knows best, that we ought to limit the ability of creative thinking and jobs to be formed out there across this land, because government knows best. We are going to limit the choices available to the American people.?

Rep. Garrett (R-NJ) also argued against the amendment saying it ?could very well exacerbate risk by forcing more derivative transactions . . . to fewer clearinghouses, basically concentrating risk and doing the opposite of what the American public wants, to avoid risk burdens and additional bailouts.? Rep. McMahon (D-NY) also opposed the amendment. He argued: ?The way to deal with concerns about conflicts of interest is through changes in governance, not through restricting ownership and investments.? He went on to say: ?The underlying bill grants regulators the strongest authority to police the markets . . . .? He also claimed that ?the proponents of this amendment are using the legislative process to promote one marketplace over the others . . . We are here today to reform American financial services and our regulatory structure, not to drive companies out of business . . . .?

The amendment was approved by a vote of 228-202. Two hundred and ten Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and eighteen Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-six Republicans and forty-six Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to the major financial reform bill preventing a few major financial institutions from controlling the sale and transfer of derivatives.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 954
Dec 10, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On the Sessions of Texas amendment to eliminate a private right of legal action against credit rating agencies; the amendment was offered to the legislation designed to prevent major financial crises and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Sessions (R-TX) to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. The amendment would have eliminated a proposed new private right of legal action created in H.R. 4173 against credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poors and Moody?s. These agencies evaluate the financial strength of bonds and other investments and issue formal ratings on them for investors.

Speaking in support of his amendment, Sessions said that ?the Securities and Exchange Commission is already handling regulatory disputes (involving the rating agencies) with no backlog, (but) this new provision allows trial lawyers to take regulatory enforcement into their own hands in the form of frivolous, unnecessary lawsuits. When it comes to a case of fraud, investors already have the right to sue credit rating agencies. This provision is completely unnecessary?. He claimed that the Democrats created this new private right to sue the rating agencies ?to allow trial lawyers to run wild with enforcement capacities.?

Rep. Garrett (R-NJ) also spoke in favor of the amendment. He said that ?bipartisan action taken by this Congress back in 2006 (created the) . . .Credit Rating Agency Reform Act (which) . . . formalized the registration process of credit rating agencies . . . What are we about to do here? Throw that out the window before it's fully implemented, before we fully have had the opportunity to see it roll out and be played out as Congress intended . . . .? He said that the language the amendment was seeking to remove will make it more difficult for the rating agencies ?to make the evaluations that are necessary for the industry. That means it will be harder for credit to be obtained in the marketplaces, and what that means for businesses, of course, harder for them.?

Rep. Kanjorski (D-PA), opposed the amendment. He claimed that ?if we had responsible activity by rating agencies we wouldn't have had the tremendous failure last year of so many securitized operations . . . because (rating agencies assigned) . . . 3-plus ratings to securities that didn't deserve it . . . Now, what we're doing here is saying . . .  If you want to put at risk investors, you will suffer the consequences and pay for your gross negligence.?

Rep. Capuano (D-MA) also opposed the amendment. He said the provisions creating this new private right are ?absolutely essential . . . Without (them), credit rating agencies will not be held accountable for anything they do.? He also claimed that ?the SEC has failed to do anything . . . Tell me the last time a credit rating agency was held accountable for giving a AAA rating to a piece of junk. Enron, junk bonds . . . they're never held accountable. All this says is they have to actually look at the books, they have to use anything they know, and they cannot be reckless about it . . . It doesn't say they're held accountable if they're wrong, nor should they be. A legitimate error is fine. All this says is they have to be held accountable to the American public when they basically don't do their job.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 172-257 along almost straight party lines.  One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the provisions creating a new private right of legal action against the rating agencies remained in the bill.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Accounting Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Won
Roll Call 953
Dec 10, 2009
(H.R. 4173) On the Frank of Massachusetts amendment that provided several billion dollars to stem the ongoing wave of mortgage foreclosures, gave consumers the same access to their credit scores as lenders, and made other changes designed to curtail abuses in the financial system

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Frank (D-MA) to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. H.R.4173 had been developed in response to the severe problems in the finance and banking industries that had contributed to the severe economic downturn the country was experiencing. 

The amendment, among other things, provided $4 billion for foreclosure relief programs, $3 billion in low-interest loans to unemployed homeowners having difficulty making their mortgage payments, and $1 billion in grants to states for the purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed and abandoned residential properties. It also contained language designed to guarantee consumers the same access to their credit scores as lenders; tightened standards on bankers who extended credit to less than ?prime? borrowers; and permitted the FDIC to disregard the pledging of collateral by failed financial institutions shortly before their insolvency.

Rep. Waters (D-CA) supported the amendment. She noted that the Black Caucus, of which she is a member, had requested that the $3 billion in low-interest loans for unemployed homeowners be included in the amendment. She said those funds are needed because ?foreclosures and unemployment present a systemic risk to our economy? and ?our current foreclosure prevention programs address the initial cause of our foreclosure crisis, subprime and predatory lending, and not the current cause, unemployment . . . .? Waters went on to note that ?Pennsylvania has run a very successful (similar) loan program that has saved 42,700 unemployed homeowners from foreclosure.?

Speaking in support of the language giving consumers the same access to their credit scores as lenders, Rep.Tsongas (D-MA) said ? it seems unthinkable to me that . . . consumers would be placed in the dark in regard to their creditworthiness''. She also said that the amendment ?levels the playing field for consumers.?

Rep. Capito (R-WV) opposed the provision in the amendment providing $3 billion in low-interest loans to help unemployed homeowners. She said that ?strapping an unemployed homeowner with more debt is not the answer. Congress needs to support policies that create jobs and not perpetuate any more bailouts.? Capito also opposed the provisions giving $1 billion in grants to states for the purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed and abandoned residential properties. She claimed that this ?is a costly bailout for lenders and speculators. This program also could have the unintended consequences of making foreclosure a more attractive option for lenders, thereby compounding the problem.? Capito supported her claim that providing these additional funds was not going to do any good by referring to other recent emergency housing funds Congress had provided and noting that ?not one dollar has made it through HUD's cumbersome bureaucracy.?

The amendment was approved by a vote of 240-182.  Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-two Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to the major financial reform bill providing several billion dollars to stem the ongoing wave of mortgage foreclosures, giving consumers the same access to their credit scores as lenders, and making other changes designed to curtail abuses in the financial system.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 952
Dec 10, 2009
(H.Res. 964) Legislation designed to prevent major financial crises and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation designed to prevent the kind of major financial crises that had recently occurred, and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. The legislation had been developed in response to the severe problems in the finance and banking industries that had contributed to the ongoing economic downturn the country was experiencing.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO) was leading the support for the rule. Referring to the crisis that the financial industry had recently experienced, he said: ?The banking system is our nation's circulatory system for our economy; and last year that circulatory system had a heart attack. We cannot and will not let the banking system fail . . . .?

He claimed that one of the things that the legislation accomplishes is to insure ?that there is no place to hide by closing loopholes, improving consolidated supervision, and establishing robust regulatory oversights.? Perlmutter also claimed that the legislation ?puts the regulation of consumer protection on a level playing field with the regulation of safety and soundness of our financial institutions . . . (and keeps) watch over predatory practices that some lenders have shown a propensity to pursue.? He concluded his remarks by declaring that the systematic changes made by the bill ?are essential to rebuilding Main Street and getting credit flowing to small businesses, creating jobs, and rebuilding our economy . . . .?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the opposition to the rule. He first agreed that there was a need to ?reform our financial regulatory system to prevent the kind of catastrophic breakdown that occurred last year . . . .? Dreier then added: ?Unfortunately, the legislation being considered fails on all counts. (It makes our regulatory system) more complicated and less accountable, more unworkable and less transparent.?

Dreier argued that the focus should not be on whether regulation is increased or diminished. Rather, it should be ?about making (regulation) smarter, more accountable, and more effective. The Democratic majority's so-called reform bill takes us in the opposite direction. By adding multiple layers of new bureaucracy and making agencies like the Federal Reserve even less accountable than before, they threaten to compound the very problems that led to our current situation . . . by further tangling this Byzantine mess of regulators and super regulators (which) . . .will further tie up credit that families and small businesses desperately need . . .? Dreier also claimed that the bill ultimately would ?reduce consumers' access to credit, destroy jobs, and leave our deficit spiraling out of control.?

The rule setting the terms for debating the major financial regulatory reform bill was approved by a vote of 235-177. All two hundred and thirty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Seven other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin consideration of legislation designed to prevent major financial crises and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Accounting Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 951
Dec 10, 2009
(H.Res. 962) Legislation designed to prevent major financial crises and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression - - on a motion to waive a procedural rule in order for the House to be able to consider the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion that effectively would allow the House to consider immediately the resolution setting the terms for debating financial reform legislation. That legislation was designed to prevent the kind of major financial crisis that had recently occurred, and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. The Rules Committee develops the resolution setting the terms for debating all significant legislation. Each resolution must be approved before the House can consider the legislation to which it relates.

There is a House regulation preventing any such resolution from being considered on the same day as it is submitted by the Rules Committee. That regulation may ordinarily be waived by a two-thirds vote. The Democratic majority wanted to consider the resolution setting the terms for debating the financial reform bill on the same day as it had been submitted by the Rules Committee. However, there was sufficient opposition to prevent a two-thirds waiver vote. The purpose of this motion was to eliminate the application of that two-thirds vote requirement to the rule on the financial reform bill.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL) was leading the effort in support of the motion. He said that he hoped: ?Members on both sides of the aisle will support this (waiver) so that we can move quickly to enact this critically important (financial regulation) legislation.? Hastings referenced the merits of the legislation to buttress his argument in support of the waiver. He said ?the (recent) financial crisis has shown that the deregulation or even the lack of regulation over financial firms is not an option anymore. For the first time ever, this legislation provides key provisions that will mandate oversight of certain parts of the United States financial system.? Hastings concluded his remarks by claiming that the reform legislation would ?provide American consumers with long overdue safeguards and reflects the Congress's commitment to putting the needs of the American people before those of Wall Street.?

Rep. Sessions (R-TX) led the opposition to the motion. He based his opposition both on procedural considerations and on the substance of the bill to which the rule setting the terms for debate applied. Sessions first quoted a statement made three years earlier when the Republican controlled the House by Rep. McGovern (D-MA), a member of the Rules Committee. That statement referred to ?this martial law rule? and ?the outrageous process that continues to plague this House.? The McGovern quote also complained about ?the (House) leadership . . . once again (ignoring) the rules of the House and the precedents and traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to run a democracy, no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party affiliation.''

Sessions said  a ? ?martial law rule? . . . is what we're being asked to consider here today. We're being asked to consider this outrageous process on the House floor today, yet the Democratic Party knows it's not the right thing to do. It was not right then and it's not right now.?

Sessions then dealt with the substance of the financial regulation legislation. He called it a ?monstrous financial reform package (that) . . .make(s) federal bailout authority permanent, and allow(s) bureaucrats to determine the types of financial products that will be made available to consumers and set(s) the salaries of private sector employees.? He went on to argue that the bill ?does nothing to help create private sector jobs or to provide financial relief to Americans in these tough times, which should be Congress's number one priority.?

The motion to waive the regulation passed by a vote of 239-183. All two hundred and thirty-nine ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twelve other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to take up the resolution, setting the terms for debating the major financial regulation, on the same day as it was submitted by the Rules Committee.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Accounting Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 949
Dec 10, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On passage of legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on passage of legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments. The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between both bodies. The original version of the legislation did provide funding only for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. Since fiscal year 2010 was well under way, the Democratic majority decided to add 2010 funding for several other departments to the legislation during the conference.

Rep. Olver (D-MA) led the support for the legislation. He focused on the transportation and housing portion of the bill and said ?it demonstrates our mutual commitment to investing in our nation's housing and transportation infrastructure; our mutual commitment to maintaining critical services in urban and rural communities; our mutual commitment to vulnerable populations such as the elderly and disabled; our mutual commitment to building sustainable communities for our nation's families; and our mutual commitment to maintaining an efficient and safe transportation system that contributes to America's place in a global economy.? Regarding the entire legislation, Olver said that it ?strengthens the foundation upon which our economic turnaround is being built.?

Rep. Latham (R-IA) was leading the opposition to the bill. He said that it was ?unfortunate that . . . Rep. Olver is forced to carry five other (spending) bills with him (in addition to that which funds transportation and housing), bills that should be considered on their own as conference reports.? Latham added that ?we could have and should have been able to bring the Transportation-Housing and Urban Development conference report to the floor by the end of the fiscal year. Instead, here we are today 3 months into the fiscal year . . . .? Latham said each of the other measures should have been considered as a ?stand-alone bill.? He went on to note that the funding for three of the departments provided in H.R. 3288 was not even ?considered in the Senate and (is) buried in this package.?

Latham then pointed to a recent non-binding House vote that instructed the House Members who were designated to develop a final version of the Transportation-Housing and Urban Development funding bill with the Senate not to include the funding for any other departments in the conference report. He added: ?Instead, against the wishes of the House, we've added five bills to this conference report.? Latham concluded by saying ?I regret very much that I am unable to support this bill . . . However, the price tag . . . is simply too high.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 221-202. All two hundred and twenty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-eight other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 948
Dec 10, 2009
(H.Res. 961) Legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the conference report containing the legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments. The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between both bodies. The original version of the legislation did provide funding only for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. Since fiscal year 2010 was well under way, the Democratic majority decided to add 2010 funding for several other departments to the legislation during the conference.

Most conference reports, like most bills, require the approval of a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for their debate, before they can be considered by the House. This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating this conference report.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA) was leading the support for the rule. McGovern described the money in all the measures included in this legislation as ?critical funding? that will ?reverse years of neglect . . . to our roads and our bridges . . . our lower income neighbors and . . . education system, and . . . our veterans.? McGovern argued that the funds in all the measures included in this legislation were needed to continue the efforts of the Obama Administration, which ?is reversing a long downward spiral that started under the last President.?

McGovern claimed: The (economic) stimulus plan is working as planned. We are making sound investments in helping . . . to breathe life back into our real estate economy.? McGovern went on to describe the efforts of the previous Bush Administration as demonstrating a ?reverse Midas touch (that) turned surpluses into deficits.? He concluded by saying: ?It's time to fund our priorities and meet the needs of the American people.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the opposition to the rule. He first complained that the rule permitted only one hour to debate for a ?$500 billion measure? He then argued that ?when virtually everyone . . . (is) engaged in cutting back spending . . . (W)e've seen an . . . 85 percent increase (in nondefense discretionary spending) at a time when families across this country are working very hard to make ends meet.?

Dreier then complained that the Democratic majority ?shut out real debate . . . (and) made the unprecedented move of closing down the entire appropriations process? on the grounds that it was necessary to complete the spending bills in a timely manner. He concluded that: ?What we have gotten is . . . neither timely nor deliberative action (and) . . . bad process begets bad substance.? He noted that ?It's not unusual for our work on the Federal budget to extend beyond the close of the fiscal year?, but suggested that did not justify moving forward on this large a bill in so short an allowed time.

The rule setting the terms for debating the legislation was approved by a vote of 221-200. All two hundred and twenty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-nine other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 947
Dec 10, 2009
(H.Res. 961) Legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the conference report containing the legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between both bodies. The original version of the legislation did provide funding only for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. Since fiscal year 2010 was well under way, the Democratic majority decided to add 2010 funding for several other departments to the legislation during the conference.

Most conference reports, like most bills, require the approval of a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for their debate, before they can be considered by the House. This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating this conference report.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA) was leading the support for the rule and for the motion to bring the rule to an immediate vote. He began his statement in support by acknowledging that he had ?a slightly different perspective on the appropriations (or funding) process than I did 3 years ago. Then, in the minority, I questioned why the then-Republican majority wasn't able to finish their bills on time. I realize now that in many cases, finishing the bills in a timely fashion wasn't always the fault of the majority in the House but rather a result of the dysfunction in the Senate . . . this House, this Democratic majority, did our job. We passed every single bill in a timely way and we did so responsibly, and in many cases joined by many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.?

McGovern then suggested that the House Republicans were still going to ?protest about the process here, that this bill is made up of six bills . . . (B)ut we are essentially reaffirming votes that have already been taken on issues that have already been previously debated and discussed.? McGovern went on to describe the money for all the departments that was provided in the legislation as ?critical funding?. He argued that all the bills incorporated in this one piece of legislation ?are about priorities. They are about values. They show who we are as a Congress, and I stand by the values articulated in these bills . . . I see these bills as an opportunity to reverse years of neglect . . . to our roads and our bridges . . . our lower income neighbors and . . . education system, and . . . our veterans.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the opposition to the rule. He first complained that the rule permitted only one hour of debate for this ?$500 billion measure.? He then argued that ?when virtually everyone . . . (is) engaged in cutting back spending . . . (W)e've seen an . . . 85 percent increase (in nondefense discretionary spending) at a time when families across this country are working very hard to make ends meet.? Dreier noted: ?It's not unusual for our work on the federal budget to extend beyond the close of the fiscal year. It's not unprecedented to consider several appropriations bills in one package . . . (T)he task of spending the taxpayers' money . . . demands a great deal of deliberation, which is not always compatible with setting timetables . . . getting it right is more important than getting it done (quickly).

Dreier then complained that the Democratic majority ?shut out real debate . . . (and) made the unprecedented move of closing down the entire appropriations process? on the grounds that it was necessary to complete the spending bills in a timely manner. He concluded that: ?What we have gotten is . . . neither timely nor deliberative action (and) . . . bad process begets bad substance.?

The motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the legislation carried by a vote of 227-187. All two hundred and twenty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Seventeen other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 945
Dec 09, 2009
(H.Res. 956) Legislation designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 4173. That bill was designed to prevent the kind of major financial crisis that had recently occurred, and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression.  

Among other things, the bill created a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, strengthened the enforcement abilities of the Federal Trade Commission, included provisions intended to prevent future  bailouts of institutions that are  ?too big to fail", gave shareholders an advisory vote in executive compensation, strengthened the SEC's powers, initiated regulation of sensitive financial instruments known as ?derivatives, toughened anti-predatory lending practices, imposed a higher liability standard on the rating agencies, and created a Federal Insurance Office.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO) was leading the support for the rule for this legislation, Perlmutter described the provisions in the bill as ?a comprehensive package of reforms to address the numerous failures that led to the near collapse of our financial system . . . . ? He claimed that, among other things the bill ?makes robust consumer protection repair and reform (and) . . . puts the regulation of consumer protection on a level playing field with the regulation of safety and soundness of our financial institutions.? He also claimed that the bill will ?increase (financial) transparency and accountability . . . (and) is critical to protect taxpayers and consumers by reining in the abuses of Wall Street, while enabling a balanced environment for the financial markets to grow and stabilize our economy. These changes are essential to rebuilding Main Street and getting credit flowing to small businesses, creating jobs, and rebuilding our economy.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the opposition to the rule. He also focused on the substance of H.R. 4173 to support his position. Dreier began by agreeing that: ?We must reform our financial regulatory system to prevent the kind of catastrophic breakdown that occurred last year.? He then added that: ?We must do so in a way that preserves access to credit for families and small businesses, promotes job creation, ends taxpayer-funded bailouts, and allows us to begin to pay down this horrendous national debt that we're all facing. Unfortunately (H.R. 4173) . . . fails on all counts. ?

Dreier argued that the legislation would make the regulatory system ?more complicated and less accountable, more unworkable and less transparent. The task at hand is not about increasing regulation or diminishing regulation. It is about making it smarter, more accountable, and more effective.? Dreier said: ?By adding multiple layers of new bureaucracy and making agencies like the Federal Reserve System even less accountable than before, (the bill could) . . . compound the very problems that led to our current situation.? He particularly criticized provisions that he claimed would ?keep the taxpayers on the hook for a permanent system of bailouts.? Dreier added that one of the negative effects of the additional regulations imposed by the bill would be to increase ?the credit crunch (which) . . . threatens further job destruction and (slows) growth.?

The rule setting the terms for debating the legislation was approved by a vote of 235-177.  All two hundred and thirty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Seven other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy Republican and voted  ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debate on the bill imposing the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Accounting Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 943
Dec 09, 2009
(H.R. 4213) On passage of legislation extending the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and several other tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of the legislation that extended $30 billion worth of tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year. Among them were the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and the deduction for the payment of certain state and local property taxes. The bill also included provisions to generate revenue to compensate for the revenue ?lost? by the tax deduction extensions. These revenue-generating provisions tightened tax compliance and increased the tax on compensation paid to hedge fund managers and others.

Supporters of the bill claimed it would strengthen the economy by directing tax relief to middle class families and creating jobs at small businesses. Rep. Neal (D-MA), a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, noted that the 2010 fiscal year had already begun and: ?There are provisions here in the bottom of the ninth inning, with two out, that are expiring; and we need to give some predictability to decisions that will be made by businesses and individuals over the course of the next year.? Neal said that the bill extends several ?popular incentives? and particularly referenced the continuation of the R&D tax credit that  ?is critical to retaining American jobs.? He also claimed that the bill ?does no harm to the federal budget (because the) cost of these (extended tax) cuts is completely offset by . . . revenue raisers . . . (which, among other things) will shut down abuses by wealthy taxpayers . . . .?

Opponents of the legislation had consistently said they supported the tax reduction extensions, but focused their opposition on the provisions that increased certain taxes to compensate for the revenue lost by those reductions. They claimed, among other things, that real estate partnerships would be hard hit by the legislation, and that this would negatively impact on the creation of jobs in an industry that had suffered during the ongoing economic downturn. Rep. Brady (R-TX) claimed: ?That type of thing is the reason that this new Congress and this (Obama)White House has failed to get the American economy going.? He added that real estate partnerships ?are our local companies that build our office buildings, apartments, shopping centers . . . There are no abuses in this. These are the people who create jobs at home.?

Rep. Camp (R-MI), another opponent of the legislation, said ?we should be encouraging business investment, not discouraging it through higher taxes . . . If loopholes exist in law that allow tax cheats to illegally hide assets . . . obviously Republicans stand ready to help close those loopholes in an appropriate way . . . .?but he claimed that the changes made in this legislation were ultimately damaging because they change ?how business income has been taxed for decades, making it so that income that is currently taxed at a rate of 15 percent would be taxed at 35 percent, more than doubling that tax in an economic recession. It places one of the highest taxes on investment found anywhere (in return) . . . for 1 year of tax relief.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 241-181. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and ten Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate legislation extending the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and several other tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Won
Roll Call 942
Dec 09, 2009
(H.R. 4213) On legislation extending the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and several other tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year - - on a motion to table (kill) the appeal of a ruling by the Speaker; the ruling was that a motion to add language reducing a proposed tax increase on certain interest generated by businesses was not in order

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on motion to table (kill) the appeal of a ruling by the Speaker. The ruling that had been appealed was that a motion made by Rep. Camp (R-MI), to eliminate language in a pending bill that increased a tax on certain interest generated by businesses, was not in order. The motion had been ruled out of order because it violated the House rule that all proposed revenue reductions, which the Camp motion was, had to be compensated for with spending reductions or other revenue increases. No such revenue increase or spending reduction was included in the motion by Rep. Camp.

The interest on which Rep. Camp was trying to have a proposed tax increase rolled back was called ?carried interest?. It is the interest paid to the manager of a hedge fund or HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity_fund" \o "Private equity fund" private equity fund as the share of the profits of the fund.

Rep. Camp argued that the ruling that his motion was out of order should be reversed both because of the substance of his motion and because of the way the House had previously operated. On the grounds of substance, Camp argued that not permitting him to offer his motion would prevent ?the House from considering the merits of a different approach to the underlying bill, one that would let the American people keep more of their hard-earned income . . . (I)t would prevent the House from considering whether to extend (the current tax rate on carried interest) . . .We should be encouraging business investment, not discouraging it through higher taxes . . . (T)his carried interest tax . . . changes how business income has been taxed for decades, making income currently taxed at 15 percent up to 35 percent, more than doubling it . . . .?

On the ground on procedure, Camp argued that ?granting this point of order would foreclose the House from even considering whether it might want to pass this bill with . . . further tax relief.? He claimed that allowing motions such as his that are not formally compliant with the House rule that revenue offsets must be identified is ?something that all minorities, Republican and Democrat, over the last many years have been permitted . . . including as recently as last year.?

The motion to kill the appeal of the ruling passed by a vote of 251-172 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and fifty-Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the motion that would have eliminated a change in pending legislation that increased a tax on carried interest could not be offered.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Won
Roll Call 940
Dec 09, 2009
(H.Res. 955) Legislation extending the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and several other tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation that extended $30 billion worth of tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year. Among them were the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and the deduction for the payment of certain state and local property taxes. The bill for which the rule set the terms for debate also included provisions to compensate for the revenue ?lost? as a result of the tax deduction extensions. These revenue-generating provisions tightened tax compliance and increased the tax on compensation paid to hedge fund managers and others.

Rep. Arcuri (D-NY) was leading the support for the rule. He said that its approval ?will allow us to bring legislation to the House floor . . . that will not only strengthen our economy by directing tax relief to middle class families and creating jobs at small businesses, but will also do this in a deficit neutral, fiscally responsible way.?  Arcuri noted that many Americans were facing ?harsh realities in addressing the (then) current economic crisis (and) . . . (I)t is vitally important that these tax incentives are extended in order to maintain the economic recovery that has slowly started to take hold in this country.

Arcuri noted that some of the ?important tax credits for individuals . . . extended the deductions for tuition and education expenses, helping families send their children to college . . . and extend the increased standard deduction for state and local property taxes so that working families can keep more of their hard-earned dollars for other necessities during these tough economic times.?

He also cited the bill?s ?extension of several provisions important to businesses, including the credit for a company's R&D expenditures. Extending the research and development credit is vital to ensuring that American companies remain competitive and on the cutting edge of innovation . . . In the past, the R&D tax credit has lapsed, and Congress has had to retroactively extend it. American companies rely on this credit and upon its continuity so they can adequately plan for their long-term research projects. I support this proactive extension to provide that continuity. . . .?

Arcuri concluded his remarks by saying that: ?Supporting this rule and the tax-relief legislation we will consider later today is simple and common sense. We can provide tax relief and incentives to middle class families, spur innovation, retain and create jobs . . . (A)nd we can do it all in a fiscally responsible manner.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) led the opposition to the rule and to the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He first noted that he supported the substance of the underlying bill, which was to extend a number of tax-relief provisions. He then said his opposition was based partly on the fact that he believed ?these tax provisions should be made permanent, or that at the very least they should be extended for more than 1 year.? Diaz-Balart gave as his primary reason that ?year-to-year extensions, while better than no extension, fail to provide the predictability and the certainty that small businesses and families need to plan their budgets.?

Diaz-Balart also said that his opposition was based partly on the provision in the underlying bill that increased certain taxes to compensate for the revenue lost by the proposed tax deductions. Diaz-Balart noted that the Democrats had claimed that some of the provisions that generated revenue in the bill were effectively ?a tax on Wall Street venture funds; but . . . about half of that tax will be paid by real estate partnerships that build apartments, homes and shopping centers in our communities. Those real estate partnerships invest in new infrastructure in our communities and they help create jobs in the construction industry.?

He went on to say: ?The construction industry has been hit very hard . . . and too many jobs have been lost. What we need to be doing is providing incentives for job growth and investment in the construction industry. Unfortunately, we are doing the opposite with this legislation.?

The rule setting the terms for debating the bill was approved by a vote of 237-182.  All two hundred and thirty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Nine other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-three Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating legislation extending the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and several other tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Won
Roll Call 939
Dec 09, 2009
(H.Res. 955) Legislation extending the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and several other tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation that extended $30 billion worth of tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year. Among them were the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and the deduction for the payment of certain state and local property taxes. The bill for which the rule set the terms for debate also included provisions that generated revenue to compensate for the revenue ?lost? as a result of the tax deduction extensions. These revenue-generating provisions tightened tax compliance and increased the tax on compensation paid to hedge fund managers and others.

Rep. Arcuri (D-NY) was leading the support for the rule and the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He said that approval of the rule ?will allow us to bring legislation to the House floor . . . that will not only strengthen our economy by directing tax relief to middle class families and creating jobs at small businesses, but will also do this in a deficit neutral, fiscally responsible way.?

Arcuri argued that this was ?needed tax relief in a time when American citizens and American small businesses are beginning to turn the corner (on the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression).? He also said that the revenue-generating portion of the underlying bill made ?commonsense changes? that applied the same rules to the compensation of hedge fund managers as ?apply to real estate agents, waiters and CEO stock options.?

Arcuri added ?there are many families and businesses . . . that are struggling in the current economic crisis with rising costs of everyday items . . . (and) we face harsh realities in addressing the current economic crisis . . . (W)hile these are challenging times, we simply cannot endlessly borrow our way out of this situation. The legislation we will consider under the rule strikes the necessary balance between continuing the tax incentives that will help families and businesses continue to improve their position while offsetting the cost of extending these provisions.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) led the opposition to the rule and to the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He first noted that he supported the substance of the underlying bill, which was to extend a number of tax-relief provisions. Diaz-Balart then said his opposition was based partly on the fact that he believed ?these tax provisions should be made permanent, or that at the very least they should be extended for more than 1 year.? He gave as his primary reason that ?year-to-year extensions, while better than no extension, fail to provide the predictability and the certainty that small businesses and families need to plan their budgets.?

Diaz-Balart also said that his opposition was based partly on the provisions in the underlying bill that increased certain taxes to compensate for the revenue lost by the proposed tax deductions. He noted that the underlying bill ?would raise the tax rate on investment gains received from an investment services partnership interest, which is currently taxed at a rate of 15 percent, to a rate as high as 35 percent at the end of 2010, and then the tax will rise to 39 percent.?

Diaz-Balart noted that the Democrats had claimed that ?this is a tax on Wall Street venture funds; but (in fact) . . . about half of that tax will be paid by real estate partnerships that build apartments, homes and shopping centers in our communities. Those real estate partnerships invest in new infrastructure in our communities and they help create jobs in the construction industry. Yet once this tax hits those partnerships, they may very well reconsider their investment decisions and abandon their partnerships for other investments, further hurting our communities and hampering possible economic recovery.? He added that: ?The construction industry has been hit very hard . . . and too many jobs have been lost. What we need to be doing is providing incentives for job growth and investment in the construction industry. Unfortunately, we are doing the opposite with this legislation.?

The motion to have an immediate vote on the rule for this tax legislation was approved by a vote of 239-182.  All two hundred and thirty-nine ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eight other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation extending the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and several other tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Won
Roll Call 937
Dec 08, 2009
(H.Res. 915) On passage of a resolution encouraging Hungary to respect the rule of law, treat foreign investors fairly, and promote a free and independent press

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to suspend the usual House rules and pass a resolution encouraging Hungary to respect the rule of law, treat foreign investors fairly, and promote a free and independent press. Rep. Engel (D-NY) was leading the support for the resolution. He began his statement in support by noting that the recent history of Hungary showed that the country was moving toward democratic practices, and also noting its contribution to the efforts of the U.S. in the war in Afghanistan.

Engel then said that he had ?become concerned about recent reports of possible unfair treatment of foreign investors in Hungary and possible efforts to inject politically motivated demands into the commercial process.? He noted, in particular, ?the actions of the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board, deciding not to renew the national radio licenses for two foreign companies, one of which is American-owned, and to award them instead to two local bidders.?

Engel added: ?According to widespread media reporting, the two foreign companies have alleged that before their renewal bids were due, they were approached by representatives of Hungary's two leading political parties, offering to ensure their licenses would be extended if they agreed to the representatives' demands for a percentage of the company's equity and a say in editorial content. The two foreign companies refused, and the (Board) awarded the licenses to the two local bidders instead, who had submitted tenders that many outside experts have said are not commercially viable.  The day following the award, the chairman of the (Board) resigned in protest . . . Numerous commentators have indicated that on the face of it, the (Board's) decision clearly appears to have been politically motivated and have ignored the economic feasibility of the two local bidders' tenders.?

Rep. Kucinich (D-OH), who chairs the House Hungarian-American Caucus, was among those leading the opposition to the resolution. He argued that the resolution broadly condemned Hungary ?without regard to current legal proceedings that should receive more discussion? and that Members should ?consider the consequence of this legislation before casting a vote.?

Kucinich noted that ?the Hungarian Prime Minister has given statements questioning the award of the contract, that there is a (Hungarian) parliamentary committee looking into it, that courts are reviewing it, and that, in fact, there's a prosecutorial investigation in the offing.? He added that ?the licenses awarded to two national radio stations by the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board are under judicial review . . .  Now, if this doesn't indicate a responsiveness by the government to the award of the contract, I don't know what does.?

Kucinich also questioned having Congress consider the resolution ?before any (House) committee meetings have been held to review the actual extent of the Hungarian Government's involvement or lack thereof (which) is really not consistent with our duties and due diligence on every piece of legislation.?

The resolution passed on a vote of 333-74. One hundred and eighty-two Democrats and one hundred and fifty-one Republicans voted ?aye?. Fifty-five other Democrats, including a number of the most progressive Members, and nineteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed a resolution encouraging Hungary to respect the rule of law, treat foreign investors fairly, and promote a free and independent press.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
N N Lost
Roll Call 931
Dec 08, 2009
(H.R.3288) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Transportation and for the Department of Housing and Urban Development - - on a motion to instruct the House representatives to the House-Senate conference on the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R.3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Transportation and for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As is the usual procedure in such situations, a conference was scheduled between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. This was on a motion by Rep. Latham (R-IA) that the House instruct its representatives to the conference not to agree to any matter that was not dealt with in either the House or Senate versions of H.R. 3288. The motion also instructed the House conferees not to agree to a final version of the bill unless they had at least 72 hours to review it.

Latham made the motion to prevent a procedure whereby other, unrelated, funding bills would be added to H.R. 3288 in conference and then be voted on by the House as one large package. Latham said he was concerned that House Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-WI) was ?planning on lumping five other bills with the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development bill . . . .? Latham said three of those other funding bills ?Financial Services, Foreign Operations, and the Labor-Health and Human Services bills (hadn?t) even (been) considered on the Senate floor. Two of the other bills? (for) Military Construction and the (Departments) of Commerce (and) Justice--have passed both the House and the Senate, and there is no reason these bills shouldn't have their own free-standing conferences.?

Regarding the reason for the 72 hour requirement, Latham said: ?There are billions of dollars at stake and a lot of policy to digest. It's our responsibility that we, as elected Representatives representing our districts, know what we're voting on.?

Rep. Olver (D-MA) was leading the opposition to the motion. He noted that, in 2005 when the Republicans were in the majority and controlled legislative proceedings, the House passed a bill combining ten major spending bills into one; he also noted that one of those bills ?had never been considered in the Senate.? Olver went on to note that, in 2004 and 2003, when the Republicans were also in the majority, a similar process was used. He added that ?it is a time-honored process.?

Regarding the 72 hour requirement, Olver agreed that ?in a perfect world, we would have 72 hours to further review this bill.? He said he was opposed to the time requirement at this point because the federal government was already well into the 2010 fiscal year and the funding bills for most federal departments had not yet passed. Olver noted that most departments were operating on ?continuing resolutions? - - which allow them to function in fiscal year 2010 at their fiscal year 2009 funding levels - - but that these departments ?cannot wait much longer for the (2010) funds . . . (which will) fund critical programs.? He added: ?Plus, we all know that we need to have plenty of time for our colleagues on the Senate side to act.?

A number of Democratic Members, including several of the more moderate ones, did not support Rep. Olver. They agreed that the procedure that should be followed is to have the House consider each major spending bill on its own.

The vote on was 212-193. One hundred and sixty-five Republicans and forty-seven Democrats voted ?aye?. All one hundred and ninety-three ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including most of the most progressive Members. As a result, the House instructed its conferees on H.R. 3288 not to agree to include any matter that was not dealt with in either the House or Senate version of the bill, and to wait at least 72 hours after receiving the final version before agreeing to it.


HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 929
Dec 03, 2009
(H.R. 4154) On final passage of legislation designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final House passage of legislation designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it. The imposition of the estate tax had become a very contentious issue. Supporters claimed that it was fair and would be imposed on a very small percentage of Americans. Opponents had taken to calling it a ?death tax?. They claimed it was unfair to those who had paid a tax on their previous earnings and that it was especially damaging to small businesses.

Rep. Rangel (D-NY), the chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee was a supporter of the bill. He referenced the fact that uncertainty had resulted because the estate tax had previously been suspended for a number of years, and claimed that making the tax permanent would eliminate that uncertainty. Rep. Pascrell (D-NJ), another supporter, noted that the estate tax as imposed in the bill ?affects only estates of significant size--presently, right now, over $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples? and characterized it as ?the most progressive tax in our federal tax system.? He argued that those opposing the implementation of the estate tax ?want to protect . . . one generation of superrich families so they can send (their wealth) on to another group.? Rep. Pomeroy (D-ND) cited statistics showing that only one quarter of one percent of all Americans would be subject to the tax.

Rep. Camp (R-MI), the Ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, was leading the opposition to the bill. He said: ?Death should not force the sale of family farms or the dissolution of small businesses (because of the imposition of the estate tax).? Camp referenced the claim by Rep. Rangel that one of the benefits of the bill is that it would create certainty, and said it is ?the certainty of a federal tax rate that at 45 percent must be considered confiscatory . . . (and) the certainty of an exemption that is not indexed for inflation, meaning that over time . . . more and more family farms and small businesses will be subject to this punishing tax.? Camp also said: ?No American should have the federal government take nearly half of (his or her) net worth.?

Rep. Brady (R-TX), another opponent, asked rhetorically: ?Can you imagine working your whole life to keep your family farm or to build up a small business, and then when you die Uncle Sam swoops in and takes up as much as half of all you've spent a lifetime working for? That's what the death tax does. It is wrong, it is immoral, and in many ways un-American.?

Brady also said that ?the number one reason family farms and small businesses will not be passed down to the next generation is the death tax; and the number one reason the fastest growing number of entrepreneurs, women, and minority-owned businesses will not be passed down to the next generation . . . will be the same death tax.? Brady noted the argument made by supporters of the estate tax that Bill Gates and several other of the wealthiest Americans supported the bill, and countered by saying ?the people most hurt by this tax are . . . real people building wealth in our communities . . . These are not the aristocracies that are being referred to in this debate.?

The vote on passage of the legislation was 225- 200. All two hundred and twenty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-six other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed legislation designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it, and sent the bill on to the Senate.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 928
Dec 03, 2009
(H.R. 4154) Legislation designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it - - on a motion to have language added that would have suspended the imposition of the tax in the remaining portion of fiscal year 2010 and in all of fiscal year 2011

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to send legislation, designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it, back to committee with instructions to add additional language. That additional language would have eliminated the imposition of the estate tax in the remaining portion of fiscal year 2010 and in all of fiscal year 2011.

Rep. Heller (R-NV) had previously attempted to terminate the estate tax completely, but had been prevented from doing under House rules, because he had not identified a way to ?pay for? the revenue lost by eliminating the tax. The issue of whether the estate tax should be made permanent had become a very contentious one, with supporters claiming that it was fair and would be imposed on a very small percentage of Americans. Opponents had taken to calling it a ?death tax?. They claimed it was unfair to those who had paid a tax on their previous earnings and that it was especially damaging to small businesses.

Speaking in support of his motion, Heller argued that ?the federal government shouldn't be entitled to half or even one-third of your assets when you die . . . the purpose of the (estate) tax is to erase all of an individual's net worth within three generations.? Heller went on to call the estate tax ?a jobs destroyer? and noted that: ?One recent study showed that eliminating the death tax will increase small business capital by over $1.6 trillion . . . increase the probability of hiring by 8.6 percent . . . increase payrolls by 2.6 percent . . . expand investment by 3 percent . . . create 1.5 million additional small business jobs (and) . . . reduce the current jobless rate by almost 1 percent.?

During previous debate on the merits of the estate tax, Rep. Polis (D-CO), a supporter of the tax, had argued that wealthy individuals ?like myself . . . with the financial resources to provide a high standard of living for our families, have a duty to our fellow Americans to pay our fair share.? He claimed: ?Many of the people who have accumulated great wealth in this country have, throughout their lives, paid the capital gains tax rather than the income tax rate . . . I'm the fourth-or fifth-wealthiest Member of this body (and) . . . I've paid the capital gains tax. That is a 15 percent tax . . . (a lower) percentage tax than members of my staff here in Congress that earn $50,000, $60,000 a year . . . .? Polis also cited a finding by The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center that only one out of 400 Americans would be subject to it.

Rep. Boyd (D-FL) argued against the specific language that the motion would have added. He said that suspending the estate tax for less than two years would create great uncertainty among those who would be subject to it and not allow them to do well-reasoned estate planning.

The motion to add the requested language was defeated by a vote of 187- 233. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and eighteen Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and thirty-three ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, language was not added to the legislation imposing the estate tax that would have suspended it until after the 2011 fiscal year.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Won
Roll Call 927
Dec 03, 2009
(H.R. 4154) On whether to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling by the House Speaker that had prevented a vote on whether to recommit to committee a bill designed to extend the estate tax and have language added eliminating that tax

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on whether the House should table (kill) an appeal of a ruling by the Speaker. That ruling was that a motion by Rep. Heller (R-NV) was out of order. The motion would have recommitted a bill designed to extend the estate tax to committee with instructions to add language eliminating that tax. Most Republican Members were opposed to an extension of the estate tax - - which they had taken to calling the ?death tax? - - and the Heller motion was an effort to eliminate the tax.

The ruling of the Speaker had prevented the House from voting on the motion by Rep. Heller. If the Speaker had ruled to permit a vote on the Heller motion to recommit the bill and add his proposed language, and if that motion had prevailed, the estate tax would have effectively been removed from the bill. The reasoning behind the ruling of the Speaker was that the House ?pay-as-you-go? rule prohibits the consideration of motions reducing revenues unless there is an offsetting reduction in spending: The motion by Rep. Heller to eliminate the estate tax and the revenue it was projected to generate did not include any spending offset. Rep. Heller appealed the ruling.

The Republican minority had been claiming all through the year that the Democratic majority was not conducting legislative business in a fair manner. Heller picked up on this argument in his statement supporting his appeal of the ruling. He claimed that the Democratic majority ?has stacked the rules of the House to try to make it impossible for the minority to offer its preferred approach (to the estate tax issue). We . . . are witnessing . . . again today . . . the rules . . . being used to keep us from offering a full and permanent repeal of the death tax.

Specifically, Heller claimed that the bill he wanted to recommit itself ?doesn't even meet the House's own pay-as-you-go rules.? He noted: ?The substance of that bill reduced the rate of the estate tax and increased the amount of the estate that would be exempt from the tax.? Heller then argued that these changes ?would increase the deficit by more than $230 billion. This begs the question, if it's appropriate for the majority to consider estate tax relief . . . without offsets, in violation of the spirit of pay-as-you-go, then why is it now inappropriate, or out of order, for the minority to provide even more tax relief under their amendment??

The motion to table the appeal of the ruling carried by a vote of 234-186. All two hundred and thirty-four ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Fifteen other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-one Republicans present and voted ?nay?. As a result, the appeal of the ruling of the Speaker that prevented a vote on the Heller motion was killed, and the ruling prevailed. The House therefore did not vote on the Heller motion that would have recommited the legislation with language eliminating the estate tax.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 924
Dec 03, 2009
(H. Res. 941) Legislation designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating a bill that was designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it. Supporters of the bill focused on the fact that, under its language, in 2011 the amount of an estate exempted from the tax would be increased to $3.5 million and the tax rate would be reduced to 45%. Opponents, who had supported the repeal of the estate in 2002, were against this bill because they claimed it would effectively reinstate that tax.

Rep. Polis (D-CO) was leading the support for the rule. He focused on what he said were the merits of the underlying bill for which the rule set the terms of debate. Polis argued that wealthy individuals ? like myself . . . with the financial resources to provide a high standard of living for our families, have a duty to our fellow Americans to pay our fair share. And an estate tax . . . is critical to prevent a permanent aristocracy from arising in this country.? Polis then cited a finding by The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center that only one out of 400 Americans would be subject to an estate tax.

Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the opposition to the rule. He also focused his arguments on the underlying bill. Diaz-Balart said that ?Americans who work hard and pay taxes all of their lives . . . should (not) be punished for responsibly saving with yet another tax when they pass away. He also criticized the estate tax because it would take capital out of the economy ?(W)hen the country has double-digit unemployment . . . .? He focused particularly on what he claimed was the negative impact that ?higher tax burdens? would have on ?small businesses, the engines of economic growth and job creation in the nation . . . Small businesses are often struggling to survive, to meet payroll and avoid layoffs . . . .?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), another opponent, said the bill will result in ?the largest increase in the death tax in U.S. history . . . .? Other opponents said the tax was particularly unfair because it would be imposed on those Americans who had already paid the maximum rates on their wealth when the paid their income taxes.

Rep. Polis responded disputed the idea that many of those whose estates would be subject to the tax ?have paid the highest tax rates throughout their lives. Many of the people who have accumulated great wealth in this country have, throughout their lives, paid the capital gains tax rather than the income tax rate . . . I'm the fourth-or fifth-wealthiest Member of this body (and) . . . I've paid the capital gains tax. That is a 15 percent tax . . . (a lower) percentage tax than members of my staff here in Congress that earn $50,000, $60,000 a year . . . .? Polis then cited the support for the measure from the two wealthiest Americans, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

Referring to the claim by Rep. Foxx that the bill would result in the biggest increase ever in the inheritance tax rate, Polis argued ?this is a decrease . . . Instead of 55 percent and $1 million . . .  (the bill) decreases the inheritance tax rate to 45 percent from 55 percent . . . .?

The rule setting the terms for debating the bill extending the estate tax was approved by a vote of 223-192. All two hundred and twenty-three ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-one other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the bill extending the estate tax.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 923
Dec 03, 2009
(H. Res. 941) Legislation designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it - - on a motion for an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion that the House immediately vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating a bill that was designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it. Supporters of the bill focused on the fact that, under its language, in 2011 the amount of an estate exempted from the tax would be increased to $3.5 million and the tax rate would be reduced to 45%. Opponents noted that the estate tax had been repealed in 2002, and were against this bill because it would effectively reinstate that tax.

Rep. Polis (D-CO) was leading the support for the rule and for the motion to have an immediate vote on it. He began his statement in support by describing the bill as ?a significant tax cut.?  Polis then defended the policy of taxing an estate by claiming that such a tax ?distorts a free market less than an income tax. Instead of taxing productive capital, it takes taxes from a random heir . . . Individuals like myself, who through hard work have been able to start businesses, create jobs, and, as a result, have been rewarded with the financial resources to provide a high standard of living for our families, have a duty to our fellow Americans to pay our fair share. And an estate tax . . . is critical to prevent a permanent aristocracy from arising in this country.? Polis then cited a finding by The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center that only one out of 400 Americans would be subject to an estate tax.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) led the opposition to the rule and to the motion to vote immediately on it. His opposition was based on his opposition to the entire idea of an estate tax, which he suggested should be called a ?death tax?. He claimed that, without the legislation, the estate tax would ?disappear next year.? Diaz-Balart also claimed: ?The underlying bill would undo the repeal of the death tax and instead bring back the tax, extend the estate tax rate of 45 percent, and include an unindexed exemption.?

Diaz-Balart focused on what he said would be the negative impact of the estate tax on small businesses. He noted that small businesses ?are responsible for 60 to 80 percent of all new net jobs that were created in the last decade. If the (Democratic) majority continues with their current policies . . . of placing more and more burdens on small business, the unemployment rate is going to continue to rise.?

 He also expressed his opposition to what he called the ?excessively high rates of taxation, especially when we realize that the tax is imposed at the end of a lifetime of work on which taxes were paid throughout the stages in which income was made . . . This double taxation . . . is destructive to family-owned businesses and farms, which are often torn apart or need to be liquidated entirely just to pay those burdensome taxes at the time of death.?

The motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the bill extending the estate tax passed by a vote of 228-187. All two hundred and twenty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Sixteen other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the bill extending the estate tax.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 919
Dec 02, 2009
(H. R. 515) Legislation prohibiting the importation of low-level radioactive waste unless it is being sent to a federal government or military facility - - on a motion to suspend the House rules and pass the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote to suspend the usual House rules and pass H.R. 515, prohibiting the importation of certain low-level radioactive waste into the United States. Certain exceptions were made for radioactive waste that was being sent to a federal government or military facility. The bill was prompted by the fact that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was considering the importation from Italy and permanent disposition at a site in Utah of 20,000 tons of low-level nuclear waste.

Rep. Gordon (D-TN) was leading support for the bill. He claimed that, if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission actually imports the material, it ?would be the largest importation of foreign waste ever.? Gordon also said that ?The United States stands alone as the only country in the world that imports other countries' radioactive waste for permanent disposal. Other countries are reading the signs that the U.S. is poised to become a nuclear dumping ground. Permit applications are also pending for the importation of Brazilian and Mexican waste. Foreign waste threatens the capacity that we have set aside in this country for the waste generated by our domestic industries. It is critical that Congress protect that capacity by prohibiting these imports.?

Rep. Matheson (D-UT) also supported the legislation. He claimed the bill was needed to fill what he called a ?gap? in federal policy regarding the importation of low-level radioactive waste. He said this gap was created because ?(I)t just wasn't conceived that we would even take (nuclear) waste from other countries.? Matheson noted that Utah was opposing the importation of the waste, but that federal courts had thus far ruled that the state did not have the authority to stop the shipment. He argued that ?this issue ought to be addressed by Congress.?

Rep Stearns (R-FL) opposed the bill. He said the U.S. needs to ?revitalize our nuclear energy (industry). Instead, we're talking about this bill (which . . . is going to hurt businesses that are trying to create jobs and promote economic growth.? He noted that the bill ?does not focus on high-level radioactive waste, but rather . . . the lowest of lowest levels of radioactive waste.? He then cited testimony by officials of the General Accountability Office that low level nuclear waste disposal capacity ?is simply not a problem.? Stearns went on to argue that the bill ?would prevent U.S. companies from competing in the global marketplace by restraining trade in this very low-level waste.?

 Stearns said that low level nuclear ?should not frighten us once we understand this is the same kind of waste that you find in a home smoke detector . . . I want American companies and American workers to participate fully in the international nuclear renaissance . . . This is an anti-jobs and anti-trade bill. It would simply ban Americans from the marketplace . . . In addition to restricting the ability of U.S. companies to bid on foreign contracts, this bill may prevent U.S. companies in the future from working cooperatively with foreign companies on other nuclear projects.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 309-112. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and sixty-two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and eleven Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent to the Senate legislation that generally prohibited the importation of low-level radioactive waste.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Nuclear Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 911
Dec 01, 2009
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3029 To establish a research, development, and technology demonstration program to improve the efficiency of gas turbines used in combined cycle power generation systems

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote to suspend the usual House rules and pass H.R. 3029, which established a research and development and demonstration program designed to improve gas turbine power generation systems. The specific purpose of the bill was to create a public-private program to improve the efficiency of natural gas turbines used in electric power systems. The bill authorized $85,000,000 in new spending for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

Rep. Tonko (D-NY) was the leading supporter of the bill. He noted that the Department of Energy had a similar program in the 1990s ?that led to technologies used in turbines today. Resurrecting this capability is essential if our country is going to be the energy technology leader of the world.? Tonko noted that the U.S.  ?uses natural gas for nearly 20 percent of our power generation, and with the recent discovery of natural gas in different regions of our country, that percentage is most likely to grow. Efficiency is paramount in turbines . . .  The energy and fuel savings created by more efficient turbines will help ratepayers save more than a billion dollars per year in fuel costs alone . . . leading to savings in electricity costs of some $180 billion through the year 2040.?
 
Tonko concluded his remarks in support by noting the environmental benefits that will result and arguing ?this bill promotes United States technology leadership, putting our country in a position to assume a greater share of the worldwide energy market by creating and retaining high-value domestic jobs in turbine manufacturing.?

No House Member spoke in opposition to the bill. However, many Republican Members had consistently criticized most new spending bills during the current session. The majority of Republican House Members also opposed this bill because it contained new funding.

The legislation passed by a vote of 266-118. Two hundred and twenty-four Democrats and forty-two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventeen Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent to the Senate legislation establishing an r&d and demonstration program to improve gas turbine power generation systems.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
Y Y Won
Roll Call 909
Nov 19, 2009

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 908
Nov 19, 2009

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

N N Won
Roll Call 907
Nov 19, 2009

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 905
Nov 19, 2009
(H. R. 2781): On passage of legislation adding parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on passage of legislation that added parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. That System consists of rivers or parts of rivers that have unique beauty, recreational or environmental value, historic or cultural significance or some other attribute deemed to be worth preserving. No component of the System can be dammed or impeded in any way.

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), who was leading the support for the legislation, said that the designated section of the Molalla River ?is a popular destination for thousands of people who recreate along the river every year. Steelhead, salmon, and cutthroat trout rely on the river for crucial spawning and nursery habitat. The river corridor served as a trail for indigenous tribes long before European settlers reached its banks, and early pioneers found the river a vital source of drinking water for homesteading, as well as an important trade route.?

Grijalva added: ?In more recent times, however, the river was the victim of neglect, with illegal dumping and other activities degrading the water quality. This degradation prompted creation of a broad-based coalition of more than 45 nonprofit, civic and conservation groups; local, regional, state, and federal agencies; numerous waters users; and property owners dedicated to protecting and preserving the Molalla River.  The alliance is a leading supporter of (the) bill . . . .?

He referenced an issue, which had been raised as a point of concern by some Republicans, about including 400 acres of potentially revenue-producing timber land in the protected area. He acknowledged that ?this is a significant issue in Oregon because the revenue generated by harvesting federal timber is used to fund public education in the state.? Grijalva said that it has been clarified that the designation ?does not prohibit logging, and there are no logging contracts in place or planned for the river corridor anyway.?

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) was leading the opposition to the measure. He said he was concerned with ?the impacts that wild and scenic river designations can have on surrounding property owners . . . and the restrictions that such designations can have on private citizens. Most importantly, such designations preclude the ability to make future decisions . . . without an act of Congress. There are many ways to protect and manage our rivers without imposing such absolute, permanent, and inflexible mandates that do not allow us to adapt to new circumstances . . . .?

Hastings then referred to the potentially revenue-producing timber acreage and said ?funds that come from these harvestings are provided directly to the local schools and communities in that area . . . and they're critical to the ability of hundreds of schools to properly educate their children and for the communities in these areas to provide essential services.? He then claimed that no ?provision or protection or offset (for the potential lost revenue from logging restrictions) has been included . . . .?

The bill passed by a vote of 292-133. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and 40 ?Republican voted ?aye? All one hundred and thirty-three ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate legislation adding parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 903
Nov 19, 2009
(H. Res. 908): Legislation adding parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating a bill that added parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. That System consists of rivers or parts of rivers that have unique beauty, recreational or environmental value, historic or cultural significance or some other attribute deemed to be worth preserving. No component of the System can be dammed or impeded in any way.

As with most significant bills, the House had to approve a rule setting the terms for its debate before the bill could be formally considered. The rules for all bills are developed by the House Rules Committee. The rule for this bill did not permit any amendments to be offered on the House floor. During the congressional session, the Republican minority had been continually arguing against rules, such as this one, that limited or prohibited amendments to be offered to individual bills.

Rep. Cardoza (D-CA), was leading the support for the rule. He noted that the area around the river was home to some protected species, that it was used extensively for recreation and that the river had ?served as both a trail for indigenous Molalla Indians and as a vital trade route between pioneers in Oregon.? Cardoza also pointed out that the Bureau of Land Management had determined that the segment of the river should be placed on the System and that designation ?would cause few changes to the Bureau's current administration (of the area).'' He concluded his argument by saying that designations such as that in the bill ?can ensure America's beauty and natural wonderment is preserved both now and for future generations.?

Rep. Bishop (UT) spoke against rule and the motion to bring it to a vote. The primary reason for his opposition was that the Rules Committee had rejected his effort to have the rule permit him to offer amendments to the bill. His amendments would have excluded 400 acres near the Molalla River from the System; this would have allowed the state of Oregon to do logging on those 400 acres.

Bishop noted that Oregon could have used the proceeds of the lumbering to help fund its public education system. He claimed that the bill, without his amendment, will take ?this small amount of land . . . and put in statute the bad administrative decisions of the past which have taken it out of production so it no longer can produce the revenue that (is needed) . . . Today it's 400 acres. Tomorrow it may be 16,000 acres in another bill or 9.8 million acres in another bill.?

He first blamed the Democratic House leadership for unfairly telling the Rules Committee to prevent him from offering his amendment. Bishop then argued that ?putting these 400 acres into the System says . . . there is something terribly wrong in the mindset of the Interior Department here in Washington.  Are we going to try to help states fund their education system or not?? He added that the decision ?simply says, our kids are props for political purposes around here, but we really don't care about trying to find a long-term funding solution.?   

The rule setting the terms for debating the bill was approved by a vote of 244-176 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye? One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin formally debating the legislation adding parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 902
Nov 19, 2009
(H. Res. 908): Legislation adding parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System - - on a motion for an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion that the House immediately vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating a bill that added parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. That System consists of rivers or parts of rives that have unique beauty, recreational or environmental value, historic or cultural significance or some other attribute deemed to be worth preserving. No component of the System can be dammed or impeded in any way.

As with most significant bills, the House had to approve a rule setting the terms for its debate before the bill could be formally considered. The rules for all bills are established by the House Rules Committee. The rule for this bill did not permit any amendments to be offered on the House floor. During the congressional session, the Republican minority had been continually arguing against rules, such as this one, that limited or prohibited amendments to be offered to individual bills.

Rep. Cardoza (D-CA), was leading the support for the rule and for bringing it to an immediate vote. He noted that ?the Molalla River is an essential wildlife area for the pileated woodpecker and both golden and bald eagles. It is also within an hour's drive of the Portland and Salem metropolitan areas and provides significant recreational opportunities for fishing, hunting, canoeing, kayaking, white-water rafting, mountain biking, horseback riding, hiking, camping, picnicking, swimming and diving . . . (It draws) over 65,000 visitors annually (and) . . . served as both a trail for indigenous Molalla Indians and as a vital trade route between pioneers in Oregon.?

Rep. Bishop (UT) spoke against rule and the motion to bring it to a vote. The primary reason for his opposition was that the Rules Committee had rejected his effort to have the rule permit him to offer amendments to the bill. His amendments would have excluded 400 acres near the Molalla River from the System; this would have allowed the state of Oregon to do logging on those 400 acres.

Bishop argued that ?in the scope of things, (400 acres is) an insignificant number. . . What is significant, though, is the concept behind (not permitting me to offer the amendment), because it represents a larger, more pernicious issue that simply (says) the leaders of this Congress are failing.? Bishop noted that Oregon could have used the proceeds of the logging on the 400 acres to help fund its public education system. He claimed ?there is a unique correlation to the amount of federal land that is owned (in a state) and the inability of states to fund their public education system . . . .?

Bishop acknowledged that the language of his amendment was technically not ?germane? to the subject of a bill, and that House regulations formally do not permit amendments that are not germane to be offered. His amendments would have also created a reduction in revenues that were not compensated by a corresponding increased in revenue - - which also violated House rules. However, he then claimed: ?Our germaneness rule is used more in its absence than in its regulation?. He said that the real reason it was not permitted was the decision of the ?leadership of this Congress (which) was wrong . . . The Rules Committee made this amendment out of order. I recognize that they can justify that on the grounds of germaneness. They could have just as easily (allowed a non-germane amendment) . . . We do it all the time . . . I recognize that the Rules Committee will take its orders from leadership.? Bishop concluded by claiming that the House leadership ?put kids at a lesser priority than other protected kinds of issues.?

The motion to vote immediately on the rule carried by a vote of 241-176 along almost straight party lines. All two hundred and forty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Five other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation adding parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 898
Nov 18, 2009
(H. Con. Res. 214): Legislation authorizing funding for programs that support local firefighters - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 3791. That legislation authorized funding for programs that support local firefighters. The bill included grant programs designed to keep local fire departments prepared, to provide funding for the purchase of equipment by the local departments, and to help the departments maintain and hire firefighters. As with most significant bills the House considers, the House had to approve a rule setting the terms for its debate before the bill could be formally taken up. Those terms are set by the House Rules Committee. The rule for this bill limited the amendments that could be offered on the House floor to specific ones that had been designated by the Democratic majority on the Rules Committee. In the case of the rule for this bill, all five of the amendments that had previously been requested to be offered were permitted.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME) was leading the support for the rule and for the motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule. She called the programs reauthorized by H.R. 3791 ?vital (to) . . . our local firefighters and our communities.? the unmet needs of our local departments remain staggering. She referenced the facts that: ?In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Emergency Management Agency received over 20,000 applications from fire departments requesting over $3 billion . . . .? Pingree added that: ?The safety of our homes and our neighborhoods has never been a partisan issue . . . .?

Rep. Sutton (D-OH) also expressed support for the motion. She related the legislation to the difficult economic conditions and high unemployment the country was experiencing. Sutton said: ?We need to be able to keep our firefighters on the job . . . I'm pleased . . . that we are including economic hardship waiver language in this bill. This language will, for the first time, work to address some of the devastating effects we have seen in this recession . . . This bill makes it clear that our intent is to allow grants to be used to retain firefighters . . . during the worst recession since the Great Depression.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the Republican opposition to the rule and the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He first agreed that H.R. 3791 ?is a bipartisan measure.? Dreier then went on to argue that, ?as important as this issue is . . . (and while all) five amendments . . . were made in order . . . it's very sad that we have gone through this entire Congress without a single open rule (allowing any amendment to be offered) . . . but why not consider it under an open amendment process which would allow any rank-and-file Member to stand up and offer an amendment to this legislation?? Dreier said that defeating the rule ?will not in any way impinge on our ability to move ahead and pass this very important legislation dealing with firefighting. At the same time, it will do something else that the American people have been asking us, and that is to read, review, and consider legislation in a very deliberative manner . . . .?

Dreier added that having rules that permit any amendment to be offered on the House floor is a ?very important part of the transparency message which should be coming through.? He argued that voting against a restrictive rule ?is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.?

The resolution setting the terms for debating the bill passed by a vote of 245-173 along almost straight party lines. All two hundred and forty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Two other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-one Republicans present and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the legislation authorizing funding for programs that support local firefighters.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 897
Nov 18, 2009
(H. Con. Res. 214): Legislation authorizing federal funding for programs that support local firefighters - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation that authorized funding for federal programs that support local firefighters. The bill included grant programs designed to help fire departments maintain and hire firefighters.

As with most significant bills the House considers, the House had to approve a rule setting the terms for its debate before the bill could be formally considered. Those terms are set by the House Rules Committee. The decision of the committee was controlled by its Democratic majority. The rule for this bill made in order all of the amendments that individual Member requested.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME) was leading the support for the rule and for the motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule. She called the programs authorized by the bill ?vital (to) . . . our local firefighters and our communities.? Pingree referenced the facts that: ?In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Emergency Management Agency received over 20,000 applications from fire departments requesting over $3 billion . . . The National Fire Protection Association estimates that 65 percent of fire departments in the United States do not have enough portable radios to equip all firefighters, and that 36 percent of all fire departments involved in emergency medical responses do not have enough adequately trained personnel to respond to these emergencies.? Pingree concluded her remarks by saying: ?The safety of our homes and our neighborhoods has never been a partisan issue . . . .?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the Republican opposition to the rule and the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He first agreed that the bill ?is a bipartisan measure. Dealing with issues of firefighting obviously transcends partisanship in every way. And this is a very, very important measure that will, in fact, have, I suspect, unanimous support here on the House floor.? 

Dreier then went on to argue that, ?as important as this issue is . . . (and while all) five amendments . . . were made in order . . . it's very sad that we have gone through this entire Congress without a single open rule (allowing any amendment to be offered). And that is, I think, a very, very unfortunate thing. It is a step forward that every amendment submitted upstairs to the Rules Committee was made in order. But why not consider it under an open amendment process which would allow any rank-and-file Member to stand up and offer an amendment to this legislation??

Dreier concluded his remarks by saying ?I'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the (motion). It will not in any way impinge on our ability to move ahead and pass this very important legislation dealing with firefighting. At the same time, it will do something else that the American people have been asking us, and that is to read, review, and consider legislation in a very deliberative manner . . . .?

The motion to have an immediate vote on the rule was approved by a vote of 242-174 along almost straight party lines. All two hundred and forty-two ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Five other Democrats joined all one hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation authorizing funding for programs that support local firefighters.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 896
Nov 18, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

 

Y Y Won
Roll Call 887
Nov 07, 2009
On passage of major health care legislation designed to provide coverage for all Americans, to expand the coverage of those currently with insurance, and to restrain the continued growth of health costs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Much of the focus of the current congressional session had been on the development of major health care legislation. The legislation had a number of goals. The primary ones were to provide coverage for all Americans, to improve the actual coverage of those currently with insurance, and to restrain the continued growth of health costs. It was projected that the legislation would cost $1.1 trillion-dollars over 10 years, which supporters said would be paid for through new fees and taxes, along with cuts in Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office had verified this cost, and estimated it would be less than the amount the federal government would otherwise have to pay for health care under then-existing law.

Among the specific provisions of the legislation was a requirement that all medium and large businesses provide health insurance to their employees or pay a tax penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll. It also required that all that those who would still not be covered by their employers purchase individual health insurance. Provisions were included for federal subsidies to low- and middle-income families to help them purchase that insurance. The cost of these subsidies was to be paid for through tax increases on those making more than $500,000 annually, as well by as new fees on medical providers.

The bill prohibited insurance companies from dropping or denying coverage based on pre-existing health conditions or the cost of care of those covered. It also significantly expanded Medicaid services. It prohibited any benefits from going to illegal aliens. In addition, it established a new insurance market where policies meeting certain specified minimum standards could be purchased. One of the insurance plans that the bill would make available on this exchange would be operated by the federal government. It came to be called the ?public option?. The final version of the bill included language added during the debate that prevented insurance companies from participating in the new insurance market if their policies covered the costs of an abortion.

The bill was very controversial.  Supporters argued that all Americans should be entitled to adequate health care insurance coverage regardless of their economic or health condition, and that the legislation would guarantee that they get that coverage. They also claimed that the measure would extend coverage to 36 million people, end insurance company practices such as not covering pre-existing conditions, and improve the economy over the long-term by bringing health care costs under control.

Opponents countered that the bill would prove to be too costly, ultimately raise insurance premiums, mandate an inappropriate tax increase, reduce Medicare benefits, and give the federal government too large a role in individual health care decisions. Many of these opponents claimed that this undue federal intrusion would create committees they called "death panels", which would have unrelated parties making life and death decisions for elderly patients.  They also opposed the bill because it did not include any tort reform, which they claimed was needed if future costs were to be controlled.

The creation of the public option plan had become the most controversial element in the legislation. Its proponents argued that, as a government-run insurance plan, it would not have to make a profit and would limit future price increased in insurance. Its opponents claimed that it would be too costly, too much of an intrusion of the federal government into the private sector, and could damage private insurance companies because it could unfairly underprice them.

A number of major organizations supported the bill, including AARP, the American Medical Association and the AFL-CIO. Several conservative groups opposed it. Among them was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which focused its opposition on the provisions that mandated most employers to provide insurance and that established ?a public option.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 220-215.  Two hundred and nineteen Democrats, including all of the most progressive Members, and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-six Republicans and thirty-nine Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate major health care legislation.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Won
Roll Call 886
Nov 07, 2009
(H.R. 3962): Major health care legislation designed to provide coverage for all Americans, to expand the coverage of those currently with insurance, and to restrain the continued growth of health costs - - on the motion to add provisions designed to limit medical liability law suits, and to create a fund to enable senior citizens to absorb any potential reductions in Medicare benefits resulting from the major health care legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Cantor (R-VA), the second ranking Republican in the House, to add new language to major health care legislation that the House was debating. The new language was designed to achieve medical liability (tort) reform. The motion also would have added language applying the cost savings Cantor claimed would result from the medical liability reform to a fund he said would be needed to compensate seniors for the amount of cuts to Medicare that would result from the legislation.

The Republican minority had argued, unsuccessfully, during the development of the health care legislation that the bill should include tort reform as a method of cost containment. Rep. Cantor began his remarks in support of his motion by claiming that ?any physician in America will tell you that the simplest way to reduce health care costs is to enact real medical liability reform. The fear of being sued by opportunistic trial lawyers is pervasive in the practice of medicine. Our system wastes billions on defensive medicine that should be going to patient care. That's why real medical liability reform is needed. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that as much as $54 billion can be saved by the federal government alone. It is totally unacceptable that this money is being spent in the courtroom instead of the operating room.?

Cantor cited a statement by Howard Dean, a former chairman of the Democratic Party and a physician, that tort reform was not in the bill because the Democratic majority did not want to take on the trial lawyers. Cantor claimed the language he was proposing ?adds real meaningful medical liability reform . . . .? He also claimed that ?its $54 billion in savings (would be used) to create a fund that will protect seniors, especially those in rural areas, from the steep cuts to Medicare in the Democrats' reform package.?

Rep. Reichert (R-Wash) supported the Cantor motion. Reichert claimed that, under the pending health care legislation, ?one out of every five seniors will lose the Medicare health plan they chose.? He said that creating the fund proposed in the Cantor motion is ?the only way that seniors can choose the preventive treatment they need.?

Rep. Braley (D-Iowa) opposed the motion. He said that ?during this entire health care debate, we've heard a lot from our (Republican) friends . . . about something called medical liability reform, but . . . (not) one word about patient safety. If you want to talk about real meaningful health care reform, it's important to talk about the most critical aspect of true, meaningful health care reform--standing up for patients.?

House Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD) said that the effect of the language Rep. Cantor was proposing would be to provide ?for substantial billions of dollars back to the insurance companies. That's what their objective is.? He also questioned the claim of Rep. Cantor regarding the unfair treatment of senior citizens, saying that there had been no real study of the matter.

The motion was defeated by a vote of 187-247.  One hundred and seventy-four Republicans and thirteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the effort to add language to the major health legislation to limit medical liability law suits and to create a fund for senior citizens to absorb any potential reductions in Medicare benefits.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Doctors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
N N Won
Roll Call 885
Nov 07, 2009
(H.R.3962): On the Boehner of Ohio amendment, which included the Republican alternative to the major health care legislation supported by the Democratic majority.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Rep. Boehner (R-OH), the House Minority Leader, offered the Republican health care proposal as a substitute amendment for H.R. 3962, major health care legislation that the House was debating. The Republican proposal was much more limited in scope than H.R. 3962. Among other things it did not provide an opportunity for consumers to choose a ?public option? insurance plan that would be operated by the federal government. The New York Times reported that, while the health care legislation to which it was offered as a substitute would provide new coverage for 36 million uninsured people, the provisions of the amendment would have only covered three million of the uninsured.

Supporters of the Boehner amendment said it would bring down the costs of private insurance premiums, which they argued was the chief concern of most Americans. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the amendment would have reduced the deficit by $68 billion over ten years. The CBO also estimated that the amendment would have reduced insurance premiums by between 3% and 10% over that period.

According to Rep. Camp (R-MI), who supported the amendment, it would have: Guaranteed access to affordable health care for those with preexisting conditions and prevented insurers from wrongly canceling a policy, while lowering costs for all Americans; reduced the number of ?junk lawsuits? through medical liability reforms that would have lowered insurance premiums; encouraged small business health plans that would have allowed employers to pool together and offer health care at lower prices; encouraged innovative programs by rewarding states that reduced premiums and the number of uninsured; allowed Americans to buy insurance across state lines; promoted prevention and wellness by increasing the financial incentives by which employers reward employees who adopted healthier lifestyles;  and allowed dependents to remain on their parents' policies up to the age of 25.

Speaking in favor of substituting his amendment for the legislation being debated, Rep. Boehner claimed that the approach he proposed was more fiscally responsible than the pending bill. He said ?all of us know that our health care delivery system needs help (but)  . . . The (Democratic) bill before us, in my view, is a big government takeover of our health care system . . . .?

Rep. Tonko (D-NY) summarized the Democratic opposition to the amendment. He said it ?does not end the discrimination based on preexisting conditions; does not reduce the number of uninsured Americans; does not offer assistance to those struggling to afford health insurance; does not repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurers; and does not stop price gouging by insurance companies. Our bill does all these things and more.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 176-258.  All one hundred and seventy-six ?aye? votes were cast by Republicans. One other Republican joined all two hundred and fifty-seven Democrats and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the Republican alternative to the major health legislation supported by the Democrats.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Won
Roll Call 884
Nov 07, 2009
On the Stupak of Michigan amendment prohibiting abortion coverage in any health insurance plan offered by the federal government, and also prohibiting any federal subsidies from going to pay for insurance policies that provide abortion coverage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment offered by Rep. Stupak (D-MI) to a major health care bill the House was considering. The amendment prohibited any health insurance plan offered by the federal government (the so-called ?public option?) from covering abortions; it also prohibited insurance subsidies, which the health care legislation provided to help low and middle-income Americans purchase insurance, from going toward the purchase of any policy that covered abortions. An exception was made to both prohibitions for the coverage of abortions to terminate pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

Most of the Members of the Democratic majority supported the health care legislation. Almost every Republican opposed it. However, a number of anti-abortion Democrats had said they would not vote for the bill unless language, such as that in the Stupak amendment, was added to it. The House Democratic leadership determined that it could not pass the bill without the votes of these anti-abortion Democrats. In addition, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a strong supporter of the overall health care bill, had said that it would not support passage without the inclusion of the kind of language that was in the Stupak amendment.

Existing law prohibited federal funds from paying for abortions. Democratic congressional leaders had argued that the bill, even without the amendment, would not direct any taxpayer fund to pay for abortions. However, Republicans and anti-abortion Democrats claimed the language of the bill, without the amendment, could circumvent the existing prohibition and effectively allow for federal abortion funding.

The amendment was very controversial. Speaking on its behalf, Rep. Stupak said that the provisions of the bill without his amendment would be a "direct assault" on the existing abortion funding prohibition. Pro-choice Democrats argued that the amendment could deprive women of abortion coverage because insurers who wanted to sell their policies in the new market created by the bill would have to drop that coverage from their policies. Rep. Schakowsky (D-Ill) referred to the language of the amendment as "an insult to millions of American women". Rep. DeGette (D-Colo), another amendment opponent, argued that its passage ?will be the greatest restriction on a woman's right to choose in our careers."

A number of other Democratic Members took the position that, regardless of whether the bill as written would actually allow for federal abortion funding, approving the amendment was politically necessary to gain the votes of several moderate and conservative Democrats for its final passage.
 
The amendment passed by a vote of 240-194.  All one hundred and seventy-six Republicans, joined by sixty-four Democrats, voted ?aye?. All one hundred and ninety-four ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive House Members. As a result, language was added to the major health care bill prohibiting abortion coverage in any health insurance plan offered by the federal government, and also prohibiting any federal subsidies going to pay for insurance policies that provide abortion coverage.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
N N Lost
Roll Call 882
Nov 07, 2009
(H.Res. 903): Major health care legislation designed to provide coverage for all Americans, to expand the coverage of those currently with insurance, and to restrain the continued growth of health costs - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 3962, a major health care bill. Before the House considers most significant measures, it first must approve a rule for the legislation. The rule for H.R. 3962  allowed almost no amendments to be offered. These restrictions on amendments and more importantly the substance of the legislation itself were cited by the Republican minority as the reason for opposing the rule.

Rep. Posey (R-FL) objected to what he called ?the lack of transparency about what it is specifically that we are voting on.? He argued ?that when the Congress considers changes of this magnitude which will affect 17 percent of our entire economy, we should have more transparency and openness . . . Over 200 amendments were filed to this 2,000-page bill. Sadly, out of these 200 amendments, only 1 is allowed to be offered.?

Supporters of the rule and the legislation argued, among other things, that all Americans should be entitled to adequate health care insurance coverage regardless of their economic or health condition, and that the bill would guarantee that they get that coverage. Rep. Matsui said it ?achieves a long-held goal of reforming our health insurance system so that it works for all American families.? She claimed that, among other things, it ?strengthens Medicare . . .  (and) makes health insurance affordable again for businesses who want to provide coverage to their employees and for those who are buying coverage for the first time on their own . . . .? Matsui also claimed that ?the provisions of this legislation build on all that is good in our current health system to strengthen it for the future.?

Rep. Slaughter (D-NY), another supporter of the rule and the bill, said that: ?(S)ince 2000, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums for American families have more than doubled . . . If we do nothing, as my Republican friends want to do, family premiums will increase an average of $1,800 every year and the number of uninsured will reach 61 million people by 2020.?

Opponents countered that the bill would prove to be too costly, ultimately raise insurance premiums, mandate an inappropriate tax increase, reduce Medicare benefits, and give the federal government too large a role in individual health care decisions. Rep. Sessions (R-TX), summarized its provisions as being ?about a massive tax increase . . . (and) deep Medicare cuts . . . . ? He claimed that, as a result of its passage, ?millions of jobs will be lost . . . mandates for purchasing insurance will cost an incredible $1.2 trillion, and there will be 118 new Federal bureaucracies created . . . .? Sessions also suggested that private insurance companies, and not the federal government, ?can best take care of the health care for our country.?

Rep. Bishop (R-Utah), another opponent, added that its impact ?would be a permanent shift of power to the federal government to control our daily lives and our health care decisions.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 242-192.  All two hundred and forty-two ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Fifteen other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-seven Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debate on major health care legislation.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Won
Roll Call 881
Nov 07, 2009
(H.Res. 903): Major health care legislation designed to provide coverage for all Americans, to expand the coverage of those currently with insurance, and to restrain the continued growth of health costs - - on the motion to bring the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation to an immediate vote

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 3962, a major health care bill. It was the first of a series of votes on the health care bill. Before the House considers most significant measures, it first must approve a rule for the legislation. The rule for H.R. 3962 allowed almost no amendments to be offered. These restrictions on amendments and more importantly the substance of the legislation itself were cited by the Republican minority as the reason for opposing the rule and the motion to move to an immediate vote on it.

Rep. Posey (R-FL) objected to what he called ?the lack of transparency about what it is specifically that we are voting on.? He argued ?that when the Congress considers changes of this magnitude which will affect 17 percent of our entire economy, we should have more transparency and openness . . . Over 200 amendments were filed to this 2,000-page bill. Sadly, out of these 200 amendments, only 1 is allowed to be offered.?

Supporters of the legislation argued, among other things, that all Americans should be entitled to adequate health care insurance coverage regardless of their economic or health condition, and that the bill would guarantee that they get that coverage. Rep. Slaughter (D-NY) was leading the effort in support of the rule and the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. She said that: ?(S)ince 2000, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums for American families have more than doubled . . . If we do nothing, as my Republican friends want to do, family premiums will increase an average of $1,800 every year and the number of uninsured will reach 61 million people by 2020.?

Rep. McGovern (D-Mass), another supporter, argued that the Republican solution to the health care situation is to ??take two tax breaks and call me in the morning.?? He claimed: ?(F)or 12 years, Republicans had their chance to improve health care in America, and for 12 years they let the number of uninsured skyrocket, while letting the insurance companies make money hand-over-fist . . . With the passage of this bill, we stand for the uninsured, for the underinsured, for those discriminated against by insurance companies because they have preexisting conditions or because of their gender.?

Opponents countered that the bill would prove to be too costly, ultimately raise insurance premiums, mandate an inappropriate tax increase, reduce Medicare benefits, and give the federal government too large a role in individual health care decisions. Rep. Barrett (R-SC) said the bill ?essentially amounts to . . . a government takeover of the health care system, which will result in devastating consequences for families and small businesses across the country.  This massive government expansion will cost nearly $1.3 trillion, which is offset with job-killing tax increases. Small businesses will be hardest hit by these tax increases . . . .?

Rep. Bishop (R-Utah), another opponent, said the impact of the bill ?would be a permanent shift of power to the federal government to control our daily lives and our health care decisions.?

The motion carried by a vote of 247-187.  All two hundred and forty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Ten other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-seven Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating major health care legislation.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Won
Roll Call 875
Nov 06, 2009
(H.R. 2868) On passage of legislation designed to extend and enhance the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to protect against acts of terrorism aimed at chemical facilities

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2868, which amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 in an effort to extend and enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities. Among the new set of rules required by H.R. 2868 was one that provided additional protection of whistle blowers, and another that expanded the ability of civil law suits against the Department of Homeland Security, which administers federal regulation of chemical facility safety.

The most controversial aspect of the bill was that it required the application of ?inherently safer technology? (IST) to chemical facility security. ?Inherently safer technology? has been defined by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers as a set of techniques and designs in which safety features are built into the process, rather than externally controlled and managed. The implementation of IST was a controversial issue. Those supporting it, such as Rep. Hastings (D-FL), argued that ?it is recognized as a ?best practice,? and is widely accepted within the chemical sector.? Those opposed to it argued that it created a vague standard, that it applied undue burdens on industry, and that the Department of Homeland Security did not have the resources or expertise to monitor its implementation effectively.

Rep. Thompson (D-MS) was leading the effort in support of the bill. He said the bill ?closes a major security gap identified by both the Bush and Obama administrations? in drinking water and wastewater facilities? and implements ?reasonable, risk-based security standards for chemical facilities.? Thompson argued that the bill accomplished this by requiring the incorporation of ?best practice?. Referring to the required implementation of inherently safe technology, Thompson claimed that companies that assess security concerns and respond to them by using IST ?often find that good security equals good business.?

Thompson noted that some Republicans were arguing for an extension of the current Department of Homeland Security authority in this area. He said: ?Such an approach flies in the face of testimony that we received about gaps in (the current security protection of these facilities) and would be a rejection of all the carefully tailored security enhancements in the bill.?

Rep. King (R-NY) was leading the opposition to the measure. He began his argument by noting that the Department of Homeland Security had asked for a one-year extension of its current authority, rather than any changes in it. King then said he opposed the legislation because ?it is going to create confusion and undue cost. It is going to cost jobs, and it's going to raise taxes. It gives far too much credibility to IST, or inherently safer technology, which is a concept (that) . . . will have a very stifling effect on the private sector.?

King went on to say: ?The current law is working. . . I believe that we took a good concept . . . of enhancing chemical plant security, and have allowed concepts and ideas regarding the environment . . . to have too large an influence on this bill.? He then focused on the provision that expanded the ability of private entities to file suit against the Department of Homeland Security. King argued that ?with all the work the department has to do, with the difficulty there is in bringing all of these thousands of entities into compliance with the law, I believe the last thing they need right now is to be subjected to civil lawsuits . . . .?

The legislation passed by a vote of 230-193. All two hundred and thirty ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. Twenty-one other Democrats, joined by all one hundred and seventy-two Republicans who were present, voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate the bill designed to extend and enhance the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to protect against acts of terrorism aimed at chemical facilities.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 874
Nov 06, 2009

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2868 Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 873
Nov 06, 2009

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2868
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 872
Nov 06, 2009
On the Dent of Pennsylvania amendment that would have eliminated the requirement that designs and techniques that constitute ?inherently safer technology? be required in all U.S. chemical facilities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Dent (R-PA) to H.R. 2868, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. H.R. 2868 was intended to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities by establishing a number of new rules for their design and construction. The amendment would have eliminated the requirement in the bill that designs and techniques constituting ?inherently safer technology? (IST) be required in all U.S. chemical facilities. ?Inherently safer technology? has been defined by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers as a the latest set of techniques and designs in which safety features are built into the process, rather than externally controlled and managed.

Rep. Dent, in his remarks in support of the amendment, said that the concept of what is ?inherently safer technology? is ?subjective and without a widely accepted definition.? He noted: ?When the Department of Homeland Security's subject matter expert on IST was specifically asked what IST was, she responded, ?There's enough debate in industry and academia that I can't take a position on that very topic.' The Deputy Under Secretary responsible for overseeing the program stated unequivocally that the Department had no staff capable of conducting an IST assessment.?

Dent argued that ?no one at the Department of Homeland Security is in a position to dictate to a wide range of facilities what engineering process or chemicals should be used (to achieve IST) . . . It would be foolish to mandate IST in this bill when there is so much uncertainty and lack of expertise in the Department.? He also argued that the mandate of employing inherently safer technology ?will cost American jobs . . . can we really afford unnecessary congressional mandates that provide little security?

Rep. Jackson-Lee (D-TX) opposed the amendment. She said that its impact would be simply to ?extend the current chemical security program for another 3 years without any of the security enhancements we included in H.R. 2868.? She also said that Congress had ?the responsibility to the public, the private sector, and the Department of Homeland Security to provide comprehensive, clear congressional guidance about how this program should be executed. The gentleman's amendment . . . just kicks the can down the road another three years. H.R. 2868 addresses acknowledged deficiencies in the current chemical facility security program (and) . . . requires the assessment, and, in some cases, implementation of safer technologies. If we . . . sacrifice all of these improvements (we will) ignore . . . the need to strengthen this program in several key areas.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 193-236. One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and twenty-two Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and thirty-six ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive House Members. As a result, the House defeated the effort eliminate the requirement that designs and techniques that constitute ?inherently safer technology? be required in all U.S. chemical facilities.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Won
Roll Call 871
Nov 06, 2009
On the Dent of Pennsylvania amendment that would have maintained the existing Department of Homeland Security federal chemical facility security regulations, rather than imposing new ones

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Dent (R-PA) to H.R. 2868, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. H.R. 2868 was intended to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities by establishing a number of new rules. The amendment would have extended the then-current Department of Homeland Security regulations until October of 2012, rather than establishing the new ones in the bill.

Rep. Dent, speaking in support of his amendment, noted that Congress ?acted swiftly 3 years ago to give the Department of Homeland Security the regulatory authority it needed to secure (the chemical facilities). In the 3 years since, the Department has taken steps to implement that authority, but it is far from complete . . . The addition of drinking water and wastewater facilities (in) . . . this bill will double the 6,000 security vulnerability assessments already required by the Department. We are asking too much of the Department too soon. The bill proposes to nearly double the Department's workload. . . The Department should be allowed to fully implement its existing regulatory authority.?

Dent added: ?By all accounts, including those of the Democratic majority, the Department is doing an excellent job implementing its current regulatory framework . . . If it isn't broken, don't fix it.? Rep. Olson, who co-sponsored the amendment, said that those opposing it want ?to rush to solutions and mandate that the Department of Homeland Security scrap the current program and start over. Such a move would take 2 years of hard work and throw it out the window.?

Rep. Jackson-Lee (D-TX) opposed the amendment. She noted that it ?would extend the current chemical security program for another 3 years without any of the security enhancements we included in H.R. 2868.? Jackson-Lee said the legislative description of the current program ?was just (14 lines) long and had many deficiencies.? She argued that passage of the amendment would effectively be eliminating ?inherently secure technology for chemical facilities . . . .?

She added that the effect of passing the amendment would be that Congress would ignore ?our responsibility to respond to what we have learned and to make improvements to the program that the Bush and Obama administrations requested . . . If we merely extend the current program, we will sacrifice all of these improvements and ignore the countless hours of discussion and testimony that highlighted the need to strengthen this program in several key areas.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 186-241. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and seventeen Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and forty-one ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive House Members. As a result, the House rejected the amendment that would have maintained the existing Department of Homeland Security federal chemical facility security regulations, rather than imposing new ones.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Won
Roll Call 870
Nov 06, 2009
On the Barton of Texas amendment that would have allowed new federal chemical facility regulations to supersede stricter state and local laws and rules

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Barton(R-TX) to H.R. 2868, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. H.R. 2868 was intended to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities. The amendment would have allowed the new federal chemical facility regulations in the bill to supersede any stricter state and local regulations.

Barton noted that, typically, the federal government would prevent states ?from doing things differently than the federal standard.? He then referenced the fact that H.R. 2868 includes language that . . . ?gives states the right, if they want to do things that are more strict . . . to do that . . . this bill sets a floor but does not set a ceiling on what the states can do.? Barton said the purpose of his amendment was to establish ?the traditional federal preemption in these areas.

He called it ?troubling? and ?problematic? not to have ?certainty associated with the federal standard? in these areas. He noted that the language in H.R. 2868 that permitted stricter state regulations comes from ?environmental law, the Clean Air Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Superfund law . . . (However), this so-called new stringency standard appears only once in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (to which H.R. 2868 relates).? Barton went on to say ?Unlike local pollution problems, security at chemical and water facilities does require national coordination. The principle is simple: National problems should have national solutions. This is why Federal preemption has always been the norm in aviation security, nuclear security, hazardous materials transportation security, and port security.?

Rep. Pascrell (D-NJ), a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, opposed the amendment. He suggested that it was ?bizarre? that Rep. Barton, who ?most of the time is . . . fighting (because) we ignore states' rights . . . would now want to infringe on the right of the states to take extra steps.? Pascrell said that, in his state of New Jersey, ?(W)e have (more) stringent rules. No part of the chemical industry has opposed those rules . . . What right does the federal government have to come in and say that (we) should lower (our) standards . . . ??

Rep. Markey (D-Mass) also opposed the amendment. He argued that it was the right of the highest public safety official in the states ?to determine how much protection they give to their citizens.? Markey claimed this was the reason the National Governors Association opposed the amendment.

Barton responded by claiming that opponents of his amendment ?are trying to have it both ways. You want a federal bill that does lots of things . . . but then you want to let the states that want to go beyond the federal bill (do so) . . . if you're going to have a federal system for security, it should be a federal system.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 165-262. One hundred and forty-seven Republicans and eighteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive House Members, and twenty-two Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the effort to allow new federal chemical facility regulations to supersede stricter state and local laws and rules.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Won
Roll Call 869
Nov 06, 2009
On the Thompson of Mississippi amendment clarifying the kind of information about chemical facility security that the Department of Homeland is obligated to disclose

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Thompson (D-Miss) to H.R. 2868, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. H.R. 2868 was primarily intended to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks on U.S. chemical facilities. The amendment clarified the kind of information about chemical facilities that the Department of Homeland Security is obligated to disclose. The chemical industry had voiced its opposition to the amendment, expressing its concern that the real purpose was to provide information which environmentalists and trial lawyers could use to bring law suits against companies that operated the facilities.

Rep. Thompson chairs the subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which developed H.R. 2868. He said that the purpose of his amendment was to clarify ?the types of information we were excluding from the definition of protected information? and was designed to insure that certain information was made publicly available. Thompson also said the information that the amendment was designed to make available is information that ?is required to be made publicly available under any other law, or information that a chemical facility has lawfully disclosed under another law.?

He added that ?the Department of Homeland Security can (also) determine by regulation that certain information provided for compliance purposes is not protected. This information may include summary data on the number of facilities that have submitted site security plans or the number of enforcement actions taken, so long as information detrimental to chemical security is not disclosed.?

Rep. Barton, the Ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, led the opposition to the amendment. He first agreed that Congress did not want ?to give the Department of Homeland Security the ability to prevent (disclosure of) information that has already been publicly disclosed by somebody we regulate as part of the site security plan.? Barton then referenced the overall security purpose of H.R. 2868, and said, ?if we're going to have a terrorist security bill . . . it ought to be a real terrorist security bill. But the underlying bill is . . . a radical environmental bill masquerading as a security bill.? He said he strongly opposed the amendment because it ?fundamentally weakens the ostensible purpose of (H.R. 2868 and) . . . is a glaring creation of a loophole to give environmental groups and other outside groups the ability to put information on their web sites that's not subject to the penalties of this bill.?

Rep. Barton went on to say that the amendment would create a ?new loophole, that if a group that is not controlled by Homeland Security (and) somehow gets (sensitive) information, they can publish it. They can put it on their web site, and they're not liable.? Barton argued ?that's detrimental to the security . . . of the United States of America.?

Rep. Thompson responded that Rep. Barton was ?exactly wrong? because the amendment ?does the exact opposite. It protects information, and that's why we put it in there. It . . . is a security piece of legislation . . . .? Rep. Markey (D-Mass) supported the amendment and Rep. Thompson?s response. Markey said the purpose of the bill is ?to protect the American people from the (terrorist) attempts by al Qaeda . . . It's not any attempt to have an environmental agenda here at all.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 253-168 along straight party lines. All two hundred and fifty-three votes were cast by Democrats. All one hundred and sixty-eight ?nay? votes were casts by Republicans. As a result, the House approved the amendment that clarified the kind of information about chemical facilities that the Department of Homeland is obligated to disclose.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 865
Nov 06, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

 

Y Y Won
Roll Call 857
Nov 05, 2009
(H.Res. 885) Legislation to extend and enhance the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to protect against acts of terrorism aimed at chemical facilities - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2868 was a bill that amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 in an effort to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities. As with most important bills, before it could be considered the House first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for its debate. This was a vote on the rule for H.R. 2868.

A major part of the debate focused on language in H.R. 2868 that required the application of ?inherently safer technology? (IST) to chemical facilities. ?Inherently safer technology? has been defined by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers as a set of techniques and designs in which safety features are built into the process, rather than externally controlled and managed. Rep. Hastings (D-FL), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, said that the Republican minority ?may argue that the implementation of IST standards will hurt small businesses and will cause job loss. However, IST is already recognized as a ?best practice,? and is widely accepted within the chemical sector.?

Hastings also noted that: ?The concentration of lethal chemicals near large population centers makes these facilities attractive terrorist targets. The bill protects workers and neighbors of chemical facilities by asking the highest risk facilities to switch to safer chemicals and processes when it is economically feasible.? He claimed that the bill promoted ?innovation and best practices to ensure that our citizens are protected and secure?, and noted that it had been endorsed by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and by the American Public Works Association.

Hastings added that only facilities that are judged most at-risk may be required to implement IST due to the danger posed by the release of large quantities of toxic substances at the facility. He also argued that, before IST is even implemented, it would have to be shown that incorporating IST would significantly reduce the risk of death, injury or serious adverse effects to human health and that implementation is technically feasible and cost-effective.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the opposition to the rule. He said he had ?concerns that this bill fails to enhance our security and, at a time when we are facing 10 percent unemployment . . . could endanger economic recovery.? Diaz-Balart focused on the IST that Rep. Hastings had referenced. He said the legislation ?allows the federal government to mandate the use of certain chemicals and technologies regardless of the efficiency and effectiveness of the IST.? Diaz-Balart noted that a witness from the Department of Homeland Security testified that the Department does not employ any specialists with IST expertise. Diaz-Balart went on to argue that ?the IST is an attempt by the federal government to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to a complicated and disparate sector of our economy . . . It is not a good use of resources.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 233-182. All two hundred and thirty-three ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eleven other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin formal debate on the bill designed to extend and enhance the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to protect chemical facilities.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 856
Nov 05, 2009
(H.Res. 885) Legislation to extend and enhance the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to protect against acts of terrorism aimed at chemical facilities - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2868 amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 in an effort to extend and enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities. As with all major bills the House considers the House first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for its debate. This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule for H.R. 2868.

A major part of the debate on the motion focused on language in H.R. 2868 that required the application of ?inherently safer technology? (IST) to chemical facilities. ?Inherently safer technology? has been defined by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers as a set of techniques and designs in which safety features are built into the process, rather than externally controlled and managed. Rep. Hastings (D-FL), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule and of the motion to move to an immediate vote on it, said that the Republican minority ?may argue that the implementation of IST standards will hurt small businesses and will cause job loss. However, IST is already recognized as a ?best practice,? and is widely accepted within the chemical sector.?

Rep. Hastings also noted that: ?The bill protects workers and neighbors of chemical facilities by asking the highest risk facilities to switch to safer chemicals and processes when it is economically feasible.? He claimed that the bill promoted ?innovation and best practices to ensure that our citizens are protected and secure?, and noted that it had been endorsed by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and by the American Public Works Association.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the opposition to the rule and the motion to move to an immediate vote on it. He said he had ?concerns that this bill fails to enhance our security and, at a time when we are facing 10 percent unemployment . . . could endanger economic recovery.? Diaz-Balart also focused on the IST requirement. He said a witness from the Department of Homeland Security had testified that the department does not employ any specialists with IST expertise. Diaz-Balart went on to argue that ?the IST is an attempt by the federal government to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to a complicated and disparate sector of our economy . . . It is not a good use of resources. ?

Rep. Lungren (R-CA) argued that the bill ?misunderstands what (IST) is. Lungren cited testimony by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers that IST is an ?evolving concept, and the specific tools and techniques for application are in the early stages of development . . . .? Lungren claimed that the requirements that would be placed on businesses as a result of the IST language in the bill would be ?unduly burdensome.?

The motion carried by a vote of 241-180. All two hundred and forty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Seven other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-three Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the bill designed to extend and modify the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to protect chemical facilities.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 851
Nov 04, 2009
(H.R. 3639): On passage of a bill to move up the effective date for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed  legislation requiring several new credit card rules. These rules were designed to have credit card issuers end what were considered unfair practices, and to protect consumers against further large increases in rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010.

Many in Congress subsequently expressed concern that some credit card companies had raised interest rates and decreased credit limits on many consumers in advance of the effective dates of the changes.  In response, H.R. 3639 was developed. This bill moved the effective dates of certain of the new provisions established in the previously-enacted legislation from dates in 2010 up to the date that the bill is signed into law.

Rep. Maloney (D-NY) was the primary sponsor of the bill. She acknowledged that it was ?truly unfortunate? that the legislation was required, ?but the credit card companies brought it on themselves. Rather than use the months after the date that (the previously-passed legislation) was signed into law to update their systems to get ready for the new reforms, they have used this time to raise interest rates unfairly at any time and for any reason on consumers retroactively on their balances, capturing many of them in never-ending cycles of debt. . . the Pew Foundation issued a report that showed that interest rates have shot up by 20 percent . . . and 90 percent of all credit card debt . . . has had an interest rate increase since the President signed (that) bill into law.?

She added that: ?(T)he Pew report also found that 100 percent of bank cards were using practices that the Federal Reserve has called unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive . . . What we are doing is moving this date up by 5 months, giving relief and protection to consumers and working to help them.?

The Republican minority had opposed the previously-passed legislation, and was opposing H.R. 3639. Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) was among those leading that opposition. He began his remarks in opposition by saying that ?although there are some good provisions in the (previously-passed) legislation, ultimately many of us predicted that if it passed, credit would become more expensive and less available to millions of Americans, and that's exactly what we see. Now . . . clearly, there have been misleading and deceptive practices by some credit card companies. We need to have better disclosure, more effective disclosure so people understand the credit relationships in which they enter.?

Hensarling added: ?(B)ut we are in the midst of a huge credit contraction that's taking place today . . . Unfortunately, ultimately this (previously-passed) legislation on which (the) effective date is moved up . . . by the bill that is before us will essentially exacerbate that trend.?  He argued that ?if this bill passes, it's going to be a lot harder for people to access the credit they need to pay their bills . . . And it just couldn't come at a worse time . . .  (The previously-passed bill) is only going to exacerbate the matter . . . take away credit cards, make interest rates go up, make credit less available and more expensive . . . .?

Hensarling also said ?when you start taking away the ability of companies to price for risk, the people who do it right end up bailing out a number of people who don't . . . if they had a choice of paying a higher interest rate or of having their credit cards taken away from them, my guess is a number of them would choose the higher interest rate.  But Congress has taken that decision away from them by enacting the (previously-passed) bill, if we choose to enact this bill, (it) will simply hasten what is already a bad process which is making credit less available and more expensive to thousands of small businesses and to millions of Americans . . . .?

The legislation passed by a vote of 331-92. Two hundred and forty-eight Democrats and eighty-three Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety-one Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the bill moving up the effective date for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 850
Nov 04, 2009
(H.R. 3639): A bill to move up the effective date for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders - - on the motion to add language that would have required that the new protections be effective on February 22, 2010 unless the Federal Reserve System certified that credit card companies could implement them by December 1, 2009, the effective date of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed  legislation requiring several new credit card rules. Those rules were designed to have credit card issuers end what were considered unfair practices, and to protect consumers against further large increases in rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect on February 22, 2010.

Many in Congress subsequently expressed concern that some credit card companies had raised interest rates and decreased credit limits on many consumers in advance of the effective date of the changes.  In response, H.R. 3639 was developed. This bill moved the effective date of certain of the new provisions established in the previously-enacted legislation from dates in 2010 to December 1, 2009. This was a vote on a motion by Rep.  Castle (R-DEL) to send the bill back to committee and have language added that would have required that most of those new protections be effective on February 22, 2010, unless the Federal Reserve System certified that credit card companies could implement them by December 1, 2009, the effective date of the bill.

Rep. Castle represents a district in Delaware, in which a number of major credit card companies are located. He noted that they ?have a lot of work to do to implement (these regulations and) . . . I don't know if they are ready to do this by the date of December 1 or not.? He noted that the proposed language would not change any of the new regulations, but ?just speaks to the date of all this going into place.? Castle argued: ?(T)here is a certain fairness issue in this . . . .? He also argued ?that the Federal Reserve is the best (judge) to do that.?

Castle referenced previous testimony by the Federal Reserve?s Director of Consumer Affairs that, as a result of the new rules, ?card issuers would need to rethink their entire business models to reprogram their systems and redesign their marketing materials, solicitations, periodic statements, and contracts.? He added: ?(I)t's all well and good for us to stand here as Members of Congress and say we'll make this change that would benefit consumers or whatever, but it may not be practical. . . Indeed, if the Federal Reserve makes a decision . . . that it could be done by December 1, we'll move ahead in that time. . . It doesn't alter the fact that we are going to have this change. It just takes this date and allows it to be reviewed by people who have some expertise to determine if they should move forward at this point or not.?

Rep. Frank (D-MA), who chairs the Financial Services Committee, opposed the motion. He first noted that the language proposed by Rep. Castle ?empowers the Federal Reserve to cancel an act of Congress? and effectively says ?if the bill passes the House and passes the Senate and is signed by the President, we will then wait for the permission of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to implement it . . . .? Frank also argued that Congress ?should certainly never set the precedent that any agency . . . should be given the power to suspend an act of Congress before it goes into effect . . . I have a lot of respect for the Federal Reserve, but they're not in charge of what we think is feasible. They're not in charge of telling us that we have to wait more for public comments when our constituents, we believe, are being mistreated.?

The motion was defeated by a vote of 171-253. One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and six Republicans voted ?nay?.  As a result, no language was added to H.R. 3639 that would have delayed the implementation of new consumer protections for credit card holders.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Won
Roll Call 849
Nov 04, 2009
(H.R. 3639): On the Sutton of Ohio amendment to impose a nine month moratorium on increases in annual percentage rates, fees and finance charges on credit cards, and on changes in the terms of balance repayments

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed  legislation requiring several new credit card rules. Those rules were designed to have credit card issuers end what were considered unfair practices, and to protect consumers against further large increases in rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010.

Many in Congress subsequently expressed concern that some credit card companies had raised interest rates and decreased credit limits on many consumers in advance of the effective dates of the changes.  In response, H.R. 3639 was developed. This bill moved the effective dates of certain of the new provisions established in the previously-enacted legislation from dates in 2010 to December 1, 2009. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep Sutton (D-OH) to impose additional restrictions on credit card issuers. Those additional restrictions included the imposition of a nine month moratorium on increases in annual percentage rates, fees and finance charges on credit cards, and on changes in the terms of balance repayments.

Speaking in support of her amendment, Rep. Sutton first referred to the previously-passed legislation. Sutton argued that: ?Rather than preparing to implement these new consumer protections, the credit card industry saw this as a window of opportunity to squeeze more money out of consumers. They are raising interest rates and minimum payments while lowering credit limits. They are instituting fees of all shapes and sizes.?

She then claimed that her amendment ?tackles the dilemma faced by consumers who receive notice of new fees on their credit card accounts. As credit card companies search for new ways to make money, they are looking to charge fees where there were none before: new annual fees, inactivity fees, fees for failure to carry a monthly balance. Yes, now some credit card companies are indicating they will be charging a fee to consumers who pay off their balances every month . . . I find it outrageous, but the credit card companies argue that if the consumers don't like it, they can close their account . . . The problem is that closing your account can hurt your credit score, and credit scores . . . are used by mortgage lenders, employers, landlords and insurance providers. This amendment is about leveling the playing field.?

Sutton went on to say: ?(T)his amendment protects consumers by preventing the closure of a credit card account because of new fees from negatively impacting a consumer's credit report or credit score. It will allow consumers to cancel their card or shop around for another card with terms without taking a hit on their credit.?

Rep. Maloney (D-NY), who was the sponsor of H.R. 3639, supported the amendment. She argued that it ?gives more responsibility and control to consumers to better manage their own credit. Credit scores should not go down if consumers are trying to do the right thing by getting out of debt . . . This is absolutely wrong when they are . . . trying to . . . better control their own finances, to stop unfair fees and unfair interest rates retroactively on their balances.?

The Republican minority had opposed the previously-passed legislation, was opposing H.R. 3639, and also opposed the Sutton amendment to it. Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) was among those leading that opposition. He argued that Members of Congress  ?are not experts on what constitutes a greater or lesser credit risk, and . . . why do we want to start dictating to credit bureaus about what constitutes a greater risk and what constitutes a lesser risk.? He also said that, although the ?amendment strikes me as fair . . . I don't believe Congress has expertise in this.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 249-173. Two hundred and twenty-eight Democrats and twenty-one Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-three Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to H.R. 3639 that imposed a nine month moratorium on increases in annual percentage rates, fees and finance charges on credit cards, and on changes in the terms of balance repayments.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 847
Nov 04, 2009
(H.R. 3639): On the Maffei of New York amendment to make certain new legislatively-mandated consumer protections for credit card holders effective immediately upon enactment, instead of waiting until later in the year

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed  legislation requiring several new credit card rules. These rules were designed to have credit card issuers end what were considered unfair practices, and to protect consumers against further large increases in rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010.

Many in Congress subsequently expressed concern that some credit card companies had raised interest rates and decreased credit limits on many consumers in advance of the effective dates of the changes.  In response, H.R. 3639 was developed. This bill would have moved the effective dates of certain of the new provisions established in the previously-enacted legislation from dates in 2010 to December 1, 2009. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Maffei (D-NY) to make the new consumer protections effective immediately upon enactment of H.R, 3639, rather than waiting for December 1, 2009. (The vote on the amendment was held on November 4, 2009.)

Speaking in support of his amendment, Rep. Maffei said that the purpose of the previously-passed legislation was ?to protect consumers from the abusive practices that many banks had made standard practice?. He then added: ?(S)ince we passed and enacted (that legislation), credit card companies attempted to fleece customers and hope that Congress didn't notice or have time to act . . .  Every day I hear from more and more constituents who tell me they have good credit, that they pay their bills on time, but that the credit card issuers have found a way to raise the rates to extraordinarily high levels. That is why I want to make all provisions of the (previous-passed legislation) effective immediately.

Maffei added: ?(C)ustomers, especially in this economy, cannot wait any longer for these protections. The credit card companies apparently are able to make any changes in interest rates and procedures instantaneously . . . If we give them a week or two, they will slam our constituents with even higher rates, trying to squeeze more blood from a stone in the middle of a recession. We are not allowed to pass legislation retroactively, even though the card companies have retroactively raised rates on consumer balances. What we can do is make sure that we enact this legislation immediately.?

Rep. Maloney (D-NY), who was a sponsor of H.R. 3639, supported the Maffei amendment. She said: ?(T)he banks and credit card companies have earned this regulation and earned this amendment because they did not use the time allocated to them to upgrade their systems. They used the time to raise rates unfairly . . . The bill that I proposed would go into effect in 5 weeks . . . but I think consumers deserve relief as soon as possible?

The Republican minority had opposed the previously-passed credit card legislation, and was opposing any effort to move up the effective date of that legislation. Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) was among those leading that opposition. He argued against the amendment by saying ?there is never a good time to enact a bad bill. Here we are again in the midst of a huge credit contraction. Every single day people are waking up, they're losing credit cards . . . (at a time that we) have the highest unemployment rate in a quarter of a century. And yet in the midst of this credit contraction, when people are having trouble expanding their business, creating jobs, paying their bills, we are going to enact legislation that . . . makes the whole matter worse.?

Hensarling then spoke generally against the Democratic legislative program, which included major health care reform, that he claimed increased federal spending far too much. He noted that a number of his constituents use credit cards to help pay for their medical expenses, and asked, rhetorically: ?(W)ill our constituents be less able or more able to afford to pay for this $1.3 trillion government takeover of our health care system if we pass this amendment? My guess is that the gentleman from New York's amendment fails that test.?

He also argued that the previously-enacted legislation ?erodes the ability to do risk-based pricing and takes us back to an era where a third fewer people had access to credit cards and everybody paid annual fees and everybody paid one universal high interest rate. The (previously-passed credit card) legislation takes us down that road, and Rep. Maffei's amendment gets us there tomorrow.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 251-174. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and eight Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-four Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, an effective date for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders, (the date of enactment of H.R. 3639), was added to the legislation.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 842
Nov 04, 2009
(H.Res. 884): A bill to move forward the effective dates for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed  legislation requiring several new credit card rules. These rules were designed to  protect consumers against further large increases in credit card rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010.

Many in Congress subsequently expressed concern that some credit card companies had raised interest rates and decreased credit limits on many consumers in advance of the effective dates of the changes.  In response, H.R. 3639 was developed. This bill moved the effective dates of certain of the new provisions established in the previously-enacted legislation from dates in 2010 to December 1, 2009. As with most other major bills, the House first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 3639. This was a vote on that rule.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO) was leading the effort in support of the rule for H.R. 3639.  He first acknowledged that some of the changes in the previously-passed legislation would require significant time to implement, and that ?many lenders have made an honest effort to come into compliance with these new rules.? He then noted that the actions of many other credit card issuers ?highlight the need for protections under the (legislation) now more than ever . . . (I)t is in fairness that we require card issuers to act with the same level of responsibility and accountability. H.R. 3639 would accelerate the implementation of certain provisions in existing law related to regulations and operations of the credit card companies. (It) has set deadlines for implementing various reforms and procedures, with most of those measures scheduled to take effect in February and in August of 2010. This bill would move those effective dates forward to December 1, 2009. American consumers don't need protection next year. They need it now . . . .?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the effort against the rule. She first said the rule ?provides for the consideration of a wholly unnecessary and potentially destructive bill that could further aggravate the struggles of small businesses and families who are suffering from an unavailability of credit during these times of economic uncertainty.?

Foxx then noted that she had opposed the previously-passed legislation ?because it was based on the idea that individual card holders should not be allowed to make their own choices and should not take responsibility for their financial situations.?

Foxx went on to point to what she said would be ?the consequences these new restrictions will have on financially vulnerable populations . . . .? Foxx said that advocates of this legislation ?have failed to understand . . . that these changes will dramatically raise the costs of extending loans to cardholders and will cause the riskiest cardholders to be dropped all together, and that will hurt people in the urban community--and minorities most--because their income is lower than average . . . .? She concluded that ?. . . minorities, women and working class families with good records of paying their debts will see credit access dry up.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 234-175.  Two hundred and thirty-three Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and six Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debate on the bill moving up the date for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Absent Y Won
Roll Call 841
Nov 04, 2009
(H.Res. 884): A bill to move up the effective date for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed  legislation requiring several new credit card rules. These rules were designed to protect consumers against further large increases in credit card rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010.

Many in Congress subsequently expressed concern that some credit card companies had raised interest rates and decreased credit limits on many consumers in advance of the effective dates of the changes.  In response, H.R. 3639 was developed. This bill moved the effective dates of certain of the new provisions established in the previously-enacted legislation from dates in 2010 to December 1, 2009. As with most other major bills, the House first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 3639. This was a vote on a motion to move to an immediate vote on that rule.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO) was leading the effort in support of the rule for H.R. 3639 and on the motion to move to a vote on it.  He first acknowledged that some of the changes in the previously-passed legislation would require significant time to implement, and that ?many lenders have made an honest effort to come into compliance with these new rules.? He then said: ?(H)owever . . . some lenders have not used this interim period in such good faith. Since the (previous legislation) was signed into law, instead of preparing to implement these consumer protection provisions, some credit card companies have raised interest rates and have decreased credit limits on their consumers in advance of the effective dates. Responsible cardholders . . . have seen their minimum payments and interest rates arbitrarily double and triple . . . and they're hit with new and hidden fees . . .  Card issuers' actions highlight the need for protections . . . .?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the effort against the rule and the motion to move to a vote on it. She first said the rule ?provides for the consideration of a wholly unnecessary and potentially destructive bill that could further aggravate the struggles of small businesses and families who are suffering from an unavailability of credit during these times of economic uncertainty. Here we are on the 4th of November, and the majority thinks that this bill is going to be passed in time to move this date up to December 1. It's totally unrealistic . . . .?

Foxx then noted that she had opposed the previously-passed legislation ?because it took the wrong approach to addressing concerns with the credit card industry.? She added that the effort in H.R. 3639 to accelerate the effective date of that previous legislation would increase costs to borrowers and ?would limit the availability of credit to potential borrowers, which is just the opposite of what our colleagues think they are achieving. These provisions are inappropriate in a credit card market that is fiercely competitive, and those who are concerned about the terms of their credit cards should rely on individual responsibility to become informed.?

Foxx suggested that ?consumers can always exercise the option of either avoiding carrying a balance or of shopping for a different credit card. Many people do not realize that credit cards were created to provide for a convenient form of payment for goods and services. They were not originally intended to serve as a loan system, which is how many people are using them now.?

Foxx added that ?people who take out credit cards are not having guns held to their heads . . . If they don't like the rates of interest that they're paying, they should get other credit cards, but don't blame the credit card companies for extending credit to people who then are irresponsible.?

The motion carried by a vote of 228-176.  All two hundred and twenty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Six other Democrats jointed all one hundred and seventy Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for the bill moving up the date for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 829
Oct 29, 2009
(H.R. 3854): Legislation that modified and expanded a variety of Small Business Administration (SBA) loan programs - - on a motion to add language mandating a study of the effect of several government policies on the credit risk of federal small business loans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3854 modified and expanded a variety of Small Business Administration loan programs. It was developed to help direct capital investments to start-ups and other small businesses in potentially high growth fields such as information technology and clean energy. The bill had general bipartisan support. Rep. Graves (R-MO) was leading the Republicans during the debate on H.R. 3954. He said the legislation will ?significantly strengthen the ability of small businesses to obtain needed capital for retaining and creating new jobs.?

This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Cantor (R-VA), the second ranking Republican in the House, to send the bill back to the committee that developed it with instructions to add an additional provision.  As described by a statement issued by the House Republican leadership, that provision required the administrator of the Small Business Administration to conduct a study to evaluate ?whether there is a credit risk to the federal government (in issuing SBA loans) based on (several)  policies (supported by the Democrats).?

Among those policies, according to the House Republican statement are: ?The imposition of a surtax on the income of small business owners, a requirement that small businesses offer health care of a minimum acceptable coverage level, an increase in marginal tax rates of small business owners, (an) increase in the tax on capital gains, . . . increased energy costs resulting from enactment of a cap on carbon dioxide, new regulations on financial, and imposition of net neutrality rules on the Internet.?

Rep. Cantor said the reason for his motion was that ?small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy . . . And right now our small businesses are struggling like never before . . . it is only logical that we do everything in our power to strengthen our small businesses and make it easier for them to create jobs . . . (but) Washington is doing the opposite. The wave of newly proposed tax increases, health care mandates, and financial and energy regulations . . .  have created a pervasive state of fear about the future cost of doing business that is enveloping reluctant job creators.?

Rep. Cantor went on to say ?if the economy is going to be resurgent, small business owners will have to provide the spark, (but) the misguided (Democratic) policies being brought forward either siphon capital away from small businesses or cause them to hoard capital . . . (W)e will see repercussions in the amount of capital investment small businesses attract; in the number of business formations and failures; and the amount of sales and new orders and investment in plant and equipment because of the very actions being proposed in this House and throughout Washington.?

Rep. Velasquez (D-NY) was leading the support for H.R.3854 among the Democrats. She responded to Rep. Cantor by noting that the bill provided $44 billion in capital for small businesses and was projected to create 1.3 million jobs. She pointed to the more than fifty organizations representing small businesses in a range of industries that supported the measure,, and suggested that Cantor ?is interested in studying the problems, (while we (Democrats) are interested in real solutions, and the bill under consideration does that . . . (W)hat I would like to see (added) . . . to the study is how small businesses have benefited from (Democratically-supported) increased expensing limits for purchasing equipment, extended bonus depreciation, reduced capital gains rates on small business stock, and allowing businesses to carry back 5 years of losses.?

She concluded by saying: ?(I)t is interesting to see how (Rep. Cantor) . . . would like to study things that haven't happened, like offsetting the reduction in capital available for such concerns resulting from an increase in tax on capital gains . . . This is a motion that does nothing to provide loans to small businesses or create jobs. But if (Rep. Cantor) wants to do a study, so be it.?

The motion carried by a vote of 272-149.  All one hundred and seventy-one Republicans, as well as one hundred and one Democrats voted ?aye?. The other one hundred and forty-nine Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to H.R. 3854, effectively mandating a study of the effect of several policies on the credit risk of federal small business loans.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 826
Oct 29, 2009
(H.R. 2996): On passage of legislation containing the fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. The measure increased corresponding 2009 spending by $4.7 billion, or 17%. 

The legislation was included in a conference report developed by representatives of the House and the Senate. The House and Senate had each passed different versions of the funding bill. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of representatives of both bodies.

Rep. Dicks (D-Wash) chairs the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the House version of the bill and participated in the conference in which the final version was negotiated. He led the support for the conference report during the debate on it. Dicks claimed that ?the programs funded through this bill have been chronically underfunded? during the previous Bush Administration, and that this measure ?would reverse that trend?.

Dicks noted that, between 2001 and 2008, when adjusted for inflation, the amount the Bush Administration had requested for the Interior Department declined by 16%, the amount requested for EPA declined by 29% percent, and the amount requested for the Forest Service other than for fire-fighting declined by35%. He claimed: ?(T)his bill invests taxpayers' dollars in our natural resources, and for this investment all Americans will see a great return.?

Rep. Simpson (R-Idaho) is the Ranking Republican on the subcommittee that developed H.R. 2996, and was leading the minority during the debate on the bill. He began his remarks by saying that ?many things (have been) achieved by this legislation. . . .? He then went on to say: ?(H)owever . . . this conference agreement . . . assumes that more money is the answer to every problem we face . . . (The measure) provides a disproportionate level of funding to one agency, the EPA, and creates an imbalance that undermines what could be a very fine piece of legislation . . . .?

Simpson further argued: ?(T)his package also provides large increases in programs without having clearly defined goals or sufficient processes in place to measure results or the return on our investment.

The legislation passed by a vote of 247-178.  Two hundred and thirty-seven Democrats and ten Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-three Republicans and fifteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent to the Senate the final version of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Interior Department, which included a continuing resolution that funded the other federal departments and agencies through mid-December of 2010.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 824
Oct 29, 2009
(H.Res.876): Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the agreement reached by representatives of the House and Senate

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on the resolution setting the terms for debating the conference report containing the House-Senate agreement on the final version of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of representatives of both bodies. Most conference reports, like most bills, require the approval of a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for their debate, before they can be considered by the House.

The conference report contained a ?continuing resolution?, in addition to providing funding for the Interior Department. That ?continuing resolution? provided the authority to keep all other departments and agencies of the federal government operating for two additional months into the 2010 fiscal year essentially at their 2009 fiscal year levels. The conference report for this funding bill was being considered early into the 2010 fiscal year, and the spending bills for most federal departments had not yet been approved by Congress and signed into law by the President. Congress had previously passed a ?continuing resolution? for the early portion of the fiscal year 2010, but it was about to expire.

The Republican minority expressed concern that a continuing resolution was needed. They focused on the fact that the Democratic majority had limited the number of amendments that were allowed to be offered on the other 2010 funding bills, using the argument that Congress needed to maintain a rapid schedule that would allow spending bills to be enacted by the deadline date of the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year. In recent years, many spending bills had not been enacted by the beginning of the fiscal years to which they applied.  The Republicans had objected to those limitations on amendments when the other spending bills were considered.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL) was leading the support for the rule setting the terms for debating the conference report. He asserted that ?the conference report makes available the necessary resources for the federal government to protect our nation's precious natural resources. It also (ensures) clean and safe drinking water . . . and (helps) Native- American communities meet their needs. It will help communities and public lands by focusing on . . . water infrastructure and environmental protection; fire fighting and fuels reduction on Federal land; bolstering our public land management agencies; protecting public lands through the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and helping the most vulnerable Native American populations. Together, these priorities and their attendant policies provide for effective federal stewardship of our environmental and cultural treasures . . . . ?

Referring to the inclusion of the continuing resolution in the conference report, Hastings said that it was necessary because the Senate needed ?more time to complete their work (on other 2010 fiscal year funding bills).? 

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the opposition to the rule. He focused his opposition largely on the inclusion of the continuing resolution in the conference report. Dreier first acknowledged that: ?Congress has frequently, under both political parties, taken the action of having a continuing resolution . . . .? However, he then added: ?What is unprecedented (in this instance) is the fact that an open debate of the federal budget was completely abandoned for a deadline that has proven to be utterly meaningless . . . we had that inviolable, September 30, end of the fiscal year deadline we had to meet, and here we sit, approaching the 1st of November, and we've completed (only) one-third of our appropriations work . . . because the (Senate) Democratic supermajority (of 60 votes) still can't get the work done.

Rep. Hastings responded by saying that senators, ?regardless of their party, take a great deal of time . . . (T)hat's why the process has slowed down . . . because of . . . their rules, their regulations, arcane though they may be, which make it difficult for us to do our business.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 232-184.  All two hundred and thirty-two ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Fifteen other Democrats joined all one hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the final version of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Interior Department, which included a continuing resolution that funded the other federal departments and agencies through mid-December of 2010.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 823
Oct 29, 2009
(H.Res. 876): Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the agreement reached by representatives of the House and Senate

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion to have an immediate vote on the resolution  setting the terms for debating the conference report containing the House-Senate agreement on the final version of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. The House and Senate had passed different versions of that funding bill. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of representatives of both bodies. Most conference reports, like most bills, require the approval of a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for their debate, before they can be considered by the House.

The conference report contained a ?continuing resolution?, in addition to providing funding for the Interior Department. That ?continuing resolution? provided the authority to keep all other departments and agencies of the federal government operating for two additional months into the 2010 fiscal year essentially at their 2009 fiscal year levels. The conference report for this funding bill was being considered early into the 2010 fiscal year, and the spending bills for most federal departments had not yet been approved by Congress and signed into law by the President. Congress had previously passed a ?continuing resolution? for the early portion of the fiscal year 2010, but it was about to expire.

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the Republican opposition to the rule. He  expressed the view that a continuing resolution was not needed and should not be included in the legislation. He also focused on the fact that the Democratic majority had limited the number of amendments that were allowed to be offered on the other 2010 funding bills, using the argument that Congress needed to maintain a rapid schedule that would allow spending bills to be enacted by the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year. In recent years, many spending bills had not been enacted by the beginning of the fiscal years to which they applied.  Dreier and other Republicans had objected to those limitations on amendments when the other spending bills were considered.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL) was leading the support for the rule setting the terms for debating the conference report and for the motion to move to a vote on the rule. He said that the continuing resolution was needed, although the House had completed its work on all the 2010 spending bills before the beginning of the fiscal year, because the Senate needed ?more time to complete their work.?  

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the opposition to the rule and the motion to move to a vote on it. Dreier acknowledged that: ?Congress has frequently, under both political parties, taken the action of having a continuing resolution . . . .? However, he then added: ?(W)hat makes this particular series of continuing resolutions so significant . . . is that it exposes this year's unprecedented closed appropriations process (as) . . . a hollow excuse because never before in the history of the Republic have we had the appropriations process shut down, as has been the case through this past summer. Time and again, the Democratic leadership told us . . .  they had no choice but to shut down the debate . . . because they had a schedule to keep . . . There simply was no time . . . for accountability or for the kind of scrutiny that has gone on under both political parties . . . Well, they completed one-twelfth of their appropriations work by that hard, fast, inviolable September 30 deadline.

Rep. Hastings responded by saying that senators, ?regardless of their party, take a great deal of time . . . That's why the process has slowed down . . . because of . . . their rules, their regulations, arcane though they may be, which make it difficult for us to do our business. The House can pass stuff. The Senate has difficulty getting agreements to get to the numbers that are necessary to get past filibusters and the numbers to get the different things that each Senator wants for herself or himself in the measure.?

The motion carried by a vote of 236-183.  All two hundred and thirty-six ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Ten other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-three Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the final version of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Interior Department, which included a continuing resolution that funded the other federal departments and agencies through mid-December of 2010.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 816
Oct 27, 2009
(H.R. 2996): Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies - - on instructing House Members developing the final version of the bill to insist on a prohibition against funding a regulation monitoring certain greenhouse gas emissions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of representatives of both bodies. Those representatives typically have flexibility in negotiating the final terms. However, prior to the start of the conference, a Member may move to have the House instruct its representatives to insist on a particular provision.

This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Simpson (R-Idaho) that the House conferees insist on the provision in the House version of the bill prohibiting any funds from being used to implement a regulation requiring reporting of certain greenhouse gas emissions; the regulation related to emissions from manure management systems.

Rep. Simpson argued in support of his motion that: ?(A)ccording to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), livestock manure management systems account for less than 1 percent of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Over 85 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in total come from (other) sources . . . (that) are not subject to the reporting rule. By the EPA's own admission, regulating these (other) sources would be overly expensive and burdensome.?

Simpson, in further support of his motion, claimed that that the conference agreement was likely to include an exemption to a clean air rule affecting ships on the Great Lakes. He said that this exemption was being supported by Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-Wisc), who ?recognized that the excesses of the EPA would place additional hardships upon an economy already devastated by the recession . . . .? Simpson then argued: ?That's no different from what (we are) trying to do to help farmers, ranchers, and livestock producers . . . .? Simpson also said that ?(M)embers of the Agriculture Committee have been warning us for years of the danger of climate change rulemaking outside of the legislative process.?

Rep. Dicks (D-Wash) chairs the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2996. He opposed the motion. In response to Simpson?s suggestion that the regulation would impose a burden on farmers, ranchers, and livestock producers, Dicks noted that ?only the 90 largest manure management systems in the country would be required to report their emissions, those who annually emit as much in greenhouse gases as 58,000 barrels of oil.? He noted that ?thousands of small farmers would be exempted . . . .?

Dicks said that: "(I)t is important for the EPA to receive information from these systems because the EPA needs reliable data on the greenhouse gas emissions from major facilities in all industries if we are going to be able to base our climate policy on a solid and thorough understanding of the problem.? He argued that ?this rule . . . does the right thing. It exempts thousands of small farmers; but for the ones who have enormous operations, where large amounts of greenhouse gases are emitted, they have to report.  I think that's reasonable . . . Congress directed that this be done . . . so that we could make these decisions based on science, not on just political machinations . . . I think it's a reasonable compromise."

The motion carried by a vote of 267-147.  One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and ninety-nine Democrats voted ?aye?. All one hundred and forty-seven ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. As a result, the conferees were instructed to insist that language prohibiting any funds from being used to implement a regulation requiring reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems be kept in the final version of H.R. 2996.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
N N Lost
Roll Call 810
Oct 22, 2009
(H.Res. 853) Legislation authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for The Coast Guard - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3619 authorized approximately $10 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for The Coast Guard. It increased the number of military personnel in the Coast Guard by 1,500 to a total of 47,000, and increased the allowable number of officers to 6,700. The legislation also included provisions designed to deal with demonstrated problems in the acquisition of equipment by The Coast Guard.

As with most other legislation the House considers, it first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. These rules had become contentious matters. The Republican minority had been complaining during the congressional session that the Democratic majority was placing restrictions on many of these rules that significantly curtailed the ability of Members to offer amendments. The rule for H.R. 3619 limited the amendments that could be offered to only certain designated ones. This was a vote on approving the rule.

Rep. Matsui (D-CA) was leading the effort in support of the rule. She said that H.R. 3619 ?will strengthen our nation's Coast Guard by making important investments and key changes now, the benefits of which we will see for years to come.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the Republican minority on the debate of the rule. He said: ?(W)hile I support this important underlying legislation, I oppose the rule by which it is being brought to the floor. He asserted that his opposition was based on the restrictions the rule placed on the number of amendments that could be offered. Diaz-Balart argued that it is ?inappropriate to limit the procedural rights of the members of this House? by restricting their ability to offer amendments. He also said that this was particularly the case with the Coast Guard authorization ?that enjoys such widespread and bipartisan support . . . .? He added that, with such popular legislation, members should not ?have to go and beg the Rules Committee for authorization to have their amendments debated.?

Diaz-Balart noted that the last time that a Coast Guard authorization bill was enacted into law, the Republican majority at the time supported a rule that allowed far more amendments to be offered. He concluded his remarks by claiming that this was ?another example of how the current (Democratic) majority restricts, unnecessarily and unfortunately, the procedural rights of all members of this body . . . . .?

Chairwoman Slaughter (D-NY) and the Democratic members of the Rules Committee took the position that they weigh many factors when deciding which amendments to allow, including whether they relate directly to the purpose of the bill, whether they would not add to the deficit, and whether they are ?logical?. They also claimed that the Republican minority did have numerous opportunities to present its ideas while the committee that developed H.R. 3619 was engaged in its deliberations.

The resolution was approved by a vote of 213-192.  All Two hundred and thirteen ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-seven other Democrats joined all one hundred and sixty-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin formal debate of the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for The Coast Guard.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 809
Oct 22, 2009
(H.Res. 853) Legislation authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for The Coast Guard - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3619 authorized approximately $10 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for The Coast Guard. It increased the number of military personnel in the Coast Guard by 1,500 to a total of 47,000, and increased the allowable number of officers to 6,700. The legislation also included provisions designed to deal with demonstrated problems in the acquisition of equipment by The Coast Guard.

As with most legislation, the House must first approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill before it can begin formal consideration. These rules had become contentious matters. The Republican minority had been complaining during the congressional session that the Democratic majority was placing restrictions on many of these rules that significantly curtailed the ability of Members to offer amendments. The rule for H.R. 3619 limited the amendments that could be offered to only certain designated ones. This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule.

Rep. Matsui (D-CA) was leading the effort in support of the rule and of the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. She said that H.R. 3619 ?will strengthen our nation's Coast Guard by making important investments and key changes now, the benefits of which we will see for years to come.? Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the Republican minority on the debate of the rule and the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He said ?(W)hile I support this important underlying legislation, I oppose the rule by which it is being brought to the floor.

Diaz-Balart argued: ?(T)he last time that a Coast Guard authorization bill was enacted into law, the Republican majority at the time brought the legislation to the floor with a rule that allowed . . . any Member of the House to offer any amendments to the legislation without having to receive the approval of the Rules Committee as long as the amendment was preprinted in the Congressional Record . . . any amendment could be brought forward, but you had to have preprinted it.? He added,  ?today the (Democratic) majority has . . . decided  . . . that the right of Members to offer amendments should be restricted . . . The last time the House considered this legislation . . . we were criticized (by the Democrats, for even requiring that an amendment had to be pre-printed). That was called restrictive. Well, now we have . . . a structured rule; in other words, only those amendments made in order (by the Democratically-controlled Rules Committee) can be considered.?

Diaz Balart concluded his remarks by claiming that this was ?another example of how the current majority restricts, unnecessarily and unfortunately, the procedural rights of all Members of this body . . . The tradition . . . of this House for many decades with regard to this legislation . . . that enjoys such widespread and bipartisan support . . . is that Members didn't have to go and beg the Rules Committee for authorization to have their amendments debated . . . .?

Chairwoman Slaughter (D-NY) and the Democratic members of the Rules Committee took the position that they weigh many factors when deciding whether to allow an amendment to be offered, including whether it relates directly to the purpose of the bill, whether it would add to the deficit, and whether it is ?logical?. They also claimed that the Republican minority did have numerous opportunities to present its ideas while the committee that developed H.R. 3619 was engaged in its deliberations.

The motion carried by a vote of 236-171.  All Two hundred and thirty-six ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Six other Democrats joined all one hundred and sixty-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule for the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for The Coast Guard.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 807
Oct 22, 2009
(H.R. 3585) On passage of legislation designed to identify and plan for solar technologies needs, and to provide (financial) resources to schools and laboratories for solar research and development

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, was designed to identify and plan for solar technology needs, and to provide $2.2 billion over five years to schools and laboratories for solar research and development. The bill directed the Secretary of Energy to award grants for manufacturing to industry-led solar technology research, development, and demonstration programs.   The design of the ?road map" in the bill was based on the National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, which was considered to be instrumental in helping semiconductor technology advance rapidly over the previous twenty years.

Rep. Gordon (D-Tenn), who chairs the House Science and Technology Committee, was leading the support for the measure. He described H.R. 3585 as a bill that ?establishes a comprehensive road mapping process for solar technology research, development, and demonstration activities conducted by the federal government in partnership with industry.? Gordon noted that H.R. 3585 had been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Solar Energy Industries Association, and Intel.

Rep. Hall (R-TX) was leading the Republican side during the debate on the bill. He first said that Republican Members are ?supportive of solar energy, and we have so voted--most of the people on my side of the aisle. We certainly see the great potential it has to be a contributor of energy to our constituents.? He then added that Republicans had ?some lingering concerns? about H.R. 3585. The first concern he noted was that the bill authorized $2.25 billion over 5 years, which  Hall described as ?not an insignificant amount, especially in our current financial climate.? He suggested that investment tax credits for solar energy ?or an easing of burdensome regulations would be a better way to encourage the development and use of solar energy.?

A second concern Hall expressed was that the bill directed the Energy Secretary to spend too much of the funding on the research, development, and demonstration set forth by a third party committee focused on the ?road map? described in the bill. He said that this provision ?leaves little flexibility for innovations that may be viable and yet not included as part of the road map.? Hall also expressed a concern that the rules for establishing the membership of this committee may not result in ?an open and transparent (deliberation) process.? He also noted that the Department of Energy had advised the House Science and Technology Committee that it ?shares some of these same concerns.?

Rep. Bartlett (R-MD) responded to Rep. Hall by saying: ?I am a fiscal conservative as well as a scientist and engineer. I have studied and used solar energy for more than 40 years. This bill will not spend too much money. Our country has fallen way behind. The General Accountability Office has documented that the funding level in this bill only begins to reverse 20 years of underinvestment by the federal government in the research and development of solar power--a domestic alternative and a renewable source of energy.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 310-106.  Two hundred and forty-seven  Democrats and sixty-three Republicans voted ?aye?. All one hundred and six ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the bill authorizing a five-year $2.2 billion program for solar technology.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Won
Roll Call 801
Oct 22, 2009
(H.R. 3585) On the Broun of Georgia amendment to reduce the amount and the number of years for which funding for solar technology development would be authorized

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, was designed to identify and plan for solar technology needs, and to provide $2.2 billion over five years to schools and laboratories for solar research and development. This vote was on an amendment offered by Rep. Broun (R-GA) to change the number of years for which the funding was authorized from five to three, and to reduce the amount authorized in each of those three years.

Rep. Broun began his statement in support of his amendment by saying: ?(E)nergy independence and innovation are essential to America's national as well as economic security . . . Many believe the debate is oil and gas versus wind, solar, and renewable sources of energy. That assumption is absolutely false. We need all of the sources of fuel that we know about, both current and any possible ones that we can develop in the future . . . The technological advances in solar-generated energy are growing every day.?

He then added: ?(D)espite my strong support of these innovative and cleaner technologies, this Congress must recognize a simple fact: We do not have enough money to do all the programs that we would all like to do.? Broun noted that his amendment would reduce the amount authorized in the bill to $250 million a year for 3 years. He claimed its purposed was ?to balance the noble goals of this legislation with the overwhelming pressures placed on the budget.? Broun pointed out that the House had previously passed $342 million for solar energy spending in two other measures, including the stimulus bill that was developed in response to the economic crisis the country was facing.

Broun then argued: ?(T)his is more than Congress can and should be doing for solar and other renewable resources . . . I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, economically responsible amendment and . . . stop the outrageous spending that this Congress is doing . . . .? He added that ?government is not the only source of funds. The private sector is already developing (solar technology) . . . .?

Rep. Giffords (D-AZ), the sponsor of H.R. 3585, opposed Broun?s amendment. Giffords noted that ?between 1978 and fiscal year 2007, the United States Government spent $30 billion on R&D for nuclear energy . . . $24 billion on fossil fuel research . . . (and) less than $6.5 billion on solar energy . . . maybe some people think these disparities are appropriate. Maybe they think that solar does not merit the same levels of investment because it is not able to provide as much energy as those technologies. However, looking at the research and where we are with the technology today, that is simply false.?

Giffords added: ?I fully support having strong research programs in other types of energy, whether it's nuclear or coal and a variety of other important energy options. The funding levels in this bill just recognize and help us properly take advantage of the enormous solar resources that we have in the United States.?  Rep. Gordon (D-TN), who chairs the House Science and Technology Committee, also opposed the amendment. He noted that, although the ?United States invented the technology for the solar industry . . . China is the largest manufacturer, exporter and deployer of solar in the world right now. The United States simply cannot compete with them in terms of wages . . . So we have to be ahead of them in technology.? 

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 162-256.  One hundred and fifty-five  Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and thirteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the five-year $2.2 billion total for solar technology remained in H.R. 3585.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
N N Won
Roll Call 799
Oct 22, 2009
(H.Res. 846) Legislation designed to identify, plan for and fund solar technology needs - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, was designed to identify and plan for solar technology needs, and to provide $2.2 billion over five years to schools and laboratories for solar research and development. As with most other legislation the House considers, it first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. These rules had become contentious matters. The Republican minority had been complaining during the congressional session that the Democratic majority was placing restrictions on many of these rules that significantly curtailed the ability of Members to offer amendments.

As was the case with those other rules, the rule for H.R. 3585 limited the number of amendments that could be offered during the formal debate of the measure. This was on a vote on approving the rule.

Rep. Polis (D-CO) was leading the effort on behalf of the rule and supported the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He said the Congress had previously not supported ?the small businesses, the technology, and the policies that could have and should have changed our nation's energy outlook years ago.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the rule. She argued that it ?does not allow for many of the amendments my colleagues on both sides of the aisle (have) presented . . . .? Foxx also said: ?The money that Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and the Obama administration want to authorize today is all borrowed money . . . We do not have this money. Our constituents do not have this money and the federal government does not have this money.?

Rep. Andrews (D-NJ), arguing against the complaint of the Republicans that that had not been permitted to participate in the development of H.R. 3585 said that he counted ?29 suggestions made by the (Republican) minority which are included in this underlying legislation . . . . ? He also noted that there were 25 other suggested changes made by the Republicans that the Democrats had agreed to add to the bill during its formal consideration.

Rep. Duncan (R-TN) also expressed the view of many Republicans that H.R. 3585 provided for ?multibillion-dollar waste?. He said it contained a ?2.2 billion subsidy for the solar power industry and for the solar bureaucracy, but that solar energy ?has received massive subsidies, with very little progress, ever since the Carter administration.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 241-178.  Two hundred and forty Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to debate the Solar Technology Roadmap Act.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Won
Roll Call 798
Oct 22, 2009
(H.Res. 846) Legislation designed to identify, plan for and fund solar technology needs - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, was designed to identify and plan for solar technology needs, and to provide $2.2 billion over five years to schools and laboratories for solar research and development. As with most other legislation the House considers, it first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. These rules had become contentious matters. The Republican minority had been complaining during the congressional session that the Democratic majority was placing restrictions on many of these rules that significantly curtailed the ability of Members to offer amendments. As was the case with those other rules, the rule for H.R. 3585 limited the number of amendments that could be offered during the formal debate of the measure. This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule.

The House Rules Committee develops and submits the rules for bills, including the one for H.R. 3585. Chairwoman Slaughter (D-NY) and the other members of the Democratic majority on the Rules Committee took the position that they need to decide whether proposed amendments relate directly to the purpose of the bill when they determine which amendments to make in order. They also took the position that Republican members of the committee that developed H.R. 3585 had an ample opportunity to present their views during those committee deliberations.

Rep. Polis (D-CO) was leading the effort on behalf of the rule and supported the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He said the Congress had previously not supported ?the small businesses, the technology, and the policies that could have and should have changed our nation's energy outlook years ago.? He added that: ?(A)merican solar businesses have had to deal with the uncertainty of not knowing what government policies will be in place from one year to the next; production in investment tax credits has ebbed and flowed with no real consistency . . . with no real directive to lead our research or investment. We desperately need to focus our research and focus our investments, and this legislation will do that.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the rule and the motion to move to an immediate vote on it. She argued that the rule ?does not allow for many of the amendments my colleagues on both sides of the aisle (have) presented . . . This is especially wrong when debating one of the important issues of our time, our nation's energy policy. By choosing to operate in this way, the majority has cut off the minority and their own colleagues from having any input in the legislative process.   My assumption is that, along with me, all other Members want to see more solar power used in this country; but the Democrats in charge are limiting what ideas can be debated on the floor and what constituents can be adequately represented in the House. Our constituents in both Republican and Democrat districts are struggling to make ends meet, are facing unemployment, and yet are simultaneously being shut out of participating in debate over how their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent by the federal government.?
The House Rules Committee develops and submits the rules for most bills, including the one for H.R. 3585. The Democratic majority on the Rules Committee took the position that it weighs many factors when deciding which amendments to allow, including whether they relate directly to the purpose of the bill, whether they would add to the deficit, and whether they are ?logical?. The Democratic majority also claimed that the Republican minority did have numerous opportunities to present its ideas while the committee that developed H.R. 3585 was engaged in its deliberations.

Other Republicans expressed opposition to the motion because they opposed the legislation itself. Rep. McClintock (D-CA) argued that, over the last 30 years, billions of dollars have ?poured into research and development for solar technology . . . and an entire solar industry solely supported by NASA subsidies arose in order to grab those dollars. And what was the result of all of this plunder of taxpayers and rate payers . . . solar power accounts for just one percent of electricity generation. That's not for lack of subsidies; it's because despite all of the billions of dollars of subsidies, the technology remains immensely inefficient and expensive.? Rep. Duncan (R-TN) said he was ?not against solar energy in any way, but it is way past time for this industry to stand on its own . . . The taxpayers simply cannot afford to keep funding a very wasteful program just because it is politically correct or fashionable to do so.?

The motion carried by a vote of 239-176.  All two hundred and thirty-nine ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eight other Democrats joined all one hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the Solar Technology Roadmap Act.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Won
Roll Call 789
Oct 15, 2009
(H.R. 2442) On final passage of legislation to expand the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the passage of the bill expanding the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. The measure authorized $38 million in federal assistance for the design, planning, and construction of six additional water recycling projects for the San Francisco Bay Area. The substance of this measure was not controversial. However, other water issues in California had become controversial matters. There was an ongoing drought in the state, and some federal actions and a related court decision had limited the flow of water in a few of the state?s major rivers to protect the habitat of certain fish. The combination of these events had caused problems for the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Republicans decided to oppose any California water-related bill, including this one, until there was a vote on legislation to deal with the issue.

The debate on H.R. 2442 focused primarily on disagreements regarding the San Joaquin Valley issue, and on the decision of the Democratic majority not to permit an amendment relating to that issue to be offered to the San Francisco Bay recycling bill.

Rep. Napolitano (D-CA), who represents a largely non-agricultural area of California, supported the legislation. She argued: ?This bill, and the projects it authorizes, will immediately address California's water crisis through local action and provide economic relief through job creation. It will not solve California's water crisis. However, it does provide a valuable and important tool. As we all are very well aware, the drought in California has taken a terrible toll on jobs all over the state, the economy and the environment of the Central Valley in California in particular. . . H.R. 2442 provides a tool to create more water for the Bay Area and, in the process, reduce the amount of water imported from the Sacramento and delta area.?

She went on to say that the legislation provides what she called ?a valuable and important tool to stretch the existing water supply and address the critical water issues of our state.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) noted that a number of other California water bills, sponsored by Republicans had been debated by the House during the current session. He also noted that no effort was made on any of them to have language added relating to the San Joaquin Valley issue. Miller suggested that, because H.R. 2442 was sponsored by Democrats, the Republicans had decided to try to offer that language to it and were now opposing the bill.

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) was leading the debate on H.R. 2442 for the Republicans. He said ?there is an economic disaster occurring in the San Joaquin Valley . . . (because) man-made and government-enforced drought has dried up farm after farm in that valley, with 40,000 workers unemployed, standing in food lines and being ignored by the leadership in this House, when solutions to bring water and relief to this area have been blocked and stymied again by the leadership in this House . . . .?

Rep. McClintock (R-CA), who represents a primarily rural district in Northern California, opposed the bill. He said that ?those who blame the drought for (the Central Valley water) problems ignore the fact that this is a very mild drought by historical standards. In fact, during much more severe droughts than the one we are currently experiencing, far more water flowed to the Central Valley than it does right now.? He suggested that the real cause of the problems was that ?200 billion gallons of water have been diverted from the Central Valley by . . . regulations.?

Focusing on H.R. 2442, McClintock then said: ?It's morally unconscionable that water recycling bills to benefit the pampered and privileged communities of San Francisco can sail through the House while 40,000 families have lost their jobs in the San Joaquin Valley because this government has diverted 200 billion gallons of water in order to indulge one of the environmental left's pet causes, the delta smelt.?

Rep. Nunes, who had lead the unsuccessful effort to have an amendment offered relating to the San Joaquin Valley issue, noted that San Francisco had previously ?exempted environmental laws to build a new airport in the beautiful San Francisco Bay? and ?used their muscle in the past to actually get by other environmental laws? when they succeeded in having a dam built in the Yosemite Valley to provide water for the city.?  He added that ?despite their own record, when folks a mere two hours away are bled dry of water, they have opposed a temporary waiver to allow not 2 billion gallons of water like this (bill) does, but 200 billion gallons of water.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 241-173.  Two hundred and thirty-five Democrats and six Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-three Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the bill to expand the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Won
Roll Call 788
Oct 15, 2009
(H.R. 2442) Legislation to expand the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program - - on whether to table (kill) the appeal of a ruling that prevented consideration of a motion to send the legislation back to committee and add language that would have resulted in the resumption of the previous water flow to the San Joaquin Valley of California

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Water issues in California had become controversial matters. There was an ongoing drought in the state, and some federal actions and a related court decision had limited the flow of water in a few of the state?s major rivers to protect the habitat of certain fish. The combination of these events had caused problems for the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley of California.

The House was considering H.R. 2442, which expanded the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. Prior to its consideration, Rep. Nunes (R-CA) had unsuccessfully attempted to have an amendment to the bill relating to the water flow in the San Joaquin Valley made in order. The language of that amendment would have overcome federal actions and a court decision that limited the water flow to the San Joaquin Valley. Since that effort failed, he moved at the conclusion of debate on the bill to send it back to committee and add the language of his amendment. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who supported the federal actions and court decision, successfully requested a procedural ruling that the Nunes motion was out of order because the subject of the San Joaquin Valley water flow was not related to the San Francisco Bay Recycling Program. This vote was on an appeal of that ruling.

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) was leading the debate on H.R. 2442 for the Republicans. He had said during the debate that ?there is an economic disaster occurring in the San Joaquin Valley . . . (because) man-made and government-enforced drought has dried up farm after farm in that valley, with 40,000 workers unemployed, standing in food lines and being ignored by the leadership in this House, when solutions to bring water and relief to this area have been blocked and stymied again by the leadership in this House . . . .? He noted that H.R. 2442 ?provides millions . . . for the Bay Area while tens of thousands of their fellow citizens suffer economic devastation just a few hours south and inland in the San Joaquin Valley.?

Hastings argued that: ?(A)ll that was sought by (Rep. Nunes) . . . was to a have a chance . . . to make the case on the House floor and to (get a) vote for a solution to this disaster in the San Joaquin Valley. . . (He) just asked for the ability to be heard so (he) could persuade others . . .  that chance has been denied .?

Rep. Nunes noted that San Francisco had previously ?exempted environmental laws to build a new airport in the beautiful San Francisco Bay? and ?used their muscle in the past to actually get by other environmental laws? when they succeeded in having a dam built in the Yosemite Valley to provide water for the city.?  He added that ?despite their own record, when folks a mere two hours away are bled dry of water, they have opposed a temporary waiver to allow not 2 billion gallons of water like this (bill) does, but 200 billion gallons of water.?

Rep. Rahall (D-WV) is the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee that developed H.R. 2442. During debate on the bill, he described the proposals of Rep. Nunes as being ?not germane to the subject matter of the bill before us, nor . . . very thoughtful or realistic solutions to the crisis before us.? He added: ?If opponents to this legislation want to work towards solving California's water woes, then I suggest getting real about finding solutions and stop the partisan political attacks . . . The only reason we are here today debating this legislation is because one Member thinks a solution to a severe drought is to gut environmental laws and overturn court decisions. Perhaps that Member should propose a rain dance as well.?

The appeal of the ruling was killed by a vote of 237-176.  All two hundred and thirty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eight other Democrats joined all one hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House effectively decided not to have a vote on whether to send the bill back to committee and order that language be added requiring the resumption of the previous water flow. The House instead moved to a vote on final passage of H.R. 2442 as it was written.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Won
Roll Call 787
Oct 15, 2009
(H.R. 2442) Legislation to expand the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill expanding the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. The substance of this measure was not controversial. However, other water issues in California had become controversial matters. There was an ongoing drought in the state, and some federal actions and a related court decision had limited the flow of water in a few of the state?s major rivers to protect the habitat of certain fish. The combination of these events had caused problems for the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Republicans decided to oppose any California water-related bill, including this one, until a vote was allowed on the San Joaquin Valley issue; the rule setting the terms for debating H.R. 2442 did not provide for an amendment related to the San Joaquin Valley.

Rep. Matsui, (D-CA), who represents a non-agricultural area in the San Joaquin Valley, was leading the support for the rule. She acknowledged that: ?(W)e all know that there are some serious concerns about the water crisis in California . . .  But one thing is for sure: limiting our state's water supply by holding up recycling projects like those in this bill will not solve anything.

Rep. Napolitano (D-CA), who represents a primarily non-agricultural area in California, also supported the rule. She first agreed that ?there is a great need of assistance to the Central Valley? and that part of that need was for additional facilities to store water for when it was needed.? However, she then added ?but right now (other parts of California) need immediate results and water recycling is one of the tools that (is needed).  H.R. 2442 provides new water to the Bay Area in California. The recycling projects authorized will provide 2.6 billion gallons of water annually, enough to meet the needs of 24,000 families. Why do we stand against water for other areas? All of us need additional water in California.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the opposition to the rule for H.R. 2442. He referred to the fact that the rule being considered was ?closed?, meaning that it would not permit any amendments to be offered to H.R. 2442. Diaz-Balart then noted that ?on numerous occasions . . . Rep. Nunes (R-CA) has submitted amendments (regarding the San Joaquin Valley issue) to the Rules Committee so that those amendments could be debated and voted on by the full House.?

Diaz-Balart argued that the there ?never should have been a closed rule, and we need to find out why is it that the majority keeps closing down these rules. I think we may be getting close to the answer if we look back at (the fact that Members of the Democratic leadership) . . . took credit for the lawsuits that turned the pumps off.? Diaz-Balart added that this fact ?made me believe maybe there is some coordination going on between the left-wing radicals and the fringe environmental movement, and how is that being coordinated from this body. These are questions that we need to know about.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 221-193.  All two hundred and twenty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-three other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, House was able to begin formal debate of the bill expanding the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, and did not allow any amendment regarding the San Joaquin Valley issue.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Won
Roll Call 786
Oct 15, 2009
(H.R. 2442) Legislation to expand the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill expanding the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. The substance of this measure was not controversial. However, other water issues in California had become controversial matters. There was an ongoing drought in the state, and some federal actions and a related court decision had limited the flow of water in a few of the state?s major rivers to protect the habitat of certain fish. The combination of these events had caused problems for the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Republicans decided to oppose any California water-related bill, including this one, until a vote was allowed on the San Joaquin Valley issue; the rule setting the terms for debating H.R. 2442 did not provide for an amendment related to the San Joaquin Valley.

Rep. Matsui, (D-CA), who represents a non-agricultural area in the San Joaquin Valley, was leading the support for the rule and for the motion to move to a vote on it. She acknowledged that: ?(W)e all know that there are some serious concerns about the water crisis in California . . .  From local and state levels all the way here to Washington, there are a number of different ideas about how to address our water issues in California. Some of them I prefer more than others, and some of them are preferred more than others by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But one thing is for sure: limiting our state's water supply by holding up recycling projects like those in this bill will not solve anything. In fact, it will only prolong our collective efforts to seek solutions to California's water problems.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the opposition to the rule for H.R. 2442 and to the motion to move to an immediate vote on it. He argued: ?(O)n numerous occasions . . . Rep. Nunes (R-CA), has submitted amendments (regarding the San Joaquin Valley issue) to the Rules Committee so that those amendments could be debated and voted on by the full House. His amendments would restrict the implementation of the . . . opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the. . . National Marine Fisheries Service. However, the (Democratic) majority on the Rules Committee routinely blocked consideration of the amendments . . . .? The reason Mr. Nunes has so steadfastly sought to have the House debate the restriction on those two opinions is that they have diverted water from the San Joaquin Valley, practically turning that area into a dust bowl.?

Diaz-Balart added: ?(A)ccording to a recent University of California Davis study, the water reductions have led to revenue losses of over $2 billion, and this year will lead to 80,000 jobs lost. The area now has an unemployment rate of about 20 percent . . . It is time that the House be given the opportunity to debate the San Joaquin Valley water issue.

Rep. Nunes said ?I would love for San Francisco to have water.  But in the grand scheme of things, this (water recycling program) is a 2-billion gallon project. We are losing 200 billion gallons out to the ocean because we simply won't let the pumps run at historical levels. It is a California water issue here, to provide water for San Francisco; yet we can't even debate or have an amendment to provide water to the bulk of California. Nunes went on to claim that there was ?coordination between the Democrats in the House and radical environmentalists? who were promoting the limitation of water to the San Joaquin Valley.

The motion carried by a vote of 237-178.  All two hundred and thirty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Seven other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the bill expanding the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, which did not provide for any amendment regarding the San Joaquin Valley issue.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Won
Roll Call 784
Oct 15, 2009
(H.R. 2892) On passage of the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2892, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security.  When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This vote was on House passage.

Rep. Price (D-NC) chairs the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the House version of H.R. 2892, and was leading support for passage of the conference report. He noted that the report provided $43 billion for the department, and that this was a 7% increase over fiscal year 2009. Price argued that the report ?addresses the needs and challenges (the) Department faces. It also represents a considered approach to funding critical domestic security requirements and other core departmental missions within a bipartisan consensus on fiscal responsibility.?

Price then focused on a provision in the conference report dealing with the potential transfer of suspected terrorists and enemy combatants to the U.S. from the prison at Guantanamo Bay. This had become a controversial issue, especially since President Obama had announced that he would be closing the prison by the end of 2009.

Price claimed that ?(T)he conference report establishes strict safeguards on the movement of Guantanamo's detainees, and if the administration chooses to address their cases in U.S. courts, this legislation ensures that that will be done with due consideration, planning, and forethought . . . It allows the transfer of a detainee to custody inside the United States only for the purpose of prosecuting that individual and only after Congress receives a plan detailing the risks involved and a plan for mitigating such risks, the cost of the transfer, the legal rationale and court demands, and a copy of the notification provided to the governor of the receiving state 14 days before a transfer, with a certification by the Attorney General that the individual poses little or no security risk.?

Rep. Rogers (R-KY) is the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the House version of H.R. 2892. He said that, although he did not ?agree with everything in the conference report, I think it represents a fairly reasonable compromise on most of our homeland security priorities.? He then referenced the provision related to the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to the U.S., which he and many other Members, especially Republicans, opposed. Rogers argued: ?(S)ince the President announced the decision to close Guantanamo some 9 months ago, we have seen . . .  no plan, no idea of how to dispose of the detainees remaining there, and no legal rationale for the prosecution, sentencing and incarceration of these terrorists (has been developed) . . . leaving hundreds of suspected terrorists potentially bound for American soil because no one else in the world will let them be brought to their soil.?

Rogers went on to make the argument that there was ?no reason why we should afford enemy combatants who have been caught on the battlefield battling American soldiers . . . the same constitutional rights as American citizens or the same due process even as criminal defendants in the civilian courts of the U.S., and I see no reason why these terrorists can't be brought to justice right where they are in Cuba before military tribunals, as we have in the past there.?

The conference report passed by a vote of 307-114.  Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and sixty-three Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and eight Republicans and six Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, House approved and sent on to the Senate the conference report containing the final version of the fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
Y Y Won
Roll Call 783
Oct 15, 2009
(H.R. 2892) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security - - on a motion to send the report back to the conference that developed it with instructions not to agree to any language that would allow a detainee held at the Guantanamo Bay prison to be brought to the United States for prosecution or incarceration

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2892, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security.  When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. A provision in the final version of H.R. 2892 that received a great deal of attention permitted certain detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay prison to be brought to the United States. This was on a motion by Rep. Rogers (R-KY) to send the report back to the conference that developed it with instructions not to agree to any language allowing a detainee held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to be brought to the United States for prosecution or incarceration.

A large number of suspected terrorists and enemy combatants from the war in Afghanistan were being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison. President Obama announced early in 2009 that he would close the prison by the end of the year. Many Republican congressional leaders had been suggesting that President Obama would be endangering American lives by closing it, especially if he did so without a plan as to where the detainees would go. House Minority Leader Boehner (R-OH) had argued that the prisoners are ?committed to killing Americans and destroying our way of life.? House Minority Whip Cantor (R-VA) had stated: "(M)ost (American) families neither want nor need terrorists around.? Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS) claimed that it was part of the "public record" that Democrats want to "transfer or release (Guantanamo) detainees on American soil with full knowledge that some will be released on our streets."

The counter-arguments that had been made to these concerns was that several convicted terrorists and conspirators were already imprisoned in the United States and had been for years, with no security issues, and that those from Guantanamo would be held in highly secure federal ?supermax? prisons, from which nobody had ever escaped. Supporters of the closing of the facility also claimed that continuing to keep prisoners there would not be consistent with U.S. laws and values.

Those supporting the closing of the facility also said that the bad publicity it was receiving effectively served as a tool for recruiting terrorists. Both former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Sen. McCain (R-ARIZ) had made statements to this effect. Rep. Edwards (D-TX) had argued that closing it would actually increase the safety of Americans.

The motion was defeated by a vote of 193-224.  One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and twenty-five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twenty-three Democrats and one Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, instructions were not given to the House conferees to oppose language allowing a detainee held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to be brought to the United States; as a further result, the House moved ahead to a vote on approving the conference report.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Won
Roll Call 781
Oct 15, 2009
(H.Res. 829) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the conference report

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This vote was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the House debate of the conference report on the 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill.

The Republican minority had been complaining during the entire legislative year about the procedures that the Democratic majority were using. Among those complaints were that bills were being brought to the House floor for a vote too quickly, without giving Members an adequate opportunity to review them. The Republicans raised this matter again in relation to the conference report on this bill.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL) was leading the support for the rule. He said that the funding in the conference report ?helps secure our borders . . . (ensures) the safety and security of our nation's infrastructure . . . (and) provides the necessary funding to . . . protect our nation's vast transportation network . . . .?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was the leader on the measure for the Republicans, first agreed that ?the underlying legislation provides the Department (of Homeland Security) with the tools and resources that it needs in order to continue to help to protect the nation from other terrorist attacks.? However, he urged a ?nay? vote on the rule that set the terms for formally debating the bill. Diaz-Balart said his position was based on his belief that Members had not had sufficient time to review the legislation for which the rule set the terms of debate.

He asserted that ?the American people have written and called their Members of Congress or they've made their opinions known at meetings throughout the nation (and asked) . . . whether (House Members) will pledge to read bills before they vote on them. The reason is, I think, that people were outraged after finding out that the majority (Democratic) leadership forced Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or to really even read the bills.?

Diaz-Balart then noted that a separate bill had been introduced ?that would require that all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members of Congress and to the general public for 72 hours before they are brought to the House floor for a vote.? He proposed that the House approve that bill, and then allow Members 72 hours to review the 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill and all subsequent legislation.

The resolution setting the terms for debate carried by a vote of 239-174.  All two hundred and thirty-nine ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Four other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy Republicans present and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to a vote on the rule setting the terms for formally debating the 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill, and did not consider requiring a 72 hour time period before considering any bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 780
Oct 15, 2009
(H.Res. 829 ) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the conference report

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law.

This was on a procedural motion to have the House move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the House debate of the conference report on the 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill. The Republican minority had been complaining during the entire legislative year about the procedures that the Democratic majority were using. Among those complaints were that bills were being brought to the House floor for a vote too quickly, without giving Members an adequate opportunity to review them. The Republicans raised this matter again in relation to the conference report on the bill.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL) was leading the support for the rule. He noted that the conference report ?appropriates over $42 billion in funds necessary to protect the American people and enhance our national security. Through terrorist threat mitigation, natural disaster response, and immigration enforcement, this appropriations bill provides the funding to fulfill the many essential responsibilities of a range of important governmental agencies, from the Coast Guard to FEMA to Customs and Border Protection to the Transportation Security Administration.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was the leader on the measure for the Republicans, first said that ?the underlying legislation provides the Department (of Homeland Security) with the tools and resources that it needs in order to continue to help to protect the nation from other terrorist attacks.? However, he then referred to the Republican complaint about bringing bills to the floor to quickly and opposed the motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule for the conference report.  Diaz-Balart said he wanted the House to vote first on a separate resolution that would have required all non-emergency legislation to be made available 72 hours before debate on begins any such legislation.

Diaz-Balart argued that this other resolution, sponsored by Reps. Culberson (R-TX) and Baird (D-WA), ?will create more transparency of the legislative process by giving lawmakers the time to debate bills with full knowledge and consideration of their implications, while giving citizens time to read legislation and voice their concerns to their congressional delegation.?  Diaz-Balart added that a vote against the motion to move to a second vote on the rule ?is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.?

The motion carried by a vote of 243-173.  Two hundred and forty-two Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to a vote on the rule setting the terms for formally debating the 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill, and did not consider requiring a 72 hour time period before considering any bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 770
Oct 08, 2009
(H.R. 2647) On passage of the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on the legislation authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2647, the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department and national security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This vote was on House passage of the final version, which authorized $550 billion in funding, and allowed for the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay that had been announced by President Obama. It also contained a controversial provision, unrelated to defense, that designated a crime motivated by the victim?s sexual orientation as a hate crime.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Skelton (D-MO) was leading support for the legislation. He said:?(T)he vast majority of this bill has bipartisan support? and that it ?provides several major victories for our troops and their families, and . . . strikes a right balance between our focus on the immediate fights in Afghanistan and Iraq and the long-term needs of our military.? Skelton urged approval for the bill because ?we are at war. We should support the troops. We should support their families. We should make sure that they have the finest equipment and training possible. That's what this bill does.?

Skelton acknowledged that he would have preferred if the hate crimes provision had ?been enacted as a stand-alone bill, not on this defense bill?; however, he noted that an amendment incorporating that provision had passed the Senate by ?a strong bipartisan vote (and) . . . the Senate conferees insisted on it.? Skelton concluded his remarks by arguing: ?(W)hatever one's position on hate crimes, I believe that the enormous good done in this legislation merits its support by every Member of the House.?

Rep. Davis (D-CA) expressed her support for the hate crimes provision. She argued: ?(H)ate crimes perpetuate and reinforce historic discrimination and persecution against particular groups. They are committed not simply to harm one particular victim, but to send a message of threat and intimidation to others. Left unchecked, crimes of this kind threaten to unravel the very fabric of American society that our service members fight to protect.?

Rep. McKeon (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said that the bill, ?(T)hough flawed . . . has my support.? He acknowledged that the hate crimes provision is ?anathema to me. I am opposed to hate crimes legislation, and I am especially opposed to the procedure of putting it on a defense bill--especially in time of war, using our troops to get this legislation passed. It's not germane to the work of the committee and needlessly introduces a partisan matter in an otherwise bipartisan bill . . . Unfortunately, congressional Democrats made the political decision to attach the hate crimes legislation to this bill.?

Rep. Bartlett (R-MD), a senior Republican Member of the Armed Services Committee, urged a vote against H.R. 2647, even though he said ?this is an excellent conference report.? He based his opposition on the fact that the hate crimes provision was included in the final version. Bartlett said he was ?appalled that my colleagues would violate House rules and pervert this annual national military strategy bill by including the totally unrelated partisan (provision) . . . .? Rep. Akin (R-MO) referred to the hate crime provision as ?a poison pill . . . (and) we refuse to be blackmailed into voting for a piece of social agenda that has no place in this bill.? Akin added ?why don't they pass it somewhere else? Instead, they put it on the backs of our service men and women . . . .?

Rep. Pence (R-IN) also opposed the bill because of the hate crimes provision. He argued that ?by expanding the federal definition of hate crimes, as this legislation does, we will generate a chilling effect on religious leaders in this country. Pastors, preachers, rabbis, and imams will now hesitate to speak about the sexual traditions and teachings of their faith for fear of being found culpable under the aiding, abetting, or inducing provisions of current law, and that must not be. It is just simply wrong to use a bill that's designed to support our troops to erode the very freedoms for which they fight.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 281-146.  Two hundred and thirty-seven Democrats and forty-four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and thirty-one Republicans and fifteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the final version of the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense and expanding the definition of hate crimes to include those motivated by the sexual orientation of the victim.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 769
Oct 08, 2009
(H.R. 2647) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department - - on a motion to send the measure back to the House-Senate conference committee that developed it, and eliminate any provision providing for the transfer or release of individuals imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2647, the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department and national security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law.

The final version of H.R. 2647 developed by the House-Senate conference included a provision allowing for the transfer or release of individuals imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. The transfer of these prisoners, possibly to the United States, or their release had become a very contentious matter. President Obama announced early in 2009 that he would close the prison by the end of the year. This had raised concerns about enemy combatants and terrorists being moved to facilities in the U.S. This was a vote on a motion to have H.R. 2647 sent back to the House-Senate conference, and to have the House conferees insist on eliminating any provision providing for the transfer or release of individuals imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.

Supporters of the closing of Guantanamo Bay facility claimed that continuing to keep prisoners there is not consistent with U.S. laws and values. They also said that the bad publicity it was receiving effectively served as a tool for recruiting terrorists. Both former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Sen. McCain (R-AZ) had made statements supporting the idea that the prison had become a recruiting tool.

Republican congressional leaders had been suggesting that President Obama would be endangering American lives by closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, especially if he did so without a plan as to where the detainees would go. House Minority Leader Boehner (R-OH) had argued that the prisoners are ?committed to killing Americans and destroying our way of life.? House Minority Whip Cantor (R-VA) had stated publicly: "(M)ost (American) families neither want nor need terrorists around.? Rep. Wolf (R-VA) said he didn't "want to wake up one morning and . . . hear that one of these guys did something."

The counter-argument that had been made to these concerns was that several convicted terrorists and conspirators are already imprisoned in the United States and have been for years, with no security issues, and that those from Guantanamo would be held in highly secure federal ?supermax? prisons, from which nobody had ever escaped.

Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS) said that it was part of the "public record" that Democrats want to "transfer or release detainees on American soil with full knowledge that some will be released on our streets." Rep. Edwards (D-TX) responded to Rep. Tiahrt by referencing the argument that the symbolic nature of the prison had become a recruiting tool for terrorists, and claimed that closing it would actually increase the safety of Americans.

The motion was defeated by a vote of 208-216.  All one hundred and seventy-four Republicans joined by thirty-four Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and sixteen ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, the language allowing for the transfer or release of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay remained in the conference report authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
N N Won
Roll Call 765
Oct 08, 2009
(H.Res. 808) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the conference report

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department and national security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the House debate of the conference report on the 2010 Defense Department funding bill. The rule waived points of order that could ordinarily be made against the bill.

The final version of the bill developed by the House-Senate conference included a provision, unrelated to defense matters, which designated a crime motivated by the victim?s sexual orientation for special ?hate crime? treatment. That provision had been in the Senate version of the bill, but not in the House version. The provision was very controversial.

Rep. Slaughter (D-NY), was leading the effort on behalf of the rule setting the terms for debate of the bill. She confined her remarks to the provisions of the bill dealing with defense and national security matters. Regarding the ongoing issue of improper practices by defense contractors, Slaughter noted that the bill ?improves accountability and oversight in awarding defense contracts (and) . . . prohibits a company from being awarded future contracts if its action leads to a service member's death or severe injury.?

Regarding the issue of the treatment of enemy combatant detainees, which was also controversial, she noted that the bill ?bans interrogation of detainees by contractors and requires the Department of Defense to give the International Committee of the Red Cross prompt access to detainees held . . . in Afghanistan. In addition, the bill reforms the Military Commissions Act to clarify rules and improve trial procedures to make military commissions fair and effective, and puts new revisions into place that would forbid the use of statements alleged to have been secured through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Finally, the bill provides the accused with the enhanced ability to select his own counsel . . . .?

Rep. Blunt (R-MO), a member of the House Republican leadership, opposed including the hate crime provision in the Defense Department funding bill, and therefore also opposed the rule. Referring to the hate crime provision, he said ?for the first time that I am aware of . . . the defense authorization bill (has) become a vehicle where other social legislation is finalized, where the country's laws are changed . . . And even if it was something that I was for, I don't think this rule should move forward in a way that changes the (hate crimes) law . . . .?

Rep. Carter (R-TX) also opposed the hate crime provision and the rule. He argued: ?(T)o use this bill in this way is a step in the wrong direction, and I am afraid it's the first step . . . where every bill to defend the country . . . will become a vehicle for other social legislation that has nothing to do (with defense). He added that the debate on the hate crimes issue ?should be resolved independent of this legislation.? Carter further argued that ?those who support hate crimes (sic) should have the courage to come out from underneath the cover of the United States serviceman . . . .?

The resolution passed by a vote of 234-188.  Two hundred and thirty-three Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-four Republicans and fourteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved the rule and was able to debate the final version of the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense, which included the new hate crimes language.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 764
Oct 08, 2009
(H.Res. 808) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department - - on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the conference report

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department and national security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law.

This was on a procedural motion to have the House move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the House debate of the conference report on the 2010 Defense Department funding bill. The rule waived points of order that could ordinarily be made against the bill.

The final version of the bill developed by the House-Senate conference included a provision, unrelated to defense matters that designated a crime motivated by the victim?s sexual orientation for special ?hate crime? treatment. That provision had been in the Senate version of the bill, but not in the House version. The provision was very controversial.

Rep. Slaughter (D-NY), was leading the effort on behalf of the rule setting the terms for debate of the bill. She confined her remarks to the provisions of the bill dealing with defense and national security matters. Regarding the ongoing issue of improper practices by defense contractors, Slaughter noted that the bill ?improves accountability and oversight in awarding defense contracts (and) . . . prohibits a company from being awarded future contracts if its action leads to a service member's death or severe injury.?

Regarding the issue of the treatment of enemy combatant detainees, which was also controversial, she noted that the bill ?bans interrogation of detainees by contractors and requires the Department of Defense to give the International Committee of the Red Cross prompt access to detainees held . . . in Afghanistan. In addition, the bill reforms the Military Commissions Act to clarify rules and improve trial procedures to make military commissions fair and effective, and puts new revisions into place that would forbid the use of statements alleged to have been secured through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Finally, the bill provides the accused with the enhanced ability to select his own counsel . . . .?

Rep. Blunt (R-MO), a member of the House Republican leadership, opposed including the hate crime provision in the Defense Department funding bill, and therefore also opposed moving to an immediate vote on the rule. Referring to the hate crime provision, he said ?for the first time that I am aware of . . . the defense authorization bill (has) become a vehicle where other social legislation is finalized, where the country's laws are changed . . . And even if it was something that I was for, I don't think this rule should move forward in a way that changes the (hate crimes) law . . . .?

Rep. Carter (R-TX) also opposed the hate crime provision and moving to an immediate vote on the rule. He argued: ?(T)o use this bill in this way is a step in the wrong direction, and I am afraid it's the first step . . . where every bill to defend the country . . . will become a vehicle for other social legislation that has nothing to do (with defense). He added that the debate on the hate crimes issue ?should be resolved independent of this legislation.? Carter further argued that ?those who support hate crimes (sic) should have the courage to come out from underneath the cover of the United States serviceman . . . .?

The motion carried by a vote of 237-187.  All two hundred and thirty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twelve other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debate of the final version of the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense, which included the new hate crimes language.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 761
Oct 07, 2009
(H.R. 2997) On passage of the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2997, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and rural programs. When the two Houses of Congress  pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This was a vote on House passage of the conference report on H.R. 2997.

The measure provided $23.3 billion in funding, a 13 percent increase over the equivalent 2009 levels. Among the increases was one that was designed to enable  the Food and Drug Administration to conduct more inspections of domestic and foreign food and medical products and another that added monies for farm operating and ownership loans. The bill also increased funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which had been criticized for not sufficiently monitoring speculation in the portion of the securities markets over which it has jurisdiction.  Regarding a matter that had received particular press attention, the conference report included language requiring new onsite audits and inspections of Chinese poultry imports to insure that they comply with American sanitary conditions.

Rep. DeLauro (D-CT) chairs the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the bill in the House and was among the leaders of the House conferees on the measure. She said that H. R. 2997 ?focuses on several key areas such as: supporting agricultural research, investing in rural communities, protecting public health, bolstering food nutrition programs and food aid, and conserving our natural resources. The final bill invests in these priorities and the agencies that can help us to meet them while making specific and sensible budget cuts where feasible.?

Rep. Kingston (R-GA) is the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the bill in the House. He said he was ?concerned? about the increased amounts in the 2010 spending levels above 2009 ?because . . . food prices haven't gone up that much.? Kingston illustrated his concern by noting that there was no fiscal year 2010 cost of living increase in Social Security, which ?is based on inflation, which has a reflection of food.?

Kingston also opposed the increased levels because a number of areas funded by the measure had received monies in the economic stimulus legislation passed earlier in the year in response to the financial crisis of 2008-2009. Kingston added that the stimulus legislation ?was financed not on tax dollars but on borrowed dollars and printed dollars. It's a package that our children's children will be paying for.?

Kingston argued that ?we had an opportunity to save some money? during deliberations of the House-Senate conference committee, ?but instead, what we did . . . was air-drop five new pilot programs: a summer food program for $85 million; equipment assistance program, $25 million; Women Infant and Children breast-feeding outreach at about $5 million; nutrition outreach for day care, $8 million; and direct certification expansion of $25 million.? He suggested that these programs ?may have some merit?, but argued that ?they did not come through the authorizing committee. They did not come through the Agriculture Committee. They were not debated. There were not hearings on them.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 263-162.  Two hundred and forty Democrats and twenty-three Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-one Republicans and eleven Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate the final version of the fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and for rural programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Y Y Won
Roll Call 760
Oct 07, 2009
(H.Res. 701) A resolution recognizing the Dyke Marsh Wildlife Preserve in Virginia as a unique and precious ecosystem

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Dyke Marsh is a 485 acre parcel on the edge of the Potomac River in northern Virginia, just south of Washington, DC. It is a 5,000 to 7,000 year old unique ecosystem, with more than 6,500 species of plants, insects, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians.  In 1959, the area was being dredged for commercial purposes. To protect the system, Congress designated the Dyke Marsh ecosystem for protection ?so that fish and wildlife development and their preservation as wetland wildlife habitat shall be paramount''. Among the Members leading that successful effort was Rep. Dingell (D-MI), who was still serving in the House in 2009.

Noting that 2009 was the 50th anniversary of the designation of Dyke Marsh as a protected ecosystem, Rep. Moran (D-VA), in whose district it is located, introduced this resolution. The resolution included language stating that the Congress had ?passed legislation that designated . . . Dyke Marsh as a protected ecosystem for the purpose of promoting fish and wildlife development and preserving their natural habitat?. It also included language identifying Dyke Marsh ?as a unique and precious ecosystem that serves as an invaluable natural resource both locally and nationally?, and noted that wetlands provide services ?such as flood control, attenuation of tidal energy, water quality enhancement, wildlife habitat, nursery and spawning . . . and recreational and aesthetic enjoyment?. In addition the resolution highlighted the efforts of Rep. Dingell and other former Members in protecting the Dyke Marsh ecosystem ?from further dredging, filling, and other activities incompatible with a preserve?.

This was a vote on the resolution designed to recognize the Dyke Marsh Wildlife Preserve ?as a unique and precious ecosystem?. Rep. Moran urged his fellow House Members ?to join me in recognizing the significance of Dyke Marsh, in reaffirming our commitment generally to protecting our nation's ecosystems, and in honoring . . . John Dingell . . . whose leadership and commitment to environmental stewardship were instrumental in the Dyke Marsh's preservation.?

There were no remarks against the resolution. However, a number of Republican Members acknowledged, off the record, that they voted against it to demonstrate their view that the Democratic majority was choosing not to deal with some other matters that Republicans favored. These Republican Members were taking the position that, if the Democratic majority was prepared to pass this type of resolution recognizing the existence of a sensitive ecosystem, it should also take the time to deal with those other matters.

The resolution passed by a vote of 325-93.  Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and seventy-nine Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety Republicans and three Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved the resolution recognizing the Dyke Marsh Wildlife Preserve in Virginia as ?a unique and precious ecosystem.?


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 759
Oct 07, 2009
(H.Res. 805) A resolution that Chairman Rangel (D-NY) of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee should be removed from his position pending completion of the investigation of his activities by the Ethics Committee - - on referring the resolution to the Ethics Committee

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Rep. Rangel (D-NY) was chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. There had been numerous articles in the press raising questions both about whether he had been properly reporting his investments and income both on required House forms and on his state and federal tax returns. Many of those forms and returns were subsequently altered after the articles were published.

Among the matters raised were $75,000 in rental income from a villa he owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988 that Rangel never reported on his tax returns; the fact that the interest on the mortgage for the villa had been waived for more than ten years and that this waiver may be a prohibited ?gift? under House rules; and that he failed to disclose the waiver on his required House financial form. These and other matters had been referred to the House Ethics Committee, which had been conducting an investigation of them for almost a year.

Rep. Carter (R-TX) offered a resolution that noted these matters and the fact that the Ethics Committee was investigating them, and calling for the removal of Rangel as Ways and Means Committee chairman.

Rep. Crowley (D-NY) moved that the Carter Resolution be referred to the Ethics Committee, which was conducting the investigation of Rangel. No debate occurred on Rep. Crowley?s motion.

House Minority Leader Boehner, referring to the reports about Rangel, had said in a previous press statement: ?Working families . . . need to have confidence that the individual in charge of the House?s tax-writing panel is following the laws the committee is charged with crafting and overseeing.  It is improper for Rep. Rangel to remain in a position with such vast power and influence while serious questions about his official conduct continue to multiply and go unanswered.?

Rep. Waters (D-CA) had defended Rangel during an interview on a news program. She said that he was making an effort to correct the records and pay his debts, and that ?unfortunately with the requirements for disclosure that we all have, mistakes are made (and) . . . you do get a chance to correct them. And so it looks as if he is correcting those mistakes."

The motion carried by a vote of 246-153 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty Democrats and six Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-three Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result the House referred to the Ethics Committee the Carter Resolution regarding the removal of Rangel as Ways and Means chairman.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 758
Oct 07, 2009
(H.Res. 805) A resolution that Chairman Rangel (D-NY) of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee should be removed from his position pending completion of the investigation of his activities by the Ethics Committee - - on whether the House should immediately vote on referring the resolution to the Ethics Committee

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Rep. Rangel (D-NY) was chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. There had been numerous articles in the press raising questions both about whether he had been properly reporting his investments and income both on required House forms and on his state and federal tax returns. Many of those forms and returns were subsequently altered after the articles were published.

Among the matters raised were $75,000 in rental income from a villa he owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988 that Rangel never reported on his tax returns; the fact that the interest on the mortgage for the villa had been waived for more than ten years and that this waiver may be a prohibited ?gift? under House rules; and that he failed to disclose the waiver on his required House financial form. These and other matters had been referred to the House Ethics Committee, which had been conducting an investigation of them for almost a year.

Rep. Carter (R-TX) offered a resolution that noted these matters and the fact that the Ethics Committee was investigating them, and calling for the removal of Rangel as Ways and Means Committee chairman. Carter cited a House rule providing that a Member of the House ?shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House'' and suggested that Rangel had not done so.

Rep. Crowley (D-NY) made a motion for the House to move to an immediate vote on referring the Carter Resolution to the Ethics Committee, which was conducting the investigation of Rangel. No debate occurred on Rep. Crowley?s motion.

House Minority Leader Boehner, referring to the reports about Rangel, had said in a previous press statement that: ?When Democrats took the majority, Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) promised the most ?open and ethical? Congress in history.  Given the nature and severity of the charges against Rep. Rangel, I would urge all my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to do the right thing and support the Carter resolution . . . .?

Rep. Waters (D-CA), during an interview about Rep. Rangel on a news program, said that many lawmakers suffer from innocent lapses in judgment when filing mandatory financial disclosure forms. She noted that ?there are many Members who, if you go back over all of their records, over all of the years, you're going to find that there were disclosures that were not made."

The motion carried by a vote of 243-156 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty Democrats and three Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-five Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result the House moved to an immediate vote on whether to refer to the Ethics Committee the Carter Resolution regarding the removal of Rangel as Ways and Means chairman.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 757
Oct 07, 2009
(H.Res. 799) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and for the Food and Drug Administration. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was held between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. After a final version is developed, it must then be approved by each body. The bill contained $2.7 billion more than the equivalent legislation provided in fiscal year 2009.

This vote was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House debate of the final version of the 2010 Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration funding bill. Under the rule, any point of order that could be made against the conference report under usual House procedures was waived.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), anticipating the kind of criticisms that the Republican minority had made against the procedure that had been used by the Democratic majority for a series of spending bills, said that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration funding bill had gone ?through the regular order.?

Referring to the increased funding in the bill, he said: ?It is unconscionable to me that anyone can complain about helping people in need during these tough economic times . . . Hunger is a real problem in America, and this bill provides funding that keeps the safety net intact . . . for people who simply cannot make ends meet. Yet some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we cannot afford to properly fund these programs, insinuating that we should turn our backs on these people who are in desperate need.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the Republican side in opposing the rule. She repeated a complaint regarding legislative procedure that the Republican minority had consistently made during the debate on a variety of spending bills, that the Democrats ?took unprecedented steps to silence both the minority and their own Democrat colleagues by offering all appropriations bills under (a) closed rule that restricted the offering of amendments.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) expressed his opposition to the substance of the bill itself, although he said that he shared the concern of Rep. McGovern ?about nutrition, child nutrition especially. It is a very high priority.? Dreier went on to say that ?the tired old argument that somehow those of us who are Republicans want to throw children out in the street and have them starve is a nonstarter.? He asserted that there ?are other areas in the legislation where cuts can be made? to pay for the increases he agreed were necessary.

The resolution passed by a vote of 241-178. All two hundred and forty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eight other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy Republicans voted and ?nay?. As a result the House was able to begin formal debate of the fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Y Y Won
Roll Call 756
Oct 07, 2009
(H.Res. 799) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration - - on a motion to move immediately to a vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and for the Food and Drug Administration. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was held between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. After a final version is developed, it must then be approved by each body. The bill contained $2.7 billion more than the equivalent legislation provided in fiscal year 2009.

This was on a motion to move immediately to a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House debate of the final version of the 2010 Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration funding bill. Under the rule, any point of order that could be made against the conference report under usual House procedures was waived.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), anticipating the kind of criticisms that the Republican minority had made against the procedure that had been used by the Democratic majority for a series of spending bills, said that this funding bill had gone ?through the regular order.? He also said he anticipated that he would ?hear from my friends on the other side . . . about how this bill spends too much money and that this increase (in spending) is simply unnecessary, especially during these difficult economic times.?

In response to the anticipated remarks about the increased funding level, McGovern argued ?this increase is needed now more than ever. Just look at where the increases in this bill are targeted: to the areas of nutrition, international food assistance, and food and drug safety. Simply, these increases go to protect our food supply and to provide food for those who either cannot afford it or do not have access to it. It is unconscionable to me that anyone can complain about helping people in need during these tough economic times. Hunger is a real problem in America, and this bill provides funding that keeps the safety net intact . . .  I, for one, make no apologies for these increases in food and nutrition programs. We have a moral obligation to step up to the plate to help the most vulnerable people during these difficult times.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the Republican side in opposing the rule and this motion to bring the rule to a vote. She repeated a complaint that the Republican minority had consistently made during the debate on spending bills, that the Democrats ?took unprecedented steps to silence both the minority and their own Democrat colleagues by offering all appropriations bills under (a) closed rule that restricted the offering of amendments.? Foxx argued that ?(T)his has consistently eliminated the ability for Members to speak up for how their constituents believe their money should be spent. This is not the way the House should be operating, and we want to express again our concern about this . . . .?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) expressed his opposition to the motion calling for a vote on the rule, to the rule, and to the funding bill itself. He first said that he shared the concerns expressed by Rep. McGovern about child nutrition and called it ?a very high priority.? He added that ?anyone who tries to characterize those of us who are opposed to this conference report as being opposed to child nutrition is totally off base.? Dreier also characterized as a ?nonstarter? what he called ?the tired old argument that somehow those of us who are Republicans want to throw children out in the street and have them starve . . . .?

Dreier noted the increases in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration 2010 funding bill over the 2009 levels, saying that ?every single line item (in it) has . . . an increase?. He then argued ?we can have that strong commitment, as we do in a bipartisan way, to nutrition. There are other areas where cuts can be made.?

The motion carried by a vote of 237-180. All two hundred and thirty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eleven other Democrats joined all one hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and voted ?aye?. As a result the House moved immediately to a vote on the rule setting the terms for formal debate of the final version of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Y Y Won
Roll Call 754
Oct 06, 2009

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2647 Department of Defense Authorization, FY 2010
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Won
Roll Call 752
Oct 01, 2009
(H.R. 3183) On passage of the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water development programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water programs. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was held between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. This was a vote on passage of the final version of the bill that was negotiated in the conference. It contained $35.5 billion in funding, which represented an increase of $204 million over the corresponding fiscal year 2009 level.

Rep. Pastor (D-AZ) was leading the support for the bill. He said the programs it funded would ?contribute to solving many of the most pressing challenges facing our country, including strengthening and maintaining our water infrastructure, advancing U.S. scientific leadership, combating global climate change with renewable and cleaner energy technologies, and providing security against nuclear threats.

Certain members opposed the legislation because of specific provisions. Rep. Scalise (R-LA) opposed it because, he said, provisions in the House-passed version that ?would have directed the Corps of Engineers to pursue a much safer level of flood protection for the New Orleans region? had been removed in the final version. Rep. Deal (R-GA) and Rep. Scott (D-GA) opposed the final version of the bill because it included language from the Senate version that directed the Corps of Engineers to calculate certain water flows in Georgia. Rep. Deal said this will ?inject (the Corps of Engineers) into a controversy that has been going on for decades in the federal courts . . . (and) to spend Corps dollars (in this way) . . . is a true waste of federal money.?

Many Republicans opposed passage of the measure because of its funding levels. Rep. Sessions (R-TX) said ?the increase in spending over last year's level and destructive initiatives that the Democrat majority continues to pursue . . . have only killed jobs and led to record deficits . . . The fiscal year 2010 energy and water appropriation conference report . . .is . . . above last year's level, and this is in addition to the $58.7 billion provided in (the previously-passed legislation designed to deal with the economic downturn in the economy) . . . this bill does not represent any commitment to fiscal sustainability.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 308-114. Two hundred and thirty-eight Democrats and seventy Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and two Republicans and twelve Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result the House approved and sent on to the Senate the final version of the fiscal year 2010 energy and water development funding bill.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
WAR & PEACE Proliferation of Militarily Applicable Technology
Y Y Won
Roll Call 749
Oct 01, 2009
(H.Res.788) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water development programs - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R. 3183, the bill providing $35.5 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water programs. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was held between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House debate of the final version that was negotiated in the conference. The resolution restricted procedural objections, such as points of order, that ordinarily could be raised against spending bills such as this one.

Rep. Matsui (D-CA) was leading the support for the rule. She said that H.R. 3183, for which the rule set the terms for debate, will ?keep communities safe from flooding, invest in clean energy and renewable technologies, fight nuclear proliferation, and create jobs through infrastructure development.? Matsui noted that the conference agreement provided $27 billion for the Department of Energy ?to help fund clean energy development and perform basic scientific research.? She also noted that the bill ?takes a responsible approach toward nuclear energy by providing $700 million in that area . . . .?

Matsui concluded her remarks by pointing to the funds in the legislation for infrastructure, saying as ?we rebuild our infrastructure, we rebuild our economy. The infrastructure funding in this conference report before us today will continue this pattern of creating jobs.?

Members of the Republican minority repeated the complaint it had been making about what they said was the unfair practice of limiting the number of amendments and the points of order that could be offered or raised on spending bills such as H.R. 3183. The Democratic majority had been responding to those complaints by asserting that the limitations were required in order to meet the goal of passing spending bills before the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year. In recent years, many spending bills had not been passed before the beginning of the fiscal year to which they applied.

Rep Sessions (R-TX) argued that the Democratic majority ?for the first time in history shut down the appropriation process by placing extremely restrictive rules on every single appropriation bill that has come to the floor of the House this year . . . There are hundreds of good amendments . . . by all of my colleagues which were rejected in this unprecedented fashion. Now that this House has finished all the appropriation bills, you would think that my friends on the other side of the aisle would allow for an appropriate time and an appropriate process for consideration of the conference reports . . . for Members to be heard from and for us to go back to a process which this House was used to in its precedents for so many years.?   

Regarding the substance of the funding bill, Sessions said ?the increase in spending over last year's level and destructive initiatives that the Democrat majority continues to pursue . . . have only killed jobs and led to record deficits . . . the only thing up to now that (the Democrats) really have accomplished is record deficits, record spending and record unemployment numbers all across America. The fiscal year 2010 energy and water appropriation conference report . . . is . . . above last year's level, and this is in addition to the $58.7 billion provided in (the previously-passed legislation designed to deal with the economic downturn in the economy) . . . this bill does not represent any commitment to fiscal sustainability.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 239-181. All 234 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and twelve Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result the House was able to begin formal debate on the final version of the fiscal year 2010 energy and water development funding bill that was negotiated between the House and Senate.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
WAR & PEACE Proliferation of Militarily Applicable Technology
Y Y Won
Roll Call 746
Oct 01, 2009
(H.R. 2892) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security - - on a motion to instruct the House representatives to the House-Senate conference that would develop the report not to add any language that would allow the transfer to the United States of terrorism suspects being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

(H.R. 2892) The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R. 2997, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was scheduled between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill.

This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Rogers (R-KY) for the House to instruct its representatives to the conference on a few matters. One of the positions was to insist on a prohibition of the transfer to the United States of terrorism suspects being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison. A second was to insist on a prohibition of the publication of pictures of the prisoners. The third was to require that the final version of the bill agreed on in the conference be made public at least 72 hours before being considered on the House floor.

Rep. Rogers, arguing in support of his motion, said its purpose is ?protecting the American people from all threats, including the warped intentions of terrorists and radical extremists.? He noted that ?the Obama Administration has insisted the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay be shuttered within the year. But what have we seen during that time in preparation for that? Absolutely nothing . . .? Rogers added: ?(N)ow . . . the administration is thinking of releasing up to 75 of the detainees there . . . this motion prohibits the granting of any immigration benefit for any reason to these detainees. Without such a benefit, there is no legal way to bring these terrorists to American soil . . . That means these terrorists cannot be granted the same constitutional rights as American citizens. After all, these detainees are enemy combatants caught on the battlefield . . . and they should not be granted legal standing in our criminal courts . . . .?

Regarding the instructions to prohibit the release of photographs, Rogers approvingly quoted President Obama saying: ?(N)othing would be gained from the release of the detainee photos other than allowing our enemies to paint our troops with a broad, damning, and inaccurate brush.'' Regarding the 72 hour requirement, the Republican minority had been arguing during the entire congressional session that the Democratic majority had been rushing important and complex bills to the House floor without giving Members adequate time to review them.

Rep. Price (D-NC) opposed the motion. He argued that the instruction not to allow the bringing of any prisoner held at Guantanamo Bay to the United States for the purpose of prosecution ?goes against basic American principles, as well as basic American interests. People are to be given due process and access to a fair trial in this country, and it is certainly in this country's interest to bring these people to trial, to dispose of their cases.? He added that the instruction Rep. Rogers proposed is ?basically saying that our judicial and law enforcement officials are unable to handle these criminals here in the United States, and that our country's core values and interests do not apply in these cases. That's just wrong. The U.S. has successfully tried dangerous terrorists before . . . .?

Rep. Obey (D-WI), who chairs the Appropriations Committee, also opposed the motion. He argued that the Guantanamo Bay prison problem was created by the previous Bush Administration, which, he said ?had no process by which to separate the merely criminal or the merely misguided from the truly evil. And as a result . . . the United States . . . has come to be seen by some these days as a pretty major apologist for torture and imprisonment without review or remedy.? Obey also said the Guantanamo Bay facility had to be closed and its prisoners transferred to the U.S., if necessary, because the prison ?has become a major liability to this country in the court of world opinion and in some cases has become a recruiting ground for the very forces that we wish to contain.?

Rep. Price also opposed the instruction requiring 72 hours before the bill can be considered.  He said ?this bill has been a long time in the making . . . it's a thoroughly vetted bill, and the issues in this bill have been thoroughly examined.?

The motion passed by a vote of 258-163. One hundred and seventy-eight Republicans and eighty Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-two Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and one Republican voted ?nay?. As a result the House conferees were instructed to insist on a prohibition of the transfer to the United States of terrorism suspects being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison, on a ban on the publication of pictures of the prisoners, and on a requirement that the final version of the bill be made public at least 72 hours before being considered on the House floor.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Lost
Roll Call 743
Sep 30, 2009
(H.R. 2442) On passage of the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act, which would have authorized six projects as part of the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2442 contained six new projects to be part of the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program that were expected to save 2.6 billion gallons of water annually. This was a vote on a motion to suspend the usual House rules and pass the legislation.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) was a leading supporter of the bill. He described the projects it authorized as being part of an ?innovative new program . . . that reduces (California?s) demands for fresh water from the (San Francisco) Bay-Delta. California had been experiencing a long period of water shortage problems. Miller argued that the six water projects in the bill ?add enough water to the system to meet the needs of 24,225 households? in the San Francisco Bay area. He added, ?more importantly, these water projects will help the state as a whole . . . We cannot solve California's water situation without a significant investment in recycling wastewater and putting it to beneficial use. This program is a smart and efficient way to conserve water supplies, lessen our impact on our natural resources, and create jobs and support local businesses.?

Miller concluded his remarks by saying the bill ?authorizes cities across the Bay Area to join in a strong federal-state -local partnership that is providing our region a sustainable and reliable clean water supply.?

Water issues in California had become controversial matters. There was an ongoing drought in the state, and a court decision had limited the flow of water in certain of the state?s rivers to protect the habitat of certain fish. The combination of these events had caused problems for the farmers in the Central Valley of California. Earlier in the session, Rep. Nunes (R-CA) had unsuccessfully offered an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have overcome the court decision and increased the flow of water to the Central Valley.

In response to a request from Rep. Nunes, Republicans decided to oppose any California water-related bill, including this one, that did not allow for a vote on an amendment to deal with the issue. H.R. 2442 was being debated under a procedure that did not permit such an amendment. That procedure suspended the usual House rules, and limited the time for debate as well as preventing any amendment to be offered. The procedure also required a two-thirds vote for passage, rather than the usual majority.

The vote was 240-170 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and thirty -eight Democrats and two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. Since the two-thirds vote required for passage under this procedure was not achieved, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act was not approved. The failure to achieve the necessary two-thirds vote did not prevent the bill from being reconsidered under regular House rules that require a simple majority for passage.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 742
Sep 29, 2009
(H.R. 2997) The conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration - - on a motion to instruct the House representatives to the conference not to agree to a final version unless it is made available to them 72 hours before they vote on it

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R. 2997, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was scheduled between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. This was a motion by Rep. Kingston (R-GA) for the House to instruct its representatives to the conference not to agree to a final version of H.R. 2997 unless it is made available to them 72 hours before they vote on it.

Rep. Kingston, arguing on behalf of his motion, referenced major legislation that had been considered earlier in the session which the Republicans had opposed. He said that Members had not had adequate time to review those measures before voting on them. Kingston then argued generally against moving bills too quickly, and indirectly criticized the very controversial health care bill that the House Democrats were supporting.

Kingston did acknowledge that ?Republicans, as well as Democrats, have been guilty of last-minute bill changing and last-minute arm twisting . . . .? He said ?what we are asking . . . is that Members have time to read bills by putting (them) on the table for 72 hours. That's all that this motion does.?

Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), who chairs the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R 2997, opposed the motion. She said that she is ?someone who agrees that we need to look at bills, read them, understand them, et cetera?, but then added that the House has ?had a thorough examination of all the issues that are in this appropriations bill.? DeLauro noted that the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year, for which the bill provided funding, was starting in two days. She said ?(T)here is that time constraint and this motion to instruct would really tie the hands of the conferees, in trying to be able to move forward given the weeks that have gone into producing the conference report.?

The motion passed by a vote of 359-41. One hundred and ninety-three Democrats and all one hundred and sixty-six Republicans voted ?aye?. Forty-one other Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, voted ?nay?. A spokeswoman for the Congressional Progressive Caucus suggested that those voting against the motion did so because of their opposition to imposing any formal restriction on the time when this or any other urgently-needed bill could be brought to the floor.

As a result of the vote, the House conferees were instructed not to approve a final version of the 2010 Agriculture Department and FDA funding bill unless it had been available for review for 72 hours.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 740
Sep 29, 2009
(H.R. 905) On passage of legislation expanding the boundary of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve in Lake Huron off the coast of Michigan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 905 modified the boundary of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve in Lake Huron off the coast of Michigan. The existing boundaries of the sanctuary currently contain more than 100 nationally significant historic shipwrecks. This was a vote on passage of the bill expanding the boundaries of the sanctuary to include more than 100 additional shipwrecks. This expansion would put these other shipwrecks under the protection, research, education and public outreach capabilities of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

Rep. Bordallo (D-Guam), who was leading support for H.R. 905, referred to it as ?bipartisan legislation?. Two of the four sponsors of the bill were Republican congressman from Michigan. Bardallo called the sanctuary a federal-state partnership with a unique focus on preserving the large collection of underwater cultural resources. She argued that, ?(B)y authorizing an expansion of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, the affected local communities would receive the benefits of having additional historical resources highlighted and preserved, as well as increased tourism, which is an important driver for economic growth of this part of northeastern lower Michigan.? According to her, the bill was ?strongly supported by the Obama Administration, the State of Michigan, the affected counties, the communities, the local chambers of commerce, and the Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council.?

Rep. Wittman (R-VA), speaking for the Republicans, noted that there ?have been concerns voiced on this side of the aisle about the potential increased costs of this boundary expansion that expands the current sanctuary by almost nine times its current size.  While the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary is entirely within the waters of the State of Michigan, concern has been raised that the cost of this expansion and any future needs will fall on the federal government. Not only will this increase the federal costs for managing the resources that are entirely within state waters, but it could also have a negative effect on the other national marine sanctuaries.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 286-107. Two hundred and twenty-eight Democrats and fifty-eight Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and five Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay? As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the bill expanding the boundary of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 739
Sep 25, 2009
(H.R.2918) On passage of the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate providing fiscal year 2010 funding for Congress; the measure also provided stop-gap funding to keep the federal government operating for a few weeks into the 2010 fiscal year pending the passage of full-year 2010 appropriation bills for all the executive branch departments and agencies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2918, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for Congress. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This was a vote on House passage of the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on fiscal year 2010 funding for Congress, which was the first conference report providing funding for 2010 to be completed and considered by the House.

Since the conference report for H.R. 2918 was the first to come to the House floor, the Democratic majority attached a ?continuing resolution? to it. That resolution provided the spending authority to keep all departments and agencies of the federal government operating for a few weeks into the 2010 fiscal year at their 2009 fiscal year levels. Without that spending authority, the government would have had to shut down most of its operations.

Rep. Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), chairs the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the House version of H.R.2918. She said the conference report  ?preserves all of the priorities of the House, and . . .  the Legislative Branch bill is on time and under budget . . . this package was developed in full cooperation with the minority and represents a fully bipartisan agreement.?

Rep. Aderholt(R-AL), the Ranking Republican on the subcommittee that developed the House version of H.R.2918, said that is ?is a good bill?. However, Aderholt then added ?while I support the underlying bill . . . I regret that because of the attachment of the continuing resolution to this conference report I am unable to support this agreement.? He argued that ?we need a clean continuing resolution and a clean Legislative Branch appropriations bill . . . .?, and claimed that attaching the continuing resolution to H.R. 2918 ?is simply not a reasonable or responsible kind of governing . . . .?

Rep. Lewis(R-CA) is the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee. He objected to having the House debate the 2010 spending bill for the Congress before it debated the spending bills for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security or Veterans Affairs. Lewis claimed: ?(M)embers who are concerned about approving their staff's budget before approving budgets for our veterans, our troops, or the homeland are left with a dilemma of the leadership's making. House Members are faced with the Hobson's choice of either approving their own budget or shutting down the government. Nothing could be more cynical.? Lewis added: ?(I)t's not the continuing resolution that I object to but rather that it's being attached to legislation funding the internal operations of Congress rather than higher priority legislation . . . .?   

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), had argued during a previous debate related to the H.R. 2918 conference report that the continuing resolution needed to be attached to the Legislative Branch spending bill because the Senate had been slow in approving the other fiscal year 2010 spending bills, and the authority to continue spending ?is necessary to ensure that vital programs continue to receive funding.? McGovern had also acknowledged that ?none of us on either side of the aisle are happy with continuing resolutions. They have been used for years under Democratic and Republican majorities, but they are clearly not ideal.?

The vote was 217-190. Two hundred and twelve Democrats and five Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty- two Republicans and twenty-eight Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate providing fiscal year 2010 funding for Congress as well as keeping the federal government operating for a few weeks into the 2010 fiscal year.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 738
Sep 25, 2009
(H.R. 2918) The bill incorporating the agreement between the House and Senate on the level of fiscal year 2010 funding to be provided for the operations of Congress; the bill also provided funds to keep the executive branch of the federal government operating for six weeks into the 2010 fiscal year- - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2918, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for Congress. When the two Houses of Congress have passed different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That conference report must then be passed by both Houses before it can be sent to the president to be signed into law. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the House debate of the conference report on H.R. 2918.

The conference report for H.R. 2918 also contained a ?continuing resolution?, which provided authority to keep all departments and agencies of the federal government operating for six weeks into the 2010 fiscal year essentially at their 2009 fiscal year levels. There were some additional funds added to the 2009 levels for veterans benefits and other purposes.

The conference report for H.R. 2918 was being considered five days before the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year and no spending bill for the new fiscal year had yet been approved by Congress. Rep. McGovern (D-MA), who was leading the support for the rule for the measure, said this was because the Senate had been slow in approving new fiscal year 2010 spending bills, and the authority to continue spending ?is necessary to ensure that vital programs continue to receive funding.?

Much of the debate on the resolution focused on the authority it gave to keep the government operating into fiscal year 2010. Rep. McGovern acknowledged that ?none of us on either side of the aisle are happy with continuing resolutions. They have been used for years under Democratic and Republican majorities, but they are clearly not ideal.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the Republican opposition to the rule. He argued that the Democratic majority was ?scrambling . . . to buy more time to get our work done with the continuing resolution . . . .? Dreier repeated the complaint the Republican minority had been making against this and other rules that spending bills were being debated under terms that limited the number of amendments and points of order that Members could offer. The Democrats had consistently responded by arguing that this limitation was necessary in order to complete 2010 spending bills before the start of the 2010 fiscal year.

Dreier said that ?continuing resolutions are not unusual, and we recognize that on this side of the aisle . . . What's different is the fact that the Democratic majority shut down debate on our appropriations bills, ostensibly for the sake of completing our spending bills on time . . . They said that there was no time for debate and deliberation while the clock was ticking . . . Now . . . it would appear that the rights of Democrats and Republicans have been trampled on for the sake of a goal that has not come close to being achieved.?

Rep. McGovern responded by saying that ?when the Republicans were in charge here, continuing resolutions were a regular part of the process . . . they got nothing done and dumped all of their appropriations work on the incoming Democratic Congress . . . the bill before us . . . is important and it needs to be passed.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 209-189. Two hundred and eight Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-four Republicans and twenty-five Democrats voted ?nay? As a result, the House was able to begin formally debating the conference report containing the 2010 funding bill for the Congress, and the continuing resolution that would keep the executive branch of the government operating into the early part of fiscal year 2010.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 735
Sep 24, 2009
(H. Res. 766) A bill to maintain the 2010 premium payments, for the portion of Medicare that covers physicians? services, home health care services, and many outpatient services, at their 2009 levels - - on a resolution permitting the House to debate the bill under procedures that would not allow amendments to be offered to it

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3631, The Medicare Premium Fairness Act, would maintain the 2010 premium payments for Medicare Part B at their 2009 levels. Medicare Part B is the portion of Medicare that covers physicians? services, home health care services, and many outpatient services. H.R. 3631 was drafted in response to the fact that the Medicare Part B premium was scheduled to increase although social security payments to seniors were not scheduled to increase. Under usual House rules, Members may offer amendments to any bill that is being debated. This resolution would allow the House to suspend its usual rules and consider H.R. 3631 under terms that would not permit any amendments.

The bill to maintain the premium payments at their 2009 levels had bipartisan support. However, the question of whether to consider the legislation under terms that did not permit amendments was controversial. The Republican minority had been complaining since the beginning of the congressional session about what they claimed were unfair tactics used by the Democratic majority in limiting the ability of Members to offer amendments. The minority argued that this ability was an essential right of every Member in his or her capacity of representing constituents. Those objections had become particularly intense during the previous few months, when a series of spending bills had been debated under terms that restricted the number of amendments that Members could offer.

Rep. Matsui (D-CA) was leading the effort on behalf of the resolution permitting the bill to be considered without amendments. She argued that the resolution would allow the House ?to consider time-sensitive legislation under an expedited process to shield millions of Medicare beneficiaries from harmful premium increases for the coming year.? Matsui also argued ?that inaction is not an option (and) . . . now is the worst possible moment to saddle our seniors with increased premiums.?

Matsui cited the support for H.R. 3631 from the AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, and the Alliance for Retired Americans, and argued: ?(B)y acting quickly and decisively on today's bill, we underscore our commitment to preserve Medicare for millions of people . . . But we do not have much time to act . . The (rules) suspension authority . . . will allow the House to move quickly and decisively to move this fix over to the Senate. The sooner we have this bill on the President's desk, the better off millions of Medicare beneficiaries will be.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the opposition to the resolution that prohibited amendments from being offered to the Medicaid bill. He first agreed that the combination of no social security increase and an increase in Medicare Part B ?would leave seniors with less income next year if Congress does not act. So I support the underlying legislation.? He added, however, that: ?(A)lthough I support the . . . legislation . . . I have reservations with the process the majority is proposing today.? Diaz-Balart then referenced a statement by a Democratic member of the House Rules Committee, who he said, referred to the process of suspending the rules in the manner proposed as being ?outside the normal parameters of the way the House should conduct its business. It effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.''

Diaz-Balart went on to say: ?The reason members of the majority previously opposed rules such as this is because they block Members from offering amendments . . . That is a very important procedural vehicle. Yet today, the majority considers this process to be completely legitimate. So it's interesting how they thought it was wrong when they were in the minority, but once in the majority, it's a fine process.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 235-182. All two hundred and thirty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Ten other Democrats joined all one seventy-two Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the bill designed to mitigate the impact of the increased Medicare Part B premiums on senior citizens was allowed to be debated without permitting members to offer amendments to it.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
Y Y Won
Roll Call 734
Sep 23, 2009
(H. R. 2918) A bill to provide fiscal year 2010 funding for the Legislative Branch - - on instructing the Members who would be representing the House in the House-Senate conference on the bill not to add a resolution to that bill which would also allow the departments and agencies of the Executive Branch to keep operating into fiscal year 2010

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In recent years, Congress had often failed to pass spending bills for fiscal years before the beginning of those fiscal years. To maintain government operations on a temporary basis, Congress adopted the practice of passing ?continuing resolutions?, which kept Executive Branch departments and agencies operating at their previously-approved levels until it could pass spending bills for the new fiscal year. The continuing resolution issue had become contentious, with whatever party was in the minority criticizing the majority party for not being able to get spending bills passed prior to the fiscal year to which they applied.

Among the first appropriation bills for fiscal year 2010 that the House and Senate had each passed was the one that funded the operations of the Legislative Branch. This occurred shortly before the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year. The House Republican minority was concerned that a continuing resolution would be attached to the final Legislative Branch funding bill that would be worked out between the two houses. The attachment of the resolution would occur in the House-Senate conference, where Congress typically works out differences in bills passed by the two Houses. The Republicans wanted the Congress to develop a separate continuing resolution unrelated to the Legislative Branch funding bill. If an unrelated continuing resolution were developed, there would be a separate vote on it. The debate that would occur on this separate vote would give the Republicans an opportunity to focus on the fact that the Democratic majority had not been able to complete the spending bills for the 2010 fiscal year by the beginning of that fiscal year.

Rep. Alderholt (R-AL), who was leading the effort to separate out a continuing resolution, moved to have the House instruct the Members who would be its representatives in the House-Senate conference on the bill not to add a continuing resolution to that bill. Alderholt first acknowledged that: ?(I)f we do not pass a continuing resolution, our nation will face a potentially devastating government-wide shutdown.? He then said ?(H)owever, by attaching the continuing resolution to this Legislative Branch appropriation bill, the majority is forcing Members to choose between voting for our own office budgets or voting for a government shutdown. The majority is also using this parliamentary gimmick to avoid certain debate or votes on the floor that would occur under the normal continuing resolution process.?

Rep. Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), who was leading the opposition to the effort to separate out the continuing resolution, argued that the motion ?ties the hands of the conference committee . . . and our preference in the House is to make sure the conferees have as much flexibility as possible to ensure that the government can continue to function.?  Rep. Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, also opposed the effort to separate out the continuing resolution. Obey noted that, in 2006, the Republicans ?then in the majority--attached the continuing resolution to the Department of Defense appropriation bill. Only two Republican Members of the House voted against that. Mr. Aderholt voted for that process . . . So it would seem to me considerably ill-advised for this House to say that in order to keep the government open, we are not allowed to follow the very same procedure which was followed by the other side of the aisle . . . .?

The motion was defeated by a vote of 191-213. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and twenty-two Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twelve Democrats and one Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House Members of the House-Senate conference on the 2010 fiscal year Legislative Branch funding bill retained the ability to add a continuing resolution to that bill, which would keep Executive Branch departments and agencies operating.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 733
Sep 23, 2009
(H. R. 2918) A bill to provide fiscal year 2010 funding for the Legislative Branch - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on requesting a conference with the Senate to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate-passed funding bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In recent years, Congress had often failed to pass spending bills for fiscal years before the beginning of those fiscal years. To maintain government operations on a temporary basis, Congress had adopted the practice of passing ?continuing resolutions?, which kept operations going at their previously-approved levels, until it could pass a spending bill for the new fiscal year. The continuing resolution issue had become contentious, with whatever party was in the minority criticizing the majority party for not being able to get spending bills passed prior to the fiscal year to which they applied.

Among the first appropriation bills for fiscal year 2010 that the House and Senate had each passed was the one that funded the operations of the Legislative Branch. This occurred shortly before the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year. The House Republican minority was concerned that a continuing resolution would be attached to the final Legislative Branch funding bill that would be worked out between the two houses. The attachment of the resolution would occur in the House-Senate conference, where Congress typically works out differences in bills passed by the two Houses. The Republicans wanted the Congress to develop a separate continuing resolution unrelated to the Legislative Branch funding bill. If an unrelated resolution were developed, there would be a separate vote on it. The debate that would occur on this separate vote would give the Republicans an opportunity to focus on the fact that the Democratic majority had not been able to complete the spending bills for the 2010 fiscal year by the beginning of that fiscal year.

There were a number of differences between the House and Senate-passed bills to provide funding for the Legislative Branch. The Senate had sent its version to the House and formally requested that the House agree to that version. A motion was made in the House that it not agree to the Senate version, and that it request a conference.

This motion was technically on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on requesting a conference with the Senate to resolve the differences on the House and Senate-passed spending measures for the Legislative Branch. The Republicans opposed the motion because of their concern that a continuing resolution would be attached in the conference to the Legislative Branch funding bill.

The motion passed by a vote, along almost straight party lines, of 240-171. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House formally disagreed with the Senate version of the 2010 fiscal year Legislative Branch funding bill, requested that a conference be held with the Senate to work out a final version of the bill, and no prohibition was adopted against adding a continuing resolution to that final version.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 728
Sep 23, 2009
(H.R. 324) On final passage of legislation establishing the Santa Cruz Valley in Arizona as a national heritage area

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of H.R. 324, a bill that designated the Santa Cruz Valley region of southern Arizona as a national heritage area. National heritage areas are regions of historical and cultural significance that are given this particular designation to encourage their historic preservation and to promote their public appreciation. The Santa Cruz Valley is one of America's longest inhabited regions, with traces of human occupation extending back more than 12,000 years. The designated heritage area included two national parks and two national historic trails, many prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, as well as state and county parks, designated scenic highways back-country trails and 32 museums and 102 buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), one of the sponsors of the bill, said that the designation of the region as a national heritage area ?would allow the National Park Service to support existing and future state and local conservation efforts through Federal recognition, seed money, and technical assistance.? He also argued that it ?will be a valuable tool to promote economic development and tourism in . . . an area that has been hard hit by the downturn in the economy.?

Rep. Grijalva also noted that the bill ?is strongly supported throughout the Santa Cruz Valley. All incorporated local governments have supported it and have given this proposal their formal support. Other supporters include two Native American tribes, chambers of commerce and other civic organizations, the Arizona Office of Tourism and other tourism councils, the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association, conservation groups and developers . . . .?

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) led the opposition to the bill. He first said that ?Republicans support the wise and responsible stewardship of Federal lands. We also strongly believe the protection and conservation of natural areas is important.? He then went on to say: ?(Y)et it need not be done at the expense of our homeland security or the private property rights of U.S. citizens.?

Hastings noted that ?some of the most heavily trafficked drug smuggling and human trafficking routes in the United States would be designated as a national heritage area under this bill. To make matters worse, the bill lacks sufficient protections to ensure that border security enforcement, drug interdiction and illegal immigration control is not restricted, is not hindered, and is not impeded by this legislation . . . It is critical that policies meant to conserve natural areas or to preserve or promote unique areas in our nation do not become corridors for illegal activities that threaten the safety and security of United States citizens.?

Hastings then dealt with the effect of the measure on the property rights of those in the heritage area. He acknowledged that ?this legislation does include language that expresses support for property protection.? Hastings then went on to say: ?(H)owever, the bill omits stronger protections that have been included in many of the other recently established heritage areas. What should be included in this bill is an assurance that the written consent of property owners be acquired before their property is included into the planning activities of the heritage area's management entities. Property owners should also be permitted the choice to opt out of the heritage area's boundaries if they choose.?

Hastings cautioned that the bill ?would allow a basis for ambitious federal land managers to claim that now they have a mandate and millions of federal dollars to interfere with local decisions affecting the private property of others. The reality is that there are likely a great number of property owners who have no idea that they are being included in this heritage area designation. After all we are talking about over 3,300 square miles. This House should insist that the weak and ineffectual provisions of the bill are strengthened with real and meaningful protections that protect all landowners with the choice to opt out of this designation.?

Rep. Rahall (D-WVA), who chairs the Natural Resources Committee, responded to Hastings. Rahall noted that no provision of H.R. 324 ?abridges the rights of any property owner (whether public or private), including the right to refrain from participating in any plan, project, program, or activity conducted within the national heritage area.'' He also noted that ?(N)ational heritage areas have been around for 25 years . . . Well over 50 million people live, work and recreate in a heritage area . . . and not one of them has been adversely affected. That's because heritage areas have no regulatory powers, no zoning authority, no power of eminent domain.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 281-142. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and twenty-nine Republicans voted ?aye?. All one hundred and forty-two ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, the House was passed and sent on to the Senate legislation establishing the Santa Cruz Valley in Arizona as a national heritage area.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 727
Sep 23, 2009
(H.R. 324) Legislation to establish the Santa Cruz Valley in Arizona as a national heritage area - - on a motion to add language requiring that each property owner give consent before his/her property could be included in the new heritage area, and that the Department of Homeland Security be consulted in the planning process for the area

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 324 designated the Santa Cruz Valley region of southern Arizona as a national heritage area. National heritage areas are regions of historical and cultural significance that are given this particular designation to encourage their historic preservation and to promote their public appreciation. Some Republicans had expressed concern that the designation of national heritage areas could interfere with the rights of property owners in the designated regions. They had also expressed concern about the results of making this particular region, which was close to the U.S.-Mexican border, a national heritage area because of the potential negative effect on the efforts to prevent the importation of illegal drugs from Mexico.

In response to the concerns about the rights of property owners and the importation of illegal drugs, Rep. Bishop (R-UT) moved that the bill be recommitted (sent back) to committee. His motion mandated that the committee add language requiring that each property owner give consent before its property could be included in the new Santa Cruz Valley heritage area. The motion also mandated that language be added to the bill requiring that the Department of Homeland Security be consulted on land use plans related to the heritage area, and that none of those plans interfere with the operations of the department.

Rep. Bishop acknowledged that there is an argument that the requirement that all property owners agree to be included in the new heritage area, is ?burdensome and difficult.? He then noted ?when tax time comes, the government entities have an easy time finding all the property owners in an area. We could do the same thing, because the matter is not how efficient it is or how easy it is. The matter should be that private property rights are not a burden to government, and they should be respected in every way that is possible, especially in these areas where the National Park Service, who will be administering this, does not have a celebrated history of respecting private property rights and finding unique ways of having willing sellers.?

Regarding the need for the language relating to the Department of Homeland Security, Bishop claimed that, currently, ?when a Border Patrol agent crosses into a national park, he has to get out of his car, park it and walk . . . the Border Patrol has to consult with the National Park Service before they can put up an antenna on that border.? He argued that the language he proposed be added to the bill would ?for the first time, say . . . that Homeland Security must be consulted in coming up with the land use plans.? He argued that the change would make the department ?an equal partner? in the planning and ?(R)ight now they are not . . . When it comes to border security, this bill is a perfect effort for us to move forward . . . .?

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), who sponsored the legislation, opposed the motion. He first argued that ?nowhere in this legislation is there an infringement, a taking of private property rights.? Grijalva then noted that forty-nine other national heritage areas had been created over the previous thirty years and, there had not been ?one incident where a private property owner has been forced, coerced into being part of or permitting their private property to be used as a designation.? He also claimed that the bill already contained language requiring full protection of private property interests.

Grijalva further argued that the requirement would create a serious administrative burden, ?since close to a quarter of a million property owners (would have to) be notified and asked to either be part of or not be part of this heritage area.? He also claimed the process ?would create a swiss cheese designation for that (new heritage) area . . . .? Regarding the language Rep. Bishop proposed relating to the Department of Homeland Security, Grijalva argued that the bill already contained provisions ensuring the ability of the department ?plus all other local enforcement--the sheriffs, local police, tribal police, et cetera . . . to carry out their mission and enforce the law . . . and that the heritage area in no way would impinge, infringe or restrict that ability.?

The motion passed by a vote of 259-167. All one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and eighty-five Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-seven Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to the legislation establishing the Santa Cruz Valley national heritage area that required each property owner to give consent before his/her property could be included in the new area, and that required the Department of Homeland Security to be consulted in the planning process for the area.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Lost
Roll Call 723
Sep 23, 2009
(H.Res. 760) Legislation to establish the Santa Cruz Valley in Arizona as a national heritage area - - on the resolution providing the terms under which the House could debate the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Legislation had been developed to designate the Santa Cruz Valley region of southern Arizona as a national heritage area. National heritage areas are regions of historical and cultural significance that are given this particular designation to encourage their preservation and to promote their public appreciation. The National Park Service has ten criteria for proposed heritage areas. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms under which the House could debate the Santa Cruz Valley legislation. Under House procedures, before a bill can be debated, the House must first approve a resolution containing the ?rule? setting the terms for its consideration.

The Santa Cruz Valley is one of America's longest inhabited regions, with traces of human occupation extending back more than 12,000 years. The designated heritage area included two national parks and two national historic trails, many prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, as well as state and county parks, designated scenic highways back-country trails and 32 museums and 102 buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Rep Cardoza (D-CA) was leading the support for the rule. He said that designating the Santa Cruz Valley as a heritage area would allow the National Park Service to support state and local conservation efforts in the heritage area ?through federal recognition, seed money and technical assistance. This simply means that local groups will have the resources they need to educate the public about the historic, cultural and natural value of the area.? Cardoza argued that approving the legislation will help ?ensure that America's history and natural wonderment is protected for future generations.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), was leading the effort against the rule. She first objected on  procedural grounds. Foxx noted that the legislation designating the Santa Cruz Valley region as a national heritage area, for which the rule would permit debate, had not gone through the usual committee process. Foxx also opposed the legislation because of its cost. She noted that it ?authorizes another $15 million in taxpayer dollars (at a time when) . . . The National Park Service currently has billions of dollars in maintenance backlogs.? She also noted that Congress had ?created 10 new national heritage areas at a cost of $103.5 million? earlier in the session and that the bill ?spends more taxpayer dollars to add yet another heritage area to a system already overburdened.? Foxx pointed to the fact that ?the U.S. national debt stands at $11.8 trillion and counting . . .  This year's deficit alone is expected to soar past $1.8 trillion . . . The time to rein in Federal spending is long overdue. Voting down this rule will take one small step in harnessing the federal government's spending.?

Foxx further argued against the rule and the bill because it ?could lead to restrictive federal zoning and land use planning that usurps private property rights and blocks necessary energy development.? She added that ?national heritage areas are . . . administered by a central managing entity, which includes the federal government . . . This means federal management plans can restrict our residential and commercial property owners to make use of their private property without any notice or warning.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 244-177 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-two Republicans and five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin its formal debate on the legislation establishing the Santa Cruz Valley in Arizona as a national heritage area.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 719
Sep 17, 2009
(H.R.3221) On final passage of legislation providing that all new federal student loans be originated directly by the federal government rather than by private lenders issuing federally-guaranteed loans; the bill also authorized a new multi-billion-dollar federal construction program for K-12 schools, and for community colleges, and expanded federal student assistance grants and aid to historically black colleges.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. The bill made a major change in the federal student loan program. It provided that all new federal student loans be originated directly by the federal government rather than by private lenders issuing federally-guaranteed loans. The legislation was designed, in part, to hold down the interest rate on federal education loans, and to make it easier for families to apply for college financial aid. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had estimated that shifting new educational lending from a guaranteed third party loan program to a direct loan program would result in budgetary savings.

H.R. 3221, among other things, also significantly increased federal scholarship and grant program and funding for historically black colleges and community colleges. In addition, it included provisions to help veterans attend college under the GI Bill and to give loan forgiveness to members of the military who are called up to duty in the middle of an academic year.

Rep. Hinojosa (D-TX), one of the leading supporters of H.R. 3221, said America?s ?competitiveness and innovation in the world depends on our ability to invest in human capital and train a workforce for the 21st century?, and that the bill was designed to help reach the goal of having the U.S. ?produce the most college graduates in the world by 2020 and makes our workforce strong and competitive.?

Referring to the provisions changing the student loan program, Hinojosa said the bill ?provides low-income and middle class families with reliable, affordable, high-quality direct Federal student loans, and simplifies the application process for financial aid.? He also claimed that the legislation is ?fiscally responsible and helps reduce the deficit. It . . . directs $8 billion in savings back to the U.S. Treasury to help pay down the deficit.?

Rep. Kline (R-MN) opposed the bill and argued that the move to a student loan program that only allows for direct federal loans is a ?government takeover.? He noted that students already had an option of direct federal loans or federally-guaranteed loans issued by private lenders. Kline argued that the change will put into place ?a one-size-fits-all federal loan model that requires the U.S. Treasury to directly lend tens of billions of dollars each year--tens of billions of dollars we don't have, and will be forced to borrow.? Kline argued that the best method would be a ?competition? between direct federal lending and federally-guaranteed loans by private lenders and ?the best program ought to win in the marketplace.?

Kline also opposed the bill because, he said, it ?is awash with new entitlement programs, including a new early childhood program to develop and fund programs at the state level. He claimed that the bill ?will cost closer to $15 billion over the next 10 years--and when market risk is factored in, the cost spikes to nearly $50 billion more.?

The vote was 253-171. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and six Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty- seven Republicans and four Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate legislation providing that all new federal student loans be originated directly by the federal government, and authorizing and extending several major education and school construction programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Banks/Credit Card Companies
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
Y Y Won
Roll Call 718
Sep 17, 2009
(H.R.3221) The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee to add language prohibiting any of its funds being awarded to ACORN, a nation-wide association of community organizations focused on housing and voter registration

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3221 amended the Higher Education Act of 1965. Among many other things, the Higher Education Act of 1965 had previously provided federal grants to ACORN, a nation-wide community organization that focuses on housing and voter registration. It had been very active in registering minority voters during the 2008 presidential campaign. ACORN had become an increasingly controversial organization, with Republicans and conservatives, in particular, arguing that it had engaged in numerous improper practices. Immediately before the consideration of H.R. 3221, it was widely reported in the press that some of the representatives of ACORN gave advice about methods for circumventing eligibility requirements of federal housing programs.

This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Issa (R-CA) to send H.R. 3221 back to committee, with instructions to add language prohibiting any funds from it being awarded to ACORN. Rep. Issa argued that ACORN ?is an organization with a long history of criminal indictments and activities . . . .? He claimed that it engaged in child trafficking, prostitution, and ?many other criminal activities, including voter fraud.? Issa noted that the Census Bureau, which had been using the organization, had ended its funding of ACORN ?to ensure the integrity of their operations.? Issa cited the recent reports about what he termed ?ACORN employees' alleged complicity in illegal schemes? and said: ?(T)o continue funding this organization would . . . be an outrage.?

Issa concluded his remarks by saying: ?(A)n analysis of federal data shows that ACORN has received more than $53 million in direct funding from the Federal Government since 1994, and has likely received substantially more indirectly through states and localities that receive federal block grants. To fully protect taxpayers, we must enact a comprehensive ban on federal funding for this (organization) . . . . ?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who was leading the effort on behalf of H.R. 3221, said he supported the motion. There were no statements made in opposition.

The vote was 345-75. One hundred and seventy-three Republicans and one hundred and seventy-two Democrats voted ?aye?. All seventy-five ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including many of the House Members identified as being the most progressive.  As a result, language was added to the bill amending the Higher Education Act, which prohibited any funds it authorized from being awarded to ACORN.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Fair Elections
N N Lost
Roll Call 717
Sep 17, 2009
(H.R. 3221) On the Guthrie of Kentucky amendment that would have extended an existing government-guaranteed student loan program operated by financial institutions, rather than changing to one in which the government directly issues student loans; the amendment would also have removed a number of new educational spending programs from the bill, including one that greatly expanded federal funding for community colleges

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep Guthrie (R-KY) to the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. That legislation was designed so that all new federal student loans would be originated directly by the federal government, rather than by private lenders issuing federally-guaranteed loans. The amendment would have cancelled that change, and instead extended and expanded the existing federally-guaranteed loan program operated by financial institutions. The amendment would also have created a commission to develop a new private sector model for student lending. In addition, the amendment would have removed a number of new educational spending programs from the bill, including one that greatly expanded federal funding for community colleges.

Speaking on behalf of his amendment, Rep. Guthrie said the current loan program should be expanded because that will preserve and ensure ?stability and continuity for both students and schools? by using programs that are ?working on campuses all around the country . . . .? He cited, as evidence of the effectiveness of the guaranteed student loan program, the fact that colleges and universities ?would have joined the Direct Loan Program by now, but they haven't.? Guthrie also argued that the current program ?provides a federal backstop to ensure there is no interruption in funding for students?, despite the ongoing credit shortage. He claimed that the current program ?offers the flexibility for private capital to return as economic conditions improve.?

Guthrie went on to say that continuing the existing program will give the government time ?to pursue real student loan reform?, will ?preserve choice and competition for borrowers preventing waste, fraud and abuse (and will avoid) . . . a massive infliction of debt on future generations.?

Rep. Andrews (D-NJ), acknowledged that the amendment, like H.R. 3221, ?recognizes the need for substantial reform in the federal student loan program.? However, he opposed the amendment, in part because it would ?saves about $17 billion less than the approach that (of) the underlying bill . . . (by subsidizing) private institutions that take a risk with taxpayer money.?  Andrews also criticized the amendment because it would remove the provisions that provided additional funding for community colleges that he said ?are burgeoning with new enrollees who need an education because of the tumultuous circumstances in our economy.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 165-265. All one hundred and sixty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Republicans. Eight other Republicans joined all two hundred and fifty-seven Democrats and voted ?nay?. As a result, the provisions under which the student loan program became a direct federal loan program operated by financial institutions, and in which aid was expanded to community colleges, both remained in H.R. 3221.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Banks/Credit Card Companies
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
N N Won
Roll Call 712
Sep 17, 2009
(H.R. 3221) On the Foxx of North Carolina amendment that would have eliminated a new twelve billion dollar program designed to reform, expand and improve the effectiveness of U.S. community colleges.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Foxx (R-NC) that would have eliminated the entire ?American Graduation Initiative?, a new twelve billion dollar program to reform and expand U.S. community colleges, from the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. The American Graduation Initiative was designed to help adjust community college curriculums so that Americans would learn the skills needed to compete with workers from other nations, create new online learning opportunities for students, and modernize community college facilities. The Initiative was proposed by President Obama, who said it would increase the effectiveness and graduation rates of community colleges.

Rep. Foxx began her remarks by noting that her background had been in education and that she is a strong supporter of community colleges. She claimed the American Graduation Initiative would be ?duplicative of programs already authorized under the Higher Education Act and the Workforce Investment Act?, and that eliminating it would reduce spending by $680 million between FY 2014 and 2019.

Foxx referred to the new provisions in H.R. 3221 that authorize federal grants to develop online course curricula, which her amendment would also have eliminated, as ?a step towards (a) federal curriculum for schools and colleges.? She claimed those provisions would interfere ?with the authority of states and localities to determine the curriculum that schools provide?. She further argued that it would waste ?taxpayer money to federally fund an online course initiative that's already being provided by 1,000 colleges and universities across the country.?

Foxx went on to say that the programs her amendment would have eliminated were effectively ?a welfare program for the states and the community colleges . . . .? She added that ?community colleges already have programs where they evaluate what they're doing. They have to justify their programs, and the state should be setting priorities and funding those things that are most needed in the state.?

Rep. Andrews (D-NJ), opposed the amendment. He cited a statement of support for American Graduation Initiative from the head of the Business Roundtable, which is the association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies. That statement read, in part: ?This Community College Initiative and the President's American Graduation Initiative reflect the fact that community colleges have emerged as important institutions where acquiring skills for new jobs and new careers will take place.'' Andrews added: ?(T)he United States cannot compete without the most highly skilled and motivated workers in the world, and . . . our odds of achieving that goal in the workforce are severely compromised if our community college sector is not strengthened.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 126-301. All one hundred and twenty-six ?aye? votes were cast by Republicans. Forty-five other Republicans joined all two hundred and fifty-six Democrats and voted ?nay?. As a result, the new twelve billion dollar program to reform U.S. community colleges remained in H.R. 3221.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 711
Sep 17, 2009
(H.R. 3221) On the McMorris Rodgers of Washington amendment that would have prevented areas that received school construction funds in the economic stimulus package from receiving funds authorized by a new federal school construction program

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) that would have prevented areas that received school construction funds in the economic stimulus package from receiving funds authorized by a new federal school construction program. H.R.3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, created a new multi-billion dollar federal construction programs for elementary and secondary schools. H.R. 3221 also created a new construction program for community colleges: The bill already had a provision imposing a limitation on that new construction funding going to community colleges in areas that received stimulus funding.

Rep. McMorris Rodgers noted that: ?(W)e just passed $53 billion in the stimulus package that includes funding made available for school construction?. She said the amendment was based on the idea that ?once secure funds have been directed to one area for construction and repair, responsible governance tells us that any remaining funds should go to those areas that have not yet received the funding but have a demonstrated need.? 

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who was leading support for H.R. 3221, opposed the amendment. The reason he gave was that ?the record is starting to develop that very few if any of the school districts were able to use those (stimulus) funds for construction because . . . of the cuts that took place in almost every state across the country.? He said that the funds that school districts received from the stimulus package ?have been used to try to mitigate the firing of teachers, to continue to try to develop a reasonable class size, and (to meet) all of the other costs (of) . . . local school districts (which) were really very hard hit . . . from the downturn in local revenues (and) in state revenues.?   

Miller concluded his remarks by saying that ?opposition to this amendment is important so that these school districts can receive these funds to build clean, modern, and energy-efficient facilities.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 167-251. One hundred and sixty-four Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-five Democrats and six Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, no restrictions were placed on the awarding of money authorized by the new federal K-12 school construction program to those areas that had received school construction funds in the economic stimulus package.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 710
Sep 17, 2009
(H.R. 3221) On the Hoekstra of Michigan amendment that would have eliminated three new federal construction programs for elementary and secondary schools and community colleges

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hoekstra (R-MI) that would have eliminated three new multi-billion dollar federal construction programs for elementary and secondary schools and community colleges. It was offered to H.R.3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009.

Rep. Hoekstra said he offered the amendment because he was opposed to what he termed ?the continued expansion of the role of the federal government in K-12 education?, which he claimed increases costs with ?little improvement in schools, in children's performance around the country.? He argued that the new construction programs authorized in H.R. 3221 represent further federal expansion when what should be done is ?giving back and yielding control for our kids' education back to parents, back to local schools and back to states.?

Hoekstra also complained about the fact that the burdensome restrictions that attach to the granting of the federal school construction funds. Hoekstra cited ?green standards? as an example. He went on to argue that these requirements create extensive and costly reporting requirements.

The result, Hoekstra claimed, is ?that for every construction dollar that we spend, maybe 60-65 cents of it will actually be spent on construction. The other 35 to 40 cents of that dollar will be spent on reporting requirements, applying for it, meeting Federal requirements, and those types of things . . . We will not end up having more construction; we will have less construction because Federal bureaucracy and Federal bureaucrats will end up siphoning a lot of this money . . . to make sure that the local school districts do what Washington bureaucrats want them to do and not what needs to be done in their local school districts.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who was leading support for H.R. 3221, opposed the amendment. He argued that when students ?have the availability of a clean, well-lit place, modern facilities, they in fact do better in school.? Miller then noted that ?community colleges are under tremendous pressure because of the economic dislocation from the recession that has taken place and continues to take place in so many communities and . . . as people are going back to the schools, we recognize the shortage of facilities that are there and what we are saying is this time we will lend a hand to those community colleges . . .?

Miller also said that this new construction funding ?comes at an important time for these local school districts because . . . they are under siege from the loss of revenues in many local districts because of the economic downturn. In some cases they have had to postpone these projects even though they are desperately needed.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 161-262. One hundred and fifty-five Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and sixteen Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, all the funds for the new school construction programs remained in H.R. 3221.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 709
Sep 16, 2009
(H.R. 3221) On passage of the bill providing funding for the development of more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for vehicles manufactured in the U.S.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 3221, The Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009. That bill authorized federal funding for combined public-private efforts to develop more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for cars, trucks and other vehicles manufactured in the U.S. The legislation provided $550 million for fiscal year 2010, and called for $10 million in increases for each of the following three years.

Rep. Gordon (D-TN), was leading the support for what he termed a bipartisan bill, which ?follows on recommendations of the National Academies of Science and a diverse group of stakeholders and is endorsed by the likes of . . . GM, Ford, Chrysler, the United Auto Workers Union . . . the National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? Gordon noted the ?strategic importance of diversifying our nation's vehicle sector through innovation in cleaner and more efficient technologies.? He then pointed to ?the current economic situation (which) has made it all the more difficult for companies to invest in the research and technology development to get us there.?

Gordon argued that the Department of Energy vehicle research programs ?play an invaluable role in filling this critical gap? and that the bill ?provides a critical foundation of support to ensure U.S. leadership in developing and producing the next generation of advanced vehicle technologies . . . It also makes important investments in areas such as vehicle manufacturing and medium- to heavy-duty vehicles research. It accomplishes this goal through continued partnership with industry and strengthened Department of Energy coordination with other federal research agencies.?

Rep. Hall (R-TX), was leading the Republicans who supported the bill. He said that H.R. 3221 would result in the development of ?cost-effective vehicle technologies for wide-scale utilization?, would allow ?for greater consumer choice (and) shorten technology penetration times?, would ensure ?balance and diversity in federal R&D investment?, and would strengthen ?public-private R&D partnerships . . . .?

Rep. Broun (R-GA) led an effort to reduce the new funding authorized in the bill. He said that the government is ?spending money at record rates (and) . . . we can all agree that showing just a tiny bit of fiscal responsibility is in all of our best interests.? Broun argued that money had already been approved for similar programs, and: ?The American taxpayers and future generations are on the hook for trillions of dollars in spending, borrowing, and interest payments over the coming decades. I'm simply asking for us to show a modicum of restraint. For simply put, isn't $550 million a year for a program that already has multiple funding sources enough? I think so.?

Broun also said ?there are some serious concerns with the amount of money being authorized (for other purposes) and where exactly it will go. In recent bills . . . we have provided a lack of appropriate oversight for the money being spent. I do not want to see us make the same mistake with this legislation . . . (and) simply throwing money at a problem is never a solution . . . .?

The legislation passed by a vote of 312-114. Two hundred and fifty Democrats and sixty-two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and thirteen Democrats and one Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate the bill providing funding for federal vehicle energy and environmental technology research and development programs.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 708
Sep 16, 2009
(H.R. 3221) Legislation providing funding for the development of more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for vehicles manufactured in the U.S. - - on the motion to insert language preventing the spending of any additional funding authorized by the legislation until all other federal funds for that had previously been authorized for the development of similar vehicle energy technologies had been spent.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Broun (R-GA) to recommit (send back to committee) the bill providing additional funding for the development of more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for cars, trucks and other vehicles manufactured in the U.S. The legislation provided $550 million for this advanced vehicle technology development in 2010, and called for $10 million in increases for each of the following three years.

Rep. Broun?s motion included instructions that would have required the insertion of language preventing the spending of any additional funding authorized by the legislation until all other federal funds previously authorized for similar vehicle energy technology development had been spent. It would have further required the insertion of language preventing any funds authorized by the bill from being spent after a year in which the budget deficit exceeded five hundred billion dollars: The deficit for fiscal year 2010 was projected to exceed that figure.

Rep. Broun, speaking on behalf of his motion, said it was designed ?to improve this legislation by allowing it to take effect at a time when our fiscal house is more in order and at a time when no other taxpayer dollars are (available to be) spent on the same activities that are authorized by this bill.? Broun said that all Members agree ?that energy independence is a key economic and strategic goal, but of even more vital interest to our economic and strategic prospects as a nation is our ability to show fiscal discipline . . . .?

Broun noted that there were ?at least five major funding programs related to advanced vehicle technologies that the Department of Energy has announced just in the past 9 months . . . Additionally, the stimulus bill passed earlier this year allocated to the Department of Energy hundreds of millions of dollars for fuel cell production as well as for the production of high-efficiency passenger vehicles and trucks.  Clearly, there is a lot of money out there for programs like this already. Maybe we should look now to take a step backward and remember that we really cannot afford to keep up this level of spending.?

Rep. Gordon (D-TN) led the opposition to the motion. He said he shared Broun?s concerns about the deficit and about duplicating research efforts. Gordon noted that there was already language in the bill requiring the Secretary of Energy to ?ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that (its) activities do not duplicate those of other programs within the (Energy) Department or other relevant research agencies.'' Referring to Broun?s reference to the need to show fiscal restraint, Gordon argued that the bill is designed to combat ?another threat that this country faces . . . that of foreign energy cartels.?

He then pointed to the support that the bill has received from a variety of groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Big Three auto companies, the United Auto Workers, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club.

The motion was defeated by a vote of 180-245. One hundred and sixty-six Republicans and fourteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-six Democrats and nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move immediately to a vote on passage of the bill providing funding for federal vehicle energy and environmental technology development programs.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Won
Roll Call 705
Sep 16, 2009
(H. R. 3246) On to the Hall of Texas amendment that would have frozen, at the fiscal year 2010 level through fiscal year 2013, a funding program for the development of more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for vehicles manufactured in the U.S. The amendment would also have eliminated that funding in fiscal year 2014.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hall (R-TX) to H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009. That bill authorized additional federal funding for the development of more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for cars, trucks and other vehicles manufactured in the U.S. The legislation provided $550 million in 2010 to develop these technologies, and increased the amount successively by $10 million in each of the following three years. The Hall amendment would have frozen funding for this vehicle energy program through fiscal year 2013 at $550 million, and ended the funding after the 2013 fiscal year.

Rep. Hall, speaking in support of his amendment, said he was effectively asking the Members of the House ?to show the tiniest sliver of fiscal restraint (by) . . . saving $30 million (which) is more than reasonable.? He noted that, in addition to this new funding, ?billions of dollars in funding (is) already authorized and made available to the auto industry in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and . . . millions more (was) made available to them just this year? in what he referred to as ?the nonstimulus bill.?

Hall went on to say ?we are spending money at record rates . . . The American taxpayers and future generations are on the hook for trillions of dollars in spending, borrowing, and interest payments over the coming decades. I'm simply asking for us to show a modicum of restraint . . . isn't $550 million a year for a program that already has multiple funding sources enough??

Rep. Stupak (D-MI) spoke in opposition to the amendment. He argued that the additional research and development supported by this new funding will enable the auto industry to ?move toward better, more fuel-efficient vehicles through applied research and development of materials and technologies. This will directly benefit a number of existing companies in their transition toward new parts and technologies for the domestic auto industry, and encourage entrepreneurs with an innovative idea to enter the market.?

The legislation was defeated by a vote of 179-253. One hundred and sixty-one Republicans and eighteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty Democrats and thirteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no reductions were made in the funding authorizations for federal vehicle energy and environmental technology development programs.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Won
Roll Call 703
Sep 16, 2009
(H. Res. 746) Legislation ending government-guaranteed education loans by third parties, and increasing the level of direct government education lending to students - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for considering the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Under the provisions of H.R.322, all new federal student loans will be originated directly by the federal government rather than by private lenders issuing federally-guaranteed loans. The legislation was designed, in part, to hold down the interest rate on federal education loans, and to make it easier for families to apply for college financial aid. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had estimated that shifting new educational lending from a guaranteed third party loan program to a direct loan program would generate significant budgetary savings. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill.

H.R. 3221, among other things, also significantly increased federal scholarship and grant program and funding for historically black colleges and community colleges. In addition, it included additional funding for early childhood education, and provisions to help veterans attend college under the GI Bill and to give loan forgiveness to members of the military who are called up to duty in the middle of an academic year.

Rep. Polis (D-CO), was leading the support for the rule. He said that there is a serious problem of students either not being able to afford college, or being able to afford it only with ?excessive student loan debt that burdens their families.? Polis claimed that the bill made ?the single largest investment in higher education in history without costing taxpayers any more.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the rule. She first noted that the title of the bill includes the words ?fiscal responsibility?. She then said: ?(H)owever, this bill and, of course, the rule, which we are debating today, aren't fiscally responsible and this is not the way we should be going.? Foxx quoted the supporters of the bill and the rule as saying: ?(I)t's going to give more freedom to people . . . It's going to close the achievement gap.? She then said: ?(W)ould that the government had that kind of power. Would that money alone (could) do that kind of thing. That's not what this bill is going to do . . . .?

Foxx argued that, by moving all student loans to a government-run system, the bill will increase ?the federal government takeover of . . . higher education . . . It is an insidious intrusion into education at all levels by the federal government . . . .? Rep. Dreier (R-CA) also opposed the bill, claiming that the federal government could not do as good a job in providing educational loans as the private sector. Dreier argued that having competition in the private sector would be the most effective way to keep interest rates on down on education loans.

Rep. Kline (R-MN) opposed the rule because, he said, ?(R)epublicans offered more than a dozen amendments to this deeply flawed legislation . . . Six of those amendments were made in order (under the rule), less than half. By comparison, Democrats offered a total of 32 amendments: 18 were made in order and another five were incorporated into the manager's amendment. That means in total 72 percent of the amendments offered by Democrats will receive a vote today.?

The resolution ending government-guaranteed education loans by third parties and increasing the level of direct government education lending to students passed by a vote of 241-179. All two hundred and forty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Six other Democrats and one hundred and seventy-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin formal debate of the legislation making education loans a direct federal program rather than one administered by third parties.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Banks/Credit Card Companies
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
Y Y Won
Roll Call 699
Sep 15, 2009
(H. Res. 744) On a resolution expressing the disapproval of the House of Representatives of the conduct of Rep. Wilson (R-SC) for yelling at President Obama during the president?s speech to a joint session of Congress on health care legislation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Rep. Wilson (R-SC) yelled out ?you lie? to President Obama during a September 9, 2009 speech the president delivered to a joint session of Congress on health care legislation. Wilson made the remark after President Obama said that no illegal aliens would be able to benefit from the changes made by the health care legislation. Rep. Wilson subsequently called The White House to apologize for his behavior, but he refused to make a formal apology to the House. This resolution was drafted in response to his refusal to do so.

House Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD), arguing on behalf of the resolution, said it relates to the issue of ?whether we are able to proceed with a degree of civility and decorum that our rules and our democracy contemplate and require.? He noted that The House Code of Official Conduct ?requires that each Member . . . ?conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.? There seems to be little or no disagreement that Mr. Wilson did not so conduct himself on the evening of September 9.?

Hoyer then quoted Senator McCain (R-AZ) ?as saying that Mr. Wilson's behavior was ?totally disrespectful (and that) . . . he should apologize for it immediately.?? Hoyer said ?it was the House itself whose rules were offended . . . However, for whatever reason, Mr. Wilson has decided not to take any further action. In light of that, this resolution simply states the House's disapproval of Mr. Wilson's words and actions.?

Rep. Clyburn (D-SC), the House Minority Whip, added: ?(O)ur three separate branches of government have defined roles to play in this process, and those of us who hold positions within these branches are expected and are duty bound to treat each other with proper dignity and respect.?

Rep. Wilson responded by saying ?I think it is clear to the American people that there are far more important issues facing this nation than what we are addressing right now. The President . . . graciously accepted my apology, and the issue is over . . . It is the Democrat leadership, in their rush to pass a very bad government health care plan, that . . . has muzzled the voices we represent and provoked partisanship . . . The challenges our nation faces are far bigger than any one Member of this House.?

Rep. Boehner (R-OH), the House Minority Leader, opposed the resolution. He first noted that Wilson ?did the right thing. He called the President and apologized . . . and to put him through this on the floor of the House I think is unacceptable and it is a partisan stunt.? Boehner added: ?(T)here has been behavior that has gone on around here far more serious than this, and it didn't bring a resolution to the floor to condemn someone's behavior . . . The American people sent us here to work together to solve the problems of our country. They didn't send us here to talk about our behavior.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 240-179. Two hundred and thirty-three Democrats and seven Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-seven Republicans and twelve Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved a resolution formally disapproving of the behavior of Rep. Wilson during the joint session of Congress.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
Y Y Won
Roll Call 695
Sep 10, 2009
(H.R.965) On final passage of a bill providing for a permanent federal commitment to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network   

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on passage of H.R. 965, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act. The Chesapeake Bay Network was characterized by Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), who was leading the support for making it permanent, as a ?highly successful? program. It had been described by the Bush Administration as a ?cooperative conservation success story.?' More than 10 million people annually visit one of the 166 gateway sites supported by the program. They kayak, canoe, hike, bike, picnic, hunt, fish, watch wildlife, or visit one of its maritime museums or historic sites.

The program had originally been authorized for funding for a five year period, and had received additional federal monies subsequent to that initial five year period. Rep. Grijalva noted that ?a National Park Service special resource study concluded that a permanent commitment to the program would ensure its long-term viability and enhance the Chesapeake's status among America's national treasures.? He argued: ?(K)eeping people connected and concerned about the Bay is vital to each step in restoring that great estuary . . . The Gateways Network does just that. This program is a proven success and should be permanently authorized.?

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) led the opposition to the measure. He first acknowledged that the gateways and watertrails program had ?bipartisan support from the states surrounding the Chesapeake Bay.? Hastings then claimed that the bill ?would extend the current Chesapeake Bay program forever without any constraints or limits on how much money can be spent on the program. (It) may be a popular program in the mid-Atlantic region of our country; yet I don't believe the Natural Resources Committee and this Congress should be in the habit of granting eternal life and unlimited sums of money to government programs.?

Hastings argued: ?(B)ills creating or renewing government programs are typically renewed for a set period of time, usually 5 years, to ensure that there is accountability in these programs, there is a review of these programs, and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being misused, wasted, or unnecessarily spent. There is simply no reason to exempt this Chesapeake Bay program from a periodic review of 5 years . . . .?

The legislation passed by a vote of 311-107. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and sixty-five Republicans voted ?aye?. All one hundred and seven ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate the bill providing for a permanent federal commitment to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 694
Sep 10, 2009
(H.R.965) Legislation providing for a permanent federal commitment to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee and add language preventing the bill from becoming effective until the national deficit is less than $1 trillion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion by Rep. Hastings (R-WA) to recommit to committee H.R. 965, the bill providing for a permanent federal commitment to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. The motion would also have added language to the bill preventing it from becoming effective until the deficit is less than $1 trillion.

The Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network was characterized by Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), who was leading the support for the bill, as a ?highly successful? program. The Network had been described by the Bush Administration as a ?cooperative conservation success story.?' More than 10 million people annually visit one of the 166 gateway sites supported by the program. They kayak, canoe, hike, bike, picnic, hunt, fish, watch wildlife, or visit one of its maritime museums or historic sites.

Rep. Hastings, speaking in support of his motion to recommit the bill, acknowledged that the program had ?bipartisan support from the states surrounding the Chesapeake Bay.? Hastings said that the additional language he proposed was intended to add ?a small, small measure of fiscal discipline.? He also argued that ?with unemployment approaching 10 percent, with upside-down mortgages and with homeowners facing foreclosure, I think it is hardly time to add eternal life and unlimited money to a very nice but unnecessary federal program at a time when we are contemplating adding several massive new government programs such as health care . . . .?

Hastings added, ?it might be time to pause and consider the difference between things we need and things that we merely want. Of course, additional water trails and interpretive centers are nice to have, but increasing their numbers is not a necessity at this time. I am not opposed to them, by the way, but I am not prepared to support a law that says that this particular earmark program must be extended for all time with unlimited funds regardless of the deficit . . . I think that restraint is badly needed.?

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ) opposed the motion. He first argued that its wording ?doesn't tell us who would have the certification power or how we would meet the standard that the (deficit is one trillion dollars) . . . It's like saying we on the Republican side ran up a huge deficit. Now we want to penalize this one little program until you clean up the mess.? Grijalva then asked, rhetorically, ?(W)hy this program? Why not a program that was done this morning during the Natural Resources Committee meeting where the sponsor of the motion to recommit (Rep. Hastings) had legislation that passed for a road which runs through his district? Should we put the same standard on that legislation?

Grijalva concluded his remarks by arguing that the additional language the motion was attempting to add ?is arbitrary . . . While it attempts to score political points, it also, if passed, jeopardizes a very valuable resource that, if not restored and protected through the legislation, will cause disastrous economic, environmental, cultural, and health consequences--bad consequences for the Mid-Atlantic and for the nation as a whole.?

The motion was defeated by a vote of 194-229. One hundred and seventy-five Republicans and nineteen Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred twenty-nine ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, the House moved immediately to vote on final passage of the bill providing for a permanent federal commitment to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 689
Sep 08, 2009
(H.R.3123) On passage of a measure that would have directed the Bureau of Reclamation in the Interior Department to remedy public health and environmental problems that had been caused by a collapse in the Leadville, Colorado Mine Drainage Tunnel

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on passage of H.R 3123, the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act of 2009. It directed the Bureau of Reclamation in the Interior Department to remedy problems that had been caused by a collapse in the tunnel, which carries water from old mines to a treatment plant north of Leadville, Colorado. These problems related to the possibility that blockage resulting from the collapse in the tunnel could give way, releasing a flood of water and built-up toxic debris. The uncertainty as to whether the Bureau of Reclamation or the Environmental Protection Agency was responsible for dealing with the blockage had prevented an agreement being reached on a long-term solution to the situation. This bill was intended to clarify that uncertainty.

Rep. Lamborn (R-CO), in whose district the tunnel is located, sponsored the legislation. No opposition was expressed to it. However, earlier in the week, Lamborn had successfully led the opposition to an unrelated bill supported by the Democratic leadership that was designed to establish the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in Arizona. A staffer in Lamborn?s office, who declined to be identified, said he believed that, in retaliation, many Democrats had decided to vote against this Leadville tunnel bill.

H.R. 3123 was brought up under a procedure that suspends the normal House rules and requires a two-thirds vote for passage. The vote was 206-191. One hundred and fifty-six Republicans and fifty Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and eighty-four Democrats and seven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the measure that would have directed the Bureau of Reclamation in the Interior Department to remedy problems that had been caused by a collapse in the Leadville, Colorado Mine Drainage Tunnel was not approved. The result did not prevent the measure from being brought up again under regular House procedures, which would require only a majority vote for passage.


ENVIRONMENT Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Mining Industry
Absent N Won
Roll Call 687
Sep 08, 2009
(H.R. 324) On passage of a bill that would have established the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in southern Arizona

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on passage of H.R. 324, which would have established the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in southern Arizona. National heritage areas have been established to preserve sections that are of ?national significance.? The term ?national significance? has been used in this context by The National Park Service as meaning that the areas possesses ?unique natural, historical, cultural, educational, scenic, or recreational resources of exceptional value or quality.? Twenty-four national heritage areas have been established by Congress.

The area that was covered by this bill amounted to 3,325 square miles, including a portion that bordered on the city of Tucson. Much of that area was developable ranch land. It also contained several major copper mines, and land that had other mineral deposits. Once an area is designated a national heritage area, the federal government has some voice in such matters as zoning. The supporters of the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area stated that its creation would have no negative effects on private property, ranching, mining, or mineral exploration.

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), part of whose district would have been included in the proposed heritage area, sponsored the bill. He characterized the support for it in his district and in the district of Rep. Giffords (D-AZ), part of which was also included in the proposed heritage area, as ?astounding.? He said: ?(E)very county, municipality, tribe, federal and state park and land management agency within the proposed heritage area, plus a long list of chambers of commerce, tourism organizations, conservation and historic preservation groups, ranchers, farmers and businesses, all support H.R. 324.

Rep. Lamborn (R-CO) opposed the bill. He acknowledged that that National Heritage Area program is ?well intended?. However, Lamborn claimed that it ?has no established framework? and had ?a lack of guidance (regarding) . . . basic property rights protections.? Lamborn added: ?(U)nfortunately, this bill does not have sufficient protection for the property owners within the boundaries of this area, and it is likely many of them have no idea that they are to be included.? He noted that property owners may ?refrain from participation'' under the formal rules regulating the heritage area, but warned that ?nothing changes the fact that this bill places them within a new federal designation that provides a basis for ambitious federal land managers to claim that they now have a mandate and millions of federal dollars to interfere with local decisions affecting their neighbors' property.?

 Rep. Grijalva responded ?that during the 20-plus years of this (national heritage) program's existence, opponents have not been able to identify a single instance in which someone has been deprived of the use of their property as a result of this designation . . . The Government Accountability Office even investigated potential property rights violations and found none. Nevertheless, this bill contains extensive private property provisions.?

H.R. 324 was considered under a procedure typically used for legislation that the House leadership does not anticipate will be controversial. Under this procedure, the usual rules are suspended and debate is limited. Also, a two-thirds vote is required for passage, rather than the usual majority. The vote was 249-145.Two hundred and thirty-three Democrats and sixteen Republicans voted ?aye?. All one hundred forty-five ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. Since the two-thirds vote required under this procedure was not achieved, the measure that would have established the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area did not pass. The result did not prevent the measure from being brought up again under regular House procedures, which would require only a majority vote for passage.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 686
Jul 31, 2009
(H.R. 3269) On passage of a bill that gave federal regulatory agencies authority over the level of executive pay and bonuses, and also increased the level of shareholder input on the way the pay and bonuses are determined

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 3269, a bill that gave federal regulatory agencies the authority over the level of executive pay and bonuses, and also imposed new restrictions on the manner in which executive pay and bonuses are determined. The bill had been developed partly in response to the great outcry during this period of economic decline about the large bonuses that executives at banks and other financial institutions were receiving, particularly at those receiving federal ?bail outs? in order to remain in business. H.R. 3269 also required all publicly traded companies to hold an annual, non-binding, shareholder vote on pay and bonuses for executives.

Rep. Frank, (D-MA), the chairman of the Financial Services committee that developed H.R. 3269, said that Democrats ?believe the federal government has (an) interest--not in the level of compensation, that's up to the shareholders -- (but) in the (pay) structure. When you have, as we have seen, structures whereby companies lose lots of money . . . but the people who made those deals make money on them, that has a systemic negative impact on this society because it incentivizes much too much risk.? He claimed that ?the Republican approach? is to do nothing except ?admit that these are problems.?

Frank referred to the charge by opponents of the bill that it essentially creates wage controls as ?nonsense.? He explained that ?what it says is that the SEC shall impose rules that prevent excessive risk-taking, and the reference to wages is only in that context . . . What this bill explicitly aims at is the practice whereby people are given bonuses that pay off if the gamble or the risk pays off, but don't lose you anything if it doesn't. That is, there is a wide consensus that this incentivizes excessive risk . . . All we are saying is that there has to be some balance to the risk-taking.?

Frank also referred to the charge by opponents ?this will cause us a problem with international competition.? He noted that England, which he referred to as ?our major financial competitor? has adopted the same rules as are in H.R. 3269.

Rep. Bachus (R-AL), the Ranking Republican on the Financial Services Committee, was leading the opposition to the bill. He said ?Republicans have introduced legislation, which gets the American people out of the bail out business--that is our response--and prohibits the government from picking winners and losers. We believe that's the solution.? He went on to argue that Republicans have sponsored legislation that ?clearly establishes a structure where failure is not rewarded and market discipline is reestablished . . . .?

Bachus summarized his opposition to H.R. 3269 by calling it a ?sweeping power grab into the private sector under the guise of the government's riding to the rescue?, which relies ?on the government to fix the problem . . . (that) . . . to a great extent was caused by . . . (a) lack of regulation by the government.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 237-185. Two hundred and thirty-five Democrats and two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and sixteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate a bill that gave federal banking regulatory agencies authority over executive pay and bonuses, and also increased the level of shareholder input on the way pay and bonuses are determined.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Special Protections For The Wealthy Under Bankruptcy Laws
Absent Y Won
Roll Call 685
Jul 31, 2009
(H.R. 3269) Legislation that gave federal banking regulatory agencies authority over the level of executive pay and bonuses, and increased shareholder input into the way in which executive pay and bonuses were determined - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee and have language added requiring the disclosure of information about any persons or organizations spending funds to influence the outcome of a shareholder vote on the level of executive pay and bonuses

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Sessions (R-TX) to recommit H.R. 3269. That bill imposed new restrictions on the manner in which the level of executive pay and bonuses was determined, and gave federal banking regulatory agencies the authority to prohibit certain pay structures. H.R. 3269 also mandated that all publicly traded companies hold an annual, non-binding shareholder vote on the level of pay and bonuses for their executives. The bill had been developed partly in response to the great outcry during this period of economic decline about the large bonuses that executives were receiving at banks and other financial institutions that had recently received federal ?bail outs? in order to remain in business. The motion made by Rep. Sessions would have also added language to H.R.3269 that required the disclosure of information about any persons or organizations that spent funds in an effort to influence the outcome of the annual shareholder vote on executive pay and bonuses required by the bill.

Sessions, arguing on behalf of his motion, said it would require the same ?transparency and accountability? as is now mandated for political contributions to political candidates. The donor?s name, occupation, and contribution size would have to be provided. Sessions also claimed that the new requirement in his motion would improve what he called ?this interventionist legislation?, by providing information for shareholders.

Sessions also argued: ?The point of the motion is to simply provide voters, in this case shareholders, with access to information about who is spending money and what are they attempting to influence with their vote.? He added: ?(I)f we believe that voters deserve this information, we should also give to shareholders this same level of transparency.

Rep. Frank (D-MA), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee that developed H.R. 3269, opposed the motion. He objected to the fact that the disclosure requirement proposed in the motion would only apply to contributors on the executive pay and bonus issue, but if a donor wanted to influence a ?vote on a merger or an acquisition or if you want to vote on anything else, you don't have to do it. It's not a uniform requirement . . . and leaves every other vote in the dark. If that's so important, why did we not have a broader version of it??

Frank also claimed that the proposed disclosure requirement would be overly burdensome, and is designed to discourage contacts with shareholders. He supported this point by arguing: ?(I)f you want to spend money to oppose large bonuses, to oppose large salaries, to oppose a company paying 72 percent of its revenue, as recently happened, in compensation, if you are a pension fund, if you are a union, if you want to write to your own members and say this is a bad idea . . . you have to give the identity of all persons or entities engaged in the activity and the activities engaged.  It is not simply a reporting of the amount of money.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 178-244. One hundred and seventy-two Republican and six Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and forty-four ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on passage of a bill that gave federal banking regulatory agencies the authority to prohibit certain executive pay and bonus structures, and imposed new restrictions on the manner in which executive pay and bonuses were determined.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Special Protections For The Wealthy Under Bankruptcy Laws
N N Won
Roll Call 684
Jul 31, 2009
(H.R. 3269) On the Garrett of New Jersey amendment, which would have modified or removed many provisions of pending legislation that imposed new restrictions on the manner in which the amount of pay and bonuses paid to executives was determined

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Garrett (R-NJ), which would have made a number of changes in H.R. 3269. That bill gave federal banking regulatory agencies the authority to prohibit certain pay structures and arrangements for executives and individuals, as well as to revise specific bonus incentive arrangements. H.R. 3269 also required all publicly traded companies to hold an annual, non-binding, shareholder vote on the pay and bonuses for executives. It had been developed partly in response to the great outcry during this period of economic decline about the large bonuses that executives were receiving at banks and other financial institutions that had recently received federal ?bail outs? in order to remain in business.

The Garrett Amendment would have deleted the section of the pending bill that gave federal banking regulatory agencies the authority to prohibit certain pay structures and arrangements for executives and individuals as well as to revise specific bonus incentive arrangements. Garret said that the reason for deleting the section was that it ?would allow government bureaucrats rather than shareholders? to set pay structures.

His amendment also would have changed the shareholder vote from an annual process to once every three years, and would have permitted the vote to be discontinued if two-thirds of the shareholders wanted to opt out. Garret claimed that the reason for this change was to overcome the concern that ?Wall Street focuses too much on the short term--on the year, on the 6 months, on the three-quarters or on the end of the quarter.? He said that the reason for giving shareholders the right to opt out of the periodic pay level vote was that ?if we are going to trust the shareholders to be making these decisions, should we not also trust them to make the decision as to whether or not to have such votes on executive compensation in the future??

The amendment was supported by the Center on Executive Compensation, which warned that giving the government the authority to prohibit pay ?portends the federal regulation of compensation in other contexts." The Center also claimed: "(A) mandatory (shareholder) vote on pay seeks to substitute the judgment of the shareholders for the informed judgment of the Board and will open the door to more shareholder votes on other issues". The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also supported the amendment, taking the position that H.R. 3269 ?would represent a tremendous intrusion into affairs of business that have always been left to private actors.?

Rep. Frank (D-MA), the chairman of the Financial Services committee that developed H. R. 3269, opposed the amendment. He argued that the Republicans who were supporting it had predicted for 2 1/2 years ?that free-market forces are already at work to correct pay excesses.? He then said ?apparently . . . there have been no pay excesses in 2 1/2 years. We've all been hallucinating. They were wrong then, and (they?re) wrong now.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 179-244. One hundred and sixty-nine Republican and ten Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-one Democrats and three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no changes were made in pending legislation that imposed new restrictions on the manner in which the level of executive pay and bonuses was determined.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Special Protections For The Wealthy Under Bankruptcy Laws
N N Won
Roll Call 683
Jul 31, 2009
(H.R. 3269) On the Frank of Massachusetts amendment permitting the government to require executives at banks that had received federal ?bail outs? in order to remain in business to give back a portion of their annual bonuses

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Frank (D-MA), which would eliminate certain prohibitions on the ability of the federal government to require the return of certain annual bonuses paid to banking executives. There had been a great outcry during this period of economic decline about the large bonuses that executives were receiving at banks and other financial institutions that had recently received federal ?bail outs? in order to remain in business. H.R. 3269 was developed partly in response to that outcry. The bill gave federal banking regulatory agencies the authority to prohibit certain pay structures and arrangements for executives and individuals as well as to revise specific bonus incentive arrangements.

The Frank amendment clarified and expanded that authority. It also required all publicly traded companies to hold an annual, non-binding, shareholder vote on pay and bonuses for executives. At the same time, the amendment prevented the federal government from requiring executives to return certain incentive-based pay and bonuses awarded under any arrangement that was already in effect when H.R. 3269 was enacted into law.

Rep. Frank is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which developed H.R. 3269. He noted that there had been concern about the government requiring executives to ?give back bonuses they'd already received. That would be arbitrary . . . and I agree that there should not be people's pay subjected unreasonably to arbitrary retroactive decisions.?

Frank also noted that he had only recently learned about ?an SEC decision that said that where someone had received the compensation and it subsequently turned out that the transaction was not profitable, although it (had originally) appeared to be, that a return of the money that was given . . . might be appropriate. So our language reflects that (at the same time that) . . . It does give some protection against arbitrary return.?

Rep. Price (R-GA), a Republican member of the Financial Services Committee, led the opposition to the amendment. He said that there was originally bipartisan support in the committee for a provision stating that ?no compensation of any executive having been approved by a majority of the shareholders may be subject to any callback . . . retroactivity, unless it was part of the contract or unless there had been fraud committed.? Price noted that this provision ?was put into the bill (during committee deliberations) with the caveat that Chairman Frank wanted, potentially, a few changes.

Price then claimed: ?(T)here weren't any discussions before the amendment that we now have before us was offered . . . to the (provision) . . . adopted in a bipartisan manner in the committee. And what does the new amendment . . . mean? Well, it means that the SEC, that is the federal government, will be able to dictate pay . . . to publicly held companies. Now, that may be okay if they take (bail out) . . . money, but this would be publicly traded companies that don't take a dime of tax money.?

Price argued that ?the Democrat majority has a great desire to have the government everywhere in our lives, whether it's in financial institutions (or other areas) . . . .? He added that the amendment ?gets to the heart of whether or not we are going to allow the federal government into decisions that ought to be left in a free market and in a private-sector arrangement . . . It cuts at the very core of our free market system.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 242-178. Two hundred and forty-one Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was adopted regulating the manner in which the federal government could require certain bank executives to give back a portion of their pay and bonuses.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Special Protections For The Wealthy Under Bankruptcy Laws
Y Y Won
Roll Call 682
Jul 31, 2009
(H.R. 3435) On passage of a bill that provided two billion dollars in additional funding for the ?Cash for Clunkers? program; that program provided cash rebates of a few thousand dollars each to consumers to encourage them to trade-in their old gas guzzling cars for new ones that get better gas mileage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on H.R. 3435, which provided two billion dollars in additional funding for the ?Cash for Clunkers? program that encouraged consumers to trade-in their old gas guzzling cars for new ones that get better mileage. Congress had originally passed legislation which created the program and provided one billion dollars in cash rebates, of a few thousand dollars each, to consumers. The goal was to encourage consumers to trade-in their old gas guzzling cars for new ones that get better gas mileage. The program was intended to reduce gas consumption and to stimulate new car sales. It was so successful, that the billion dollars in original funding was going to be quickly exhausted. Additional funding was needed. This legislation allowed the administration to transfer up to two billion dollars of previously-approved funds to the Cash for Clunkers program from the Department of Energy's Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee program. It was not anticipated that the loan guarantee program would need those funds for at least a year.

Rep. Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, was leading the effort on behalf of the bill. He commented: ?(C)onsumers have spoken with their wallets, and they are saying they like this program; and clearly it is doing what it was intended to do, to spur car sales in this sluggish economy. This action will keep it going . . . . ?

Rep. Israel (D-NY), one of the original sponsors of the Cash for Clunkers program, supported the bill. He noted: ?(F)ew of us realized how well (the Cash for Clunkers program) would work. This program has been truly stimulative . . . We have doubled car sales over the past 5 days . . . It is creating jobs. It is creating a surge for car dealers. The American consumer is satisfied with it, and we need to continue it.? Rep. Miller(R-MI), who was also a sponsor of the Cash for Clunkers program, referenced the previous decision by the administration to provide financial assistance to the domestic auto industry and said ?for those who keep saying that we need to get the government out of the automobile business . . . this is the way to do it . . . .?

Rep. Lewis (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, expressed concern about the bill on procedural grounds. He noted that the car trade-in program had only been operating for one week and that Republicans had only been advised within the previous 24 hours of the need for the additional two billion dollars. Obey responded by saying: ?(W)e are simply trying to react to one program that the public has latched onto. The demand for this was so great that within 3 days of its inception, the funds were, apparently, totally used up. That indicates that we need to do something if we don't want the program to shut down 3 days after it begins. That's what we're trying to do today.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 316-109. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and seventy-seven Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety-five Republicans and fourteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate a bill providing an additional two billion dollars for the ?Cash for Clunkers? program that encouraged consumers to trade-in their old gas guzzling cars for new ones that get better mileage.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 681
Jul 30, 2009
(H.R. 1752) On passage of a measure that would have allowed the House Administration Committee to make the day for paying salaries of House of Representative employees consistent with the rest of the federal government. The measure was in part a response to the frustration that House employees had expressed about the existing pay schedule.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on passage of H.R. 1752, which would have allowed the House Administration Committee to regulate the payment schedule for employees of the House of Representatives to conform to usual accounting practices. The payment schedule for employees of the House was the last day of each month. Under H.R. 1752, the House Administration Committee would have been given the authority to set an alternative pay schedule, such as bi-weekly or semi-monthly. Both the House Inspector General and Chief Administrative Officer had advised the House that the last day of the month pay system was inconsistent with the rest of the federal government and also required deviations from commonly use business software. The Congressional Budget Office had estimated that it would cost approximately one million dollars over a two year period to modify the relevant computer systems to make the change to bi-weekly payments.

Rep. Davis (D-CA) was leading the Democratic support for the measure. She said H.R. 1752 would provide the flexibility to allow the House Administration Committee to change the payment date to ?be more responsive to the needs of our employees, many of whom have expressed their frustration about the current system. Furthermore, this bill will give us the opportunity to be more consistent with employees in the Senate, the executive branch, and most of the private sector with regard to paydays.?

Rep. Lungren (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the Committee took no formal position. He did note: ?(P)reliminary financial assessments suggest that after incurring up-front transition costs, this change may reduce overpayments over time and reduce errors by more easily distributing the burden of incorporating payment changes into the system.? Lungren emphasized  that the legislation ?simply grants the Committee on House Administration the authority to change the pay cycle and does not in and of itself authorize any changes . . . It is thus important that the committee granting this authority will act cautiously and only after soliciting and evaluating the feedback of the House community.?

A measure very similar to H.R. 1752 had easily passed the House the previous year, although it did not eventually become law. The Democratic majority anticipated that this measure would again be approved easily. The House Republican minority leadership had been expressing its objections to the manner in which the Democratic majority had been conducting legislative business generally during the congressional session. These objections had become especially frequent during the period prior to the time the vote on H.R. 1752 occurred, when the House was debating a number of spending bills. One of the ways in which these objections were expressed was by having Republican members vote against routine measures such as H.R. 1752.

Since the Democratic majority did not anticipate that this would be a controversial vote, it was considered under a House procedure whereby the usual rules are suspended and debate is limited. Under this procedure a two-thirds vote it required for passage, rather than the usual majority. The vote was 282-144. Two hundred and forty Democrats and forty-two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred thirty-five Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?nay?. Since the two-thirds vote required under this procedure was not achieved, the measure that would have allowed the House Administration Committee to establish a different schedule for paying the salaries of House of Representative staff did not pass. The result did not prevent the measure from being brought up again under regular House procedures, which would require only a majority vote for passage.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 680
Jul 30, 2009
(H.R. 2749) On final passage of a bill designed to improve the monitoring for consumer safety of domestic and imported food

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2749, a bill designed to improve the monitoring for consumer safety of domestic and imported food. Among the provisions of H.R. 2746, , as described by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, was a requirement that every food facility implement a food safety plan; that the Department of Health and Human Services issue rules to minimize the hazards from food-born contaminants which are based on actual testing and observations, establish standards for raw agricultural commodities using results from previous inspections, examine facilities based on a schedule that uses historical statistics to determine the likelihood of contamination, create a program for accreditation of laboratories that perform tests of food for import or export, and form a group dedicated to inspections of foreign food facilities. The bill also created new protections for ?whistleblowers?, or industry or department insiders who report improper behavior.

Rep. Dingell (D-MI), who leading the support for the bill, noted that it also gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ?both the authority and the funds to address not only American foods but foods being imported . . . .? H.R.2749 was supported by the Centers for Science and Public Interest, Consumers Union, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a large industry group.

The reasons for opposition to the bill were expressed by Rep. Lucas (R-OK), who referred to it as ?another example of Federal power without the benefit of careful consideration.? He singled out for ?particular concern? the federal mandate in H.R. 2749 ?that the Food and Drug Administration set on-farm production performance standards. For the first time, we would have the Federal Government prescribing how our farmers grow crops (although) . . . We have been doing it for a very long time, and we have been doing it without the FDA.?

Lucas also argued that the bill ?leaves our nation's fruit and vegetable producers subject to objectionable regulatory burdens.? In addition, he claimed: ?(N)ew quarantine authorities for FDA will undermine animal and plant inspection control programs that have been in place at the Department of Agriculture for decades.? Lucas concluded his remarks by saying: ?(T)he vast majority of these provisions, along with new penalties, record-keeping requirements, traceability, labeling, country-of-origin labeling, will do absolutely nothing to prevent food-borne disease outbreaks, but will do plenty to keep the Federal bureaucracy busy.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 283-142. Two hundred and twenty-nine Democrats and fifty-four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and twenty-two Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate a bill designed to improve the monitoring for consumer safety of both domestic and imported food.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Y Y Won
Roll Call 679
Jul 30, 2009
(H.R. 2749) Legislation designed to improve the monitoring of domestic and imported food - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee, with instructions to add language directing the Food and Drug Administration to spend new revenues generated by the bill on purchases of food from producers before it comes to market, and on additional food inspections

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a motion by Rep. Lucas (R-OK) to send H.R. 2749, a bill designed to improve the monitoring of domestic and imported food, back to committee with instructions to add language directing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on methods for spending the new revenues generated by the bill. Those new methods included advance purchases of food from producers to allow for its examination before it comes to market, and on additional food inspections.

The bill generated new revenues, which resulted from additional registration fees it imposed on those in the food industry. The instructions, regarding the additional language to be added to H.R. 2749, would have been to use the new revenues from the bill to pay for the additional food inspections mandated by the bill and to create a fund to indemnify growers mistakenly accused by the FDA of causing food contamination.   

Lucas said: ?The legislation before us provides the FDA with numerous punitive authorities as well as a new source of revenue charged to people wishing to be in the food business, but it does not require the FDA to spend one additional penny on the inspection of food . . . if we are going to call this bill the Food Safety Enhancement Act, we should probably have something in here that actually enhances food safety.?

He also said: ?(W)e must not kid ourselves into believing that the FDA will not make . . . mistakes in the future. Wrongly implicating agriculture products to food-borne disease outbreaks can cause severe economic losses to farmers and ranchers, who can ill afford them. Unfortunately, this legislation does not address this real concern.?

Lucas added: ?(N)othing in this motion adds to the cost of the bill, but it does strengthen FDA accountability, and it guarantees enhanced food safety inspection. He concluded his remarks by saying the changes he proposed ?will not fix everything that we feel to be wrong with the legislation, but they will address some of the more significant problems.?

Rep. Dingell (D-MI), who was leading the support for the bill, opposed the motion. He began by making the observation that Rep. Lucas had claimed ?the bill does not require FDA to spend one additional penny on the inspection of food. That is totally false . . . the bill directs FDA to spend its registration fees on food safety activities . . . the bill explicitly provides that food safety activities include conducting inspections. The bill also requires FDA to adhere to a rigorous mandatory inspection schedule based on risk.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 186-240. One hundred and seventy-seven Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and forty ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, the House did not specify methods for spending the new revenues generated by H.R. 2746, and moved immediately to vote on passage of the bill designed to improve the monitoring of both domestic and imported food.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
N N Won
Roll Call 677
Jul 30, 2009
(H. Res. 691) Legislation designed to improve the monitoring for safety of domestic and imported food - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms of debate for H.R. 2749, which was designed to improve the monitoring for safety of both domestic and imported food. The rule did not permit any amendments to be offered to the bill.

Among the provisions in H.R. 2749, as described by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, was a requirement that every food facility implement a food safety plan; that the Department of Health and Human Services issue rules to minimize the hazards from food-born contaminants which are based on actual testing and observations, establish standards for raw agricultural commodities using results from previous inspections, examine facilities based on a schedule that uses historical statistics to determine the likelihood of contamination, create a program for accreditation of laboratories that perform tests of food for import or export, and also create a group dedicated to inspections of foreign food facilities. The bill also imposed new protections for ?whistleblowers?, or industry or department insiders who report improper behavior.

Rep. Slaughter (D-NY), who was leading the support for the rule, noted that ?every year 76 million Americans are sickened from consuming contaminated food, and 5,000 of those persons die.? She then said these deaths ?come about because of flaws in our food safety system. I am happy to say that these gaps in protection are closed by this legislation.?  Slaughter claimed that the bill ?provides strong, flexible enforcement tools . . . (requires) food facilities to have safety plans in place to identify and mitigate hazards, one of the best ways to make an immediate improvement to food safety . . . (and will) fundamentally change the way we protect the safety of our food supply.?

Slaughter noted that the legislation was endorsed by Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, the American Public Health Association and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a large industry association. She did acknowledge that it was not supported by a number of farm organizations.

The Republican minority had been complaining for a number of months about a series of rules the Democratic majority had been passing, such as the one for this bill, which restricted the amendments that could be offered. They argued that the limitations prevented Members from adequately representing their constituents. Rep. Foxx (R-NC), who was leading the opposition to the rule, repeated that argument. Foxx noted that House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) had promised that this ?would be the most open and honest Congress in history, (and she) has gone back on her word by making this the most closed and restrictive Congress in history.?Foxx claimed that ?Pelosi's justification (is) that ?we won the election; so we decide.?''

Foxx also noted that ?House Majority Leader Hoyer stated this past February his agreement with restoring the House to the regular order process of legislating . . . Regular order gives to everybody the opportunity to participate in the process . . . then why are we faced with another closed rule today? . . It does an injustice to both Democrats and Republicans who want to have the opportunity to offer amendments and participate in debate with their colleagues . . . . ?

The resolution governing debate on the food safety bill passed by a vote of 249-180. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and six Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin to debate the bill designed to improve the monitoring of both domestic and imported food.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Y Y Won
Roll Call 676
Jul 30, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

 

Y Y Won
Roll Call 674
Jul 30, 2009
(H.R. 3326) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Defense - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee and add money for the procurement for 12 additional F-22 fighter planes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) to send the fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Defense back to the Appropriations Committee. The motion also included instructions to the committee to add money for procurement of 12 additional F-22 fighters and to allow the F-22 program to move forward. In addition, the instructions were for the committee to provide an additional $100 million for the Army military personnel accounts, and to reduce $400 million for Presidential helicopters to pay for the increases.

The issue of whether additional F-22?s would be purchased had become very controversial. The Defense Department did not want to buy any more; but a number of congressman and senators, especially those from districts and states that produced the plane wanted the department to purchase additional fighters. President Obama had threatened to veto the 2010 Defense Department spending bill if Congress passed it with funds for additional F-22?s. Shortly before House debate began on H.R. 3266 in the House, the Senate voted not to approve the purchase of any additional F-22?s.

Frelinghuysen, in support of his motion, first noted that ?much is made of the President's threatened veto of this bill over the F-22 . . . . While I appreciate the President has a role in this process, it is Congress, not the President, that has the power of the purse. I do not believe that we should simply take the President's budget proposal (which excluded additional purchases of F-22?s) and rubber-stamp it.?

Referring to the part of his motion that would provide an additional $100 million for the Army military personnel accounts, Frelinghuysen said this ?begins to fill a known funding shortfall . . . that resulted from (Defense) Secretary Gates' recent decision to increase the total Army end strength by 22,000 troops to support the administration's Afghanistan policy.?

Rep. Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3326, opposed the motion, although he supported additional F-22 purchases. Murtha had noted earlier in the debate on the Defense Department funding bill that President Obama had said he would veto the measure if it provided for the purchase of additional F?22?s, and that the 2/3 votes required to override a veto would not be forthcoming in either the House or the Senate. He said ?I have been for the F-22. The point is we'd need 292 votes here in order to pass the F-22. We'd need 66 votes in the Senate. The Senate voted 58-40 against it. So we have no alternative (than to drop funding for additional F-22 purchases).? Murtha also noted that, earlier in the debate, he successfully offered an amendment that provided additional maintenance funding for previously purchased F-22?s.

The Frelinghuysen motion intended to fund additional F-22?s was defeated by a vote of 169-261. One hundred and fifty-four Republicans and fifteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and twenty-two Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the bill was not sent back to committee for the purpose of restoring funds for additional F-22 purchases, and the House moved to immediate passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Military Contractors
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Won
Roll Call 673
Jul 30, 2009
(H.R. 3326) On the Campbell of California amendment, which would have deleted an earmark for the Model for Green Laboratories and Clean Rooms project from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA), which would have eliminated a $1,500.000 earmark for the Model for Green Laboratories and Clean Rooms project. It was offered to H.R. 3326, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Campbell, had been critical of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. They had been offering a series of amendments to delete many of those earmarks.

Campbell, in his statement on behalf of the amendment, acknowledged that it is Congress' right to say how funds are to be spent.? He then said: ?(H)owever, there is a right way to do that and there is a wrong way to do that.? Campbell argued that singling out funds in legislation for ?no-bid, going-to-private-companies earmarks . . . is not the proper way to do it.? He argued that if this equipment is necessary, it should be procured ?under competitive bidding and get at least three bids and pick that which is deemed to be the highest quality and the lowest cost.?

Rep. Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3326, opposed the amendment. He first pointed to a recent policy that had been adopted by the Appropriations Committee, which read: ?The use of Member earmarks awarded to for-profit entities as a functional equivalent of no-bid contracts is ended. In cases where the committee funds an earmark designated for a for-profit entity, the committee includes legislative language requiring the executive branch to nonetheless issue a request for proposal that gives other entities an opportunity to apply and requires the agency to evaluate all bids received and make a decision based on merit. The legislative language included in the bills requires `full and open competition.?? Murtha also noted that H.R. 3326 also contained language requiring that projects considered to be congressional earmarks ?when awarded to a for-profit entity, shall be awarded under full and open competition.?

He added that it was necessary that medical facilities used by the Defense Department ?are clean? and that the funding in H.R.3326 ?provides for development, renovation, (and) maintenance, to test the environmental sustainable laboratories, hospitals, and clean rooms for drug development.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 99-338. Ninety-three Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-three Democrats and eighty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Model for Green Laboratories and Clean Rooms project remained in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 670
Jul 30, 2009
(H.R. 3326) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have eliminated 70 individual earmarks from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have eliminated 70 earmarks, amounting to almost $200 million, from H.R. 3326, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as these, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills.

All of the earmarks that would have been deleted by the amendment were for contracts for clients of the PMA Group. The PMA Group was a lobbying firm specializing in obtaining earmarks that had recently been raided by the FBI and was being investigated for making illegal campaign contributions. Flake said that ?PMA is emblematic of the troubling circular fund-raising that's become entrenched in the current earmarking process . . . According to the Center for Responsive Politics, since 1998, the firm and its clients have given $40.3 million total to . . . 514 lawmakers, nearly every Member of the current Congress. The Center also reported that members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee have collected nearly $1 million in campaign cash since 1998 from PMA employees and the firm's PAC.? Flake also said that each of these 70 earmarks were for ?no-bid? contracts.

Rep. Kirk (R-IL) supported the amendment, and said its passage would ?protect this House . . . (and) make sure that we can be beyond reproach.?

Rep. Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3326, opposed the amendment. After noting that $9.7 billion in H.R. 3326 would go to Rep. Flake?s state of Arizona, he said ?we've put the projects in that we thought were worthwhile, not because they're from a Representative . . . Those projects are in the budget because Members, themselves, thought they were good projects.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 118-304. Ninety-nine Republicans and nineteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-four Democrats and seventy Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no earmarks were deleted from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Won
Roll Call 663
Jul 30, 2009
(H.R. 3326) On the Tierney of Massachusetts amendment, which would have eliminated funding for the anti-missile Kinetic Energy Defense Interceptor Program

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment, which would have eliminated funding for the Kinetic Energy Missile Defense Interceptor Program. This program was intended to develop and deploy U.S. missiles that could intercept and destroy enemy missiles. The amendment was offered by Rep. Tierney (D-MA) to H.R 3326, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department.

Rep. Tierney, in his statement in support of the amendment, said: ?(T)he Bush administration made the initial decision to terminate the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program in its fiscal year 2010 Program Objectives Memorandum last fall. Then, President Obama did not include funding for it in his budget proposal, and both the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee did not specify funding for it . . . (Defense) Secretary Gates has testified that . . . ?There's no extant ship we can put it on. We would have to design a new ship.?  The head of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General O'Reilly, has said that the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program is being terminated because ?its capability is inconsistent with the missile defense mission to counter rogue nation threats.?

 Tierney added: ?(T)he Kinetic Energy Interceptor program was intended to be a 5-year development program that is now a 16-year development program . . . it is never too late to do the right thing, and here is our opportunity to do the right thing. We have to, at some point in time, start looking at all of our budgets, and that includes the Defense budget, to make sure that we're not putting money out that needs to be put towards other priorities.?

Rep. Holt (D-NJ), who co-sponsored the amendment, argued that ?even if the Kinetic Energy Interceptor were successful, it will never work well enough to change our strategy. Missile defense systems must be perfect to achieve their professed goals, and we can never get that perfection. The fact that we don't need them against our friends and that they will only encourage our enemies to build more offensive systems to get around, this so-called shield are the arguments against this missile defense. The best this flawed system could ever provide is a provocative, yet permeable defense.?

Rep. Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3326, opposed the amendment. He acknowledged that ?after all these years of no oversight in the Defense Department, they get nothing from the program. We've got the same thing in many of these other programs. What I'm trying to convince them is they have to have oversight earlier in a research program.   Now, the Under Secretary (of Defense) tells me that in the new research programs he is going to try to have a cost cap or some kind of effectiveness so that they measure it, benchmarks of some sort so that they can measure these earlier.  We may have to adjust this in (the House-Senate conference that will reconcile the two versions of the Defense Department spending bills), if this amendment doesn't pass, but I ask the Members to vote ?no? on this amendment, and we will see what we can work out.?

Murtha concluded his remarks by saying: ?(T)he program has already spent $1 billion, and we ought to get something out of it.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote 124-307. One hundred and ten Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and fourteen Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-three Republicans and one hundred and forty-four Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, funds for the Kinetic Energy Missile Defense Interceptor Program remained in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense.


WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 661
Jul 30, 2009
(H.R. 3326) On the Murtha of Pennsylvania amendment, which redirected some of the funds originally designated to purchase additional F-22 fighter planes to the acquisition of spare parts and engines for existing F-22s

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment redirecting some of the funds originally designated for the purchase of additional F-22 fighter planes to the acquisition of spare parts and engines for existing F-22s, and making certain other changes, in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense. Among the other changes made by this amendment, which was offered by Rep. Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the funding bill, was the addition of $79,000,000 for Air National Guard equipment and of $50,000,000 for advanced radar development.

The issue of whether additional F-22?s would be purchased had become very controversial. The Defense Department did not want to buy any more; but a number of congressman and senators, especially those from districts and states that produced the plane, wanted the department to purchase additional fighters at a total cost of $1.75 billion. Shortly before debate began on this Defense Department spending bill in the House, the Senate voted not to approve the purchase of any additional F-22?s. This amendment was based on the fact that no additional ones would be bought. It still provided for an additional $369 million for the purchase of spare parts and engines for the 187 existing F-22?s.

Rep. Murtha?s statement in support of the amendment began with him saying ?what I've done is say if we're not going to have (more) F-22?s, let's at least fund the original 187 airplanes at the fullest robust level.? He noted that a disagreement over how to proceed with the F-22 was the only difference that he had with the Republicans on the subcommittee over the terms of the amendment.

Rep. Young (R-FL), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3326, argued that ?187 (F-22?s) just doesn't guarantee that we will have what we need . . . if we need them and don't have them, where are we and where is the soldier on the ground? If we need them and don't have them, somebody else's airplane may be over that battlefield.? Young said ?it would have been better if we could have had a straight up-or-down vote on the F-22 (additional purchase) issue . . . So I will vote against this amendment . . . .?

Murtha agreed with Young that it would have been better if additional F-22?s had been purchased. However, Murtha noted that President Obama had said he would veto the Defense Department spending bill if it provided for the purchase of additional F?22?s, and the 2/3 votes required to override that veto would not be forthcoming in either the House or the Senate.

The amendment passed by a vote of 249-180. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and six Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred seventy Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, funds for the purchase of additional F-22 fighter planes were removed from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense and redirected to the purchase of spare parts and engines for existing F-22s, Air National Guard equipment, advanced radar development, and other purposes.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Military Contractors
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 657
Jul 29, 2009
(H.R. 2749) On passing the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, which was designed to improve the monitoring of both domestic and imported food for safety

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. Among the provisions of the legislation, as described by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, was a requirement that every food facility implement a food safety plan; that the Department of Health and Human Services issue rules to minimize the hazards from food-born contaminants which are based on actual testing and observations, establish standards for raw agricultural commodities using results from previous inspections, examine facilities based on a schedule that uses historical statistics to determine the likelihood of contamination, create a program for accreditation of laboratories that perform tests of food for import or export, and form a group of inspectors dedicated to inspections of foreign food facilities. The bill also created new protections for ?whistleblowers?, or industry or department insiders who report improper behavior.

Rep. Dingell (D-MI), who was among the leading supporters of the bill, noted that it also gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ?both the authority and the funds to address not only American foods but foods being imported . . . .? H.R.2749 was supported by the Centers for Science and Public Interest, Consumers Union, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a large industry group.

The reasons for opposition to the bill were expressed by Rep. Lucas (R-OK), who referred to it as ?another example of Federal power without the benefit of careful consideration.? He first objected to the procedure under which it was handled, criticizing the House Agriculture Committee chairman for not asking to review it and ?make improvements? before it was brought to the House floor, although that committee had ?a clear jurisdictional claim?.

Then Lucas said ?this is not just a matter of jurisdiction . . . .?He singled out for ?particular concern? the federal mandate in H.R. 2749 ?that the Food and Drug Administration set on-farm production performance standards. For the first time, we would have the Federal Government prescribing how our farmers grow crops (although) . . . We have been doing it for a very long time, and we have been doing it without the FDA.? Lucas also argued that the bill ?leaves our nation's fruit and vegetable producers subject to objectionable regulatory burdens.? In addition, he claimed: ?(N)ew quarantine authorities for FDA will undermine animal and plant inspection control programs that have been in place at the Department of Agriculture for decades.?

Lucas concluded his remarks by saying: ?(T)he vast majority of these provisions, along with new penalties, record-keeping requirements, traceability, labeling, country-of-origin labeling, will do absolutely nothing to prevent food-borne disease outbreaks, but will do plenty to keep the Federal bureaucracy busy.?

The legislation did not pass. The vote was taken under a House procedure whereby the usual rules are suspended and debate is limited. This procedure requires a two-thirds vote for passage, rather than the usual majority. The vote was 280-150. Two hundred and thirty Democrats and fifty Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred twenty-seven Republicans and twenty-three Democrats voted ?nay?. But, since the two-thirds vote required under this procedure was not achieved, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 was not approved. Supporters of the legislation still had the opportunity to bring the bill up under regular House procedures, where it would pass with a simple majority.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 656
Jul 29, 2009
(H. Res. 690) On a motion to table (kill) a resolution that would have disapproved the manner in which the Democratic Members of the commission dealing with the House Members? special rights to send official mail without postage were carrying out their responsibilities

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to table (kill) a resolution that would have disapproved the manner in which the Democratic Members of the commission dealing with the House?s special mailing rights were carrying out their responsibilities. The resolution had been offered by House Republican Leader Boehner (R-OH) as a ?privileged? matter, which meant it would have been immediately taken up by the House. After it was offered, House Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD) moved that the resolution be tabled (killed).

Members of Congress are permitted to send official mail without postage. The communications may include, among other things, letters to constituents, newsletters regarding legislation and Member votes, press releases about official Member activities, and government reports. They may not send out partisan material without postage. There is a bipartisan commission that oversees these free mailing rights.

The Boehner resolution was prompted by a decision of the Democratic members of the commission to prevent Republican House Members from sending out a chart which contained an illustration of the Democratic health care proposal. According to Roll Call, a publication that covers Congress, the chart consisted of ?a convoluted maze of government offices and programs? and the mailing criticized the Democratic proposal. In response to the action of the Democratic commission Members, Minority Leader Boehner said the Democrats were ?trying to restrict Members of Congress from showing (the problems with the health care proposal) to their constituents, and that?s just wrong.? He then offered this resolution disapproving of the actions of the Democratic members of the commission.

The position of the Democrats, according to Roll Call, was that ?sending out the chart as official mail would violate House rules because the information is misleading (and partisan). Rules . . . bar Members from using taxpayer-funded mail for newsletters that use ?partisan, politicized or personalized? comments to criticize legislation or policy.? INCLUDEPICTURE "http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/ui/clearpixel.gif" \* MERGEFORMAT The Boehner resolution was killed by a vote of 244-173 along almost straight party lines. All two hundred and forty-four ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One hundred seventy-two Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House effectively decided not to disapprove of the manner in which the Democratic Members of the commission dealing with House Members? special mailing rights were carrying out their responsibilities.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Won
Roll Call 655
Jul 29, 2009
(H. Res. 685) Legislation providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Defense - - on passage of the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3326 provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Defense. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms of debate of the bill. That rule limited the number of amendments that could be offered to it. The Republican minority had been engaged in an ongoing effort against what it said was an unfair practice of the Democratic majority of presenting rules limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially spending bills such as H.R. 3288.The Democrats were taking the position that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule of passing all spending bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) pointed to the limitation on amendments and argued against what he called ?the shutting down of the appropriations process?, which he said had been done ?for the first time in the 220-year history of the United States of America?. He also said the rule on H.R. 3288 was the ?last opportunity? for the House to open the fiscal year 2010 appropriation process because the Democrats had ?closed down? the ability of Members to amend all the previous appropriation bills the House had considered.

Rep. Young (R-FL), also opposed the limitation on amendments. He said that when Republicans ?were the majority, we brought (this appropriation bill) to the floor under an open rule. We allowed all of the Members, not just the members of the subcommittee, not just the members of the Appropriations Committee, but we allowed all of the Members . . . to offer whatever amendments they felt that they should offer and to have the debate.?

Rep. Dicks (D-WA), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, defended the limitation on amendments as ?the responsible thing to do . . . in order to get our work done . . . .? He said that ?we could not let this thing be open-ended when one side (the Republicans) just wants to abuse the process . . . .? Dicks also argued that ?the way to work this thing out is for the two sides to get together before we go to the floor and limit the number of amendments . . . if both sides can control their Members.? He suggested that the Democrats had tried, but failed, to get such an agreement.

Rep. Polis (D-CO) also defended the Democratic approach and pointed to the fact that the rule for the bill did permit a number of amendments to be offered.

The resolution passed by a vote of 241-185. All Two hundred and forty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One hundred seventy-four Republicans and eleven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 654
Jul 29, 2009
(H. Res. 685) Legislation providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Defense -- on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a motion to bring to an immediate vote, the resolution setting the terms of debate for H.R. 3326; that bill provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Defense.

The resolution setting the terms for debate limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill. The Republican minority had been engaged in an ongoing effort against what it said was an unfair practice of the Democratic majority of limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially spending bills such as H.R. 3288.The Democrats were taking the position that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule of passing all spending bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

Rep. Flake (R-AZ) had been among the most vocal opponents of the limitation on amendments. He argued against ordering the previous question and against the resolution. Flake raised a point of order and said the Democratic majority ?has shut down what has traditionally been an open process.? He added: ?(I)n recent years, this bill has been rife with earmarks, (or legislatively mandated grants inserted at the request of individual Members) . . . There are 1,102 earmarks stuffed into this bill, and nearly 550 of them, worth at least $1.3 billion, are going to private, for-profit companies.? Flake characterized the insertion of earmarks as ?corrupting?.

Flake referred to the Democratic claim that a limitation on amendments was needed to keep to a congressional schedule, and said ?(Y)ou cannot vet more than 1,000 earmarks, more than 550 of which are no-bid contracts to private companies, in 18 minutes . . . Maybe the trains are running on time, but we're not doing our job here.? Flake acknowledged that ?when Republicans were in the majority . . . we did a few things that we shouldn't have. But . . . No matter how the Republicans, when they were in power, didn't want to see amendments . . . they allowed them . . . this (amending) process has been traditionally open.?

Rep. Polis (D-CO) was leading support for the resolution setting the terms for debate and for ordering the previous question on it. He noted that that the resolution permitted several amendments to be offered. Polis also argued that the purpose of the point of order raised by Rep. Flake was to delay ?consideration of this (spending) bill and, ultimately, stopping it. I hope my colleagues will again vote ?yes? so we can consider this legislation on its merits and fund the important defense needs of our nation and not stop it on a procedural motion . . . .?

Flake responded by saying: I'm not trying to delay this process unnecessarily. This (point of order) isn't a dilatory tactic. It's just about the only way we can stand and actually register objection to this closed process.?

The motion passed by a vote of 245-176 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred seventy-one Republicans and five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate for the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 651
Jul 28, 2009
(H.R. 556) On passage of a bill directing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a program addressing the decline of the southern sea otter population

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 556, the Southern Sea Otter Recovery and Research Act. The bill directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a program addressing the decline of the southern sea otter population. That population had experienced very slow growth over the previous decade because of high death rates. The causes of death included disease and parasites, malnutrition and entanglement in fishing gear.

H.R. 556 directed the Fish and Wildlife Service to examine health, mortality, and life history parameters of the southern sea otter, and to develop measures to reduce factors impacting marine ecosystems, health and human activities that limit sea otter populations. Rep. Bordallo (D-Guam) said in her statement in support of the measure that it had been modified from its original form ?to address concerns of coastal fishing interests.? She also said that the funds in the bill provided ?a stable and reliable source of funding for critically needed research, monitoring, and implementation of recovery actions.? Bordallo claimed that southern sea otters ?are a keystone and a sentinel species that are an important part of the California coastal ecosystem.

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) led the opposition to the bill. He said his opposition was based on the fact that H.R. 556 ?will take a threatened species and place its management needs above others, even if those species are in danger of becoming extinct. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the agency with management over the southern sea otter and most other animals listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Service should be afforded the opportunity to make its own determination on how best to use Endangered Species Act recovery funds. I don't believe Congress should get into the habit of promoting one species' needs over other more endangered species. We should let the management agency do its job, guided by the Endangered Species Act. ?

Rep. Farr (D-CA), who introduced the original version of H.R. 556, responded to Hastings by noting that Congress had previously passed measures that singled out certain individual species for protection - - including the African elephant, the bald and the golden eagles, the fur seal, the starfish, the North Pacific halibut, the salmon and the Atlantic striped bass. Farr also noted the several organizations that favored the bill, including the Defenders of Wildlife, the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The legislation passed by a vote of 316-107. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and seventy Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and five Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the bill directing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a program addressing the decline of the southern sea otter population.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 646
Jul 24, 2009
(H.R. 3293) On final passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 3293, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education .The bill included more than $160 billion in spending for the three departments.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL), speaking in support of the bill, said that the funds for the Department of Education were intended ?to prepare America's youth for an increasingly competitive global economy and to ensure that all Americans have access to the education needed to succeed.? He said the funds for the Department of Labor were intended ?to protect and develop our current workforce (and to help) . . . the American economy be more competitive.? He also said the funds for the Department of Health and Human Services were intended to provide ?much-needed assistance to our vulnerable populations.? Hastings added, ?as we in Congress work to pass health care reform in the coming weeks, this bill will help build the capacity of our health care system and provide funding for job training in the health care sector . . . .?

Hastings concluded his remarks by claiming: ?(F)or 8 years, the Republican administration placed the needs of the wealthy and the privileged before those of the middle class and the poor, and now we are paying the price . . .  With our economy in turmoil, Democrats are picking up the pieces of the Bush administration and restoring this Congress' responsibilities to protect our nation's health and social safety nets to ensure equal access to a quality education and to develop a globally competitive workforce.?

The Republican minority opposed the bill on the grounds of both substance and procedure. Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS) led its efforts. He noted that the bill increased the equivalent fiscal year 2009 funding levels by $11 billion, but said that ?the true cost to the American taxpayer has to include the $126 billion that was allocated in the (previously-passed) stimulus act? to the departments funded by H.R. 3293. Tiahrt argued that, ?in reality, these agencies have grown by $135.3 billion, or a 93 percent increase over 2 years.? He said the ?massive amounts of money . . . in this bill . . . may be good in the long term but have absolutely nothing to do with bringing this country out of the economic crisis we're facing today.?

Tiahrt then noted the other objections the Republicans had with the bill. He said Republicans had ?serious problems with regard to cost and access and rationing (of health care), and that there were concerns as to ?how this bill will interact with the (pending) health care reform bill, how it will affect the covered agencies, how it will create a situation of rationed health care . . . .?

Tiahrt also repeated complaints that the Republican minority had been making about what it said was an unfair practice of the Democratic majority of limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on spending bills. He said: ?(O)ne of the most important duties of this House, as directed by article I, section 9 of the Constitution, is to determine the financial obligations of the federal government, the power of the purse . . . Yet instead of being able to have a healthy discussion, as the Founders intended with this representative body, Members, both Republican and Democrat, I note, are shut out of the process and only permitted to speak for a short time without the ability to offer alternatives.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 264-153. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and twenty Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and forty-eight Republicans and five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 645
Jul 24, 2009
(H.R. 3293) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee to have one billion dollars added for special education programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS), which would have send the fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education back to the Appropriations Committee. The motion would have also required the committee to add one billion dollars to the bill for special education programs, and reduce various other categories in the bill by an equal amount.

Rep. Tiahrt supported his motion by noting that ?when the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act . . . was enacted . . . the federal government was committed to pay 40 percent of the costs needed to educate a special-needs child. Today, however, we are falling short of that promise. Now, our good intentions have turned into bad consequences. The federal government's mandate has undermined the public school system's ability to adequately meet the needs of the special children. This is not acceptable for either the children who need special education or those without disabilities who watch their education programs cut in order to fund Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act.?

Regarding the funding reductions that the motion would have made, Tiahrt said ?we only take money from new programs or we continue programs that exist at a lower level than we have today to replace it with a higher priority program, the Individual with Disabilities and Education Act.?

Rep. Obey(D-WI), who chairs the Appropriations Committee that developed H.R. 3293, opposed the amendment. He said it reflects a practice, in which he was not in favor, of ?legislators who think that the way to do business is to cut everybody else's priorities in order to fund theirs. That's not the way 435 (Members) can come to a constructive conclusion.? He then suggested that the real purpose of the amendment was to enable the Republicans ?to recover politically? from the fact that none of them voted for the recently-enacted economic stimulus bill, which increased special education funding by $12 billion.

Obey noted: ?(I)n the 12 years the Republicans were in control of this House, they increased special education (only) by a total of $8.5 billion. We increased it by $12 billion in 1 year, and not a single (Republican) Member . . . voted for it.  And now, they're belatedly trying, by cutting a laundry list of other programs, to pretend that they found a responsible way to free up money to fund Special Education.?

Obey then noted the reductions the amendment would have made to pay for the increase in special education funding. They included $300 million from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria; $170 million from the Community Service and Volunteer Program; a combined $148 million from the Reach Out and Read, Teach for America, Full Service Community Schools, and Reading is Fundamental programs; and $100 million from the School Improvement account .

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 171-248 along almost straight party lines. One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and forty-eight ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, no increase in the special education category and no decreases in any other category were made in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and the House moved to an immediate vote on H.R. 3293.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 644
Jul 24, 2009
(H.R. 3293) On the Wittman of Virginia amendment, which would have reduced the total in the bill providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education by $803 million

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the amendment offered by Rep. Wittman (R-V A) to H.R.3293, the bill that provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The amendment would have reduced total funding in the bill by $803 million or .5% of its total amount

 Wittman said he did not question the value of many of the programs funded by this bill, but ?I offer this amendment because our nation cannot continue on this path of deficit spending without serious, negative, long-term consequences.? He noted that the bill had more than $160 billion in discretionary spending, which was 7% over the fiscal year 2009 level, and a 12.8% increase in spending over the 2008 level. Wittman added that ?(I)t's hard to explain to a family that has had to make tough choices about their own spending that Washington can't make the same tough choices.?

Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS) supported the amendment. He claimed that, including the funds for these departments that were provided in the recently-passed economic stimulus legislation, the increase in their spending from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010 is actually 93%. He then said, ?when you look at it in total, a .5% reduction is merely scratching the surface . . . this doesn't eliminate any programs. This doesn't put anybody in a hardship.?

 Rep. Obey (D-WI), who chairs the Appropriations Committee that developed H.R. 3293, opposed the amendment. He began by saying that it ?would cut $803 million out of important investments in this bill.? Obey then claimed that the Appropriations Committee ?has already cut a total of $10 billion from the President's discretionary spending request, and this bill . . . on a comparable basis, is (actually only 3.6% above the equivalent 2009 spending levels). That is hardly runaway spending. Furthermore, when you look at program lines, you will see that this bill makes hard choices to terminate programs that are not working, with $1.3 billion in cuts to individual programs below the 2009 level. The bill terminates or cuts 44 programs. The largest single program increase is for the Social Security Administration, effectively one fourth of the bill's entire increase for 2009.?

Obey concluded his remarks by saying that no Democrat ?needs to hear a lecture about deficits. I have opposed the Bush policies, both economic and war policies, which led to the unraveling of the budget, which led to a huge amount of debt and which led to the collapse of the economy. I don't think we need more of that kind of medicine.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 199-229. One hundred and sixty-seven Republicans and thirty-two Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twenty-five Democrats and four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no reduction was made in the total amount in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 643
Jul 24, 2009
(H.R. 3293) On the Pence of Indiana amendment, which would have prohibited any family planning and preventive health services funds from being awarded to the Planned Parenthood organization  

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the amendment offered by Rep. Pence (R-IN) to H.R.3293, the bill that provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Health and Human Services. The amendment would have prohibited any family planning and preventive health services funds in the bill from going to the Planned Parenthood organization. The web site of the House Republican Conference, which informed Republican Members about proposed amendments to pending legislation, claimed that Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of federal family planning money, having received ?nearly $350 million of American taxpayer money? in 2007 and 2008. It also said that Planned Parenthood was ?the largest abortion provider in America.? The site claimed that ?one in every five (U.S). abortions occurs at a Planned Parenthood facility.?

Pence began his remarks by saying he believes ?it's morally wrong to use the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to fund abortion providers.? He acknowledged ?that current laws and regulations prevent (family planning) funds from flowing directly to funding abortions,? but said that Planned Parenthood is ?able to use the resources they receive from taxpayers to . . . free up resources to engage in the abortion trade . . . . ?

In support of the amendment, Rep. Schmidt (R-OH) said: ?Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans are opposed to paying for abortions through their tax dollars. This amendment . . . simply brings the federal family planning funds in line with the sentiment of the majority of Americans.?

Rep. Obey, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, which developed H.R. 3293, opposed the amendment. He noted that there is already a prohibition on using family planning funds for abortions, and that the amendment would ?not reduce overall funds for family planning services.? He then argued that Planned Parenthood clinics funded by the bill ?provide important health care access to low-income uninsured patients, 5 million women in 4,500 clinics nationwide. The breast cancer screenings and the well-mother exams they receive may be the only health care they get all year.    If Planned Parenthood clinics are forced to close, these women may have to forgo critical care because they will lack a single provider providing family planning funding, and this amendment would only make matters worse.?

Rep. Holt (D-NJ), who also opposed the amendment, said the discussion ?should not be an anti-choice or pro-choice debate . . . This debate should be about prevention. It should be about continuing to provide women with the necessary tools for prevention, including contraception and education. It should be about protecting women's health by providing women with access to reproductive health care. We all should be able to agree that we would like to see fewer abortions performed in this country, and comprehensive family planning services that Planned Parenthood provides are a proven means to accomplish that. ?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 183-247. One hundred and sixty-three Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-eight Democrats and nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no language was added to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Health and Human Services that would have prohibited federal family planning funds from going to Planned Parenthood.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
FAMILY PLANNING Availability of Contraceptives
N N Won
Roll Call 642
Jul 24, 2009
(H.R. 3293) On the Souder of Indiana amendment; the amendment would have prohibited any amounts in the bill providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Health and Human Services to be devoted to hypodermic needles that could conceivably be used by those taking illegal drugs  

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the amendment offered by Rep. Souder (R-IN) to H.R.3293, the bill that provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Health and Human Services. The amendment would have prohibited any funds in the bill from being devoted to hypodermic needles that could conceivably be used by those taking illegal drugs. H.R. 3293 included language that allowed federal funds to pay for needle exchange programs: That language was intended to reduce the incidence of HIV.

Souder began his remarks in support of his amendment by claiming that, in most cases, ?the HIV virus does not come through needles. The overwhelming majority comes through sexual activity . . . .? He cited what he called ?recent comprehensive analysis of the evidence by the U.S. Institute of Medicine (which) noted that the evidence that needle exchanges reduce HIV incidence is limited and inconclusive, that the evidence is even worse for Hepatitis C transmission, and that their impact on high-risk behaviors like sex-related risk is inconclusive.?

Souder argued that ?Congress has repeatedly banned needle exchange programs (because) . . . they may undermine community drug-prevention messages and programs, . . . providing needles acts is a way for drug users to sustain and support their intravenous drug use . . . (it) does not address the primary illness of the drug addiction itself, and needle exchange programs direct critical resources away from treatment and intervention programs . . . .?

Rep. Roybal-Allard (D-CA), who had previously worked in alcohol and drug prevention programs, was among those opposing the amendment. She argued that the elimination of ?the ban on Federal dollars for needle exchange programs is based on sound scientific research that tells us these programs are a valuable HIV prevention tool that does not increase drug use.? Roybal-Allard claimed that the Souder Amendment ?returns us to a practice of allowing personal belief rather than science to direct our Federal funding decisions. The science is clear. When addicts have clean needles available, the incidence of HIV infection declines among users. Furthermore, needle exchange programs provide a critical portal to treatment and are an important part of our efforts to reduce the HIV epidemic.?

Rep. Mollohan (D-WV) also opposed the amendment because he felt it could increase the incidence of HIV and other diseases. He said ?those of you who might support this amendment because you believe that withholding clean needles from addicted drug users is somehow helping in the fight against illegal drug use, please allow me to suggest that that is a mistaken view . . . the needle exchange program advocated for and carried out by health professionals is not one of those enablers because . . . at the moment that an addicted person has to have the drug, he or she is driven by this craving and the condition of the needle is not going to deter its use . . . The condition of the needle is not the deterrence and therefore withholding clean needles simply means that they likely use and share dirty needles--and this spreads disease.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 211-218. One hundred and sixty-five Republicans and forty-six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twelve Democrats and six Republicans voted ?nay? . As a result, the language allowing federal funds to pay for needle exchange programs remained in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Health and Human Services.


HEALTH CARE Drug Prevention and Treatment Programs
HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, Domestic
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Drug Prevention and Treatment Programs
N N Won
Roll Call 641
Jul 24, 2009
(H.R. 3293) On agreeing to the Obey of Wisconsin amendment, which made a number of additions and reductions to the bill providing $161 billion in 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education; none of the changes was for more than $10 million, and the total of all increases was offset by the total of all reductions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the amendment offered by Rep. Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which developed H.R.3293, the bill that provided $161 billion in 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The amendment made a number of increases and decreases in various spending programs in the measure, the total of which left overall spending in the bill at the $161 billion figure. The largest change was a $10 million increase in grants that could be made by the Department of Education to charter school program management organizations, and all increases were offset by the total of all reductions. It is not unusual for a committee chairman to offer an amendment, making a number of changes to a bill developed in his or her committee, when it is debated on the House floor.

Among the changes made by the amendment, in addition to that for charter school management grants, were: An additional $5 million for the Department of Labor Career Pathways Innovation Fund; an additional $5 million for the Mathematics and Science Partnership program; an additional $2 million for the Reach Out and Read program; an additional $1 million for the emergency medical services for children's programs; an additional $1 million for the National Center for Health Statistics; and an additional $1 million for university-based modeling and simulation programs. The language of the amendment also prohibited any federal officials from using funds provided by H.R. 3293 for first class travel.

There was significant Republican opposition to the amendment. The opposition was not based on the spending changes made by the amendment, but on the fact that it incorporated nine separate amendments that had been proposed by Democratic Members. The Republican minority had been engaged in an ongoing effort against what it was saying was an unfair practice of the Democratic majority of limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially spending bills. This included the limitation on amendments to H.R. 3293.

Rep Tiahrt (R-KS) said that incorporating those nine Democratic amendments in this way eliminated the need to have them made in order individually, while at the same time individual Republican amendments were not made in order. He then identified a number of other amendments that the Republicans wanted to offer that were not made in order by the Democratic majority.

The Obey amendment passed by a vote of 284-137. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and thirty-two Republicans voted ?aye?. All One hundred and thirty-seven ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, a number of increases and reductions of $10 million or less were made in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 640
Jul 24, 2009
(H. Res. 673) Legislation providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education -- on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R.3293 provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The bill included $161 billion in spending. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms of debate of the funding bill. The most controversial element of the rule was the language that limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill.

Rep Hastings (D-FL), who was leading the support for the rule setting the terms for debate, presented arguments on behalf of the legislation to which the rule related. He said that H.R. 3293, among other things, included provisions ?providing much-needed assistance to our vulnerable populations . . . (by helping) families stay warm through the winter by providing (funds for the) low-income energy assistance program . . . (and by increasing) nutrition, transportation and other supportive services for seniors . . . .? Hastings also said ?this bill will help build the capacity of our health care system and provide funding for job training in the health care sector, one of the strongest and fastest-growing sectors in our economy.?

The Republican minority had been engaged in an ongoing effort against what they maintained was the unfair practice of the Democratic majority of presenting rules limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially spending bills such as H.R. 3288.The Democrats were taking the position that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule of passing all spending bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had often failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

Rep. Sessions (R-TX) opposed the rule and cited the limitation on the number of amendments it permitted as the primary reason. He said that Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-WI) had imposed ?an arbitrary timeline to finish the fiscal year 2010 spending bills which has forced this Congress and the Democrat-run Rules Committee to limit every Republican's and Democrat's chance to offer an amendment on the floor.? He asked, rhetorically: ?Why are we doing this for the first time in the history of this Republic? Why won't they allow for the open and honest debate that they called for just a few years ago??

Sessions went on to say that Republican Members ?offered 12 amendments (to this spending bill) to ensure that a thoughtful and constructive debate could take place . . . Yet what happened? Only four were made in order. . . This Democrat Congress, in unprecedented fashion, continues to reject and silence the American public and to muzzle Members on the floor of the House of Representatives . . . .?

Rep. Flake (R-AZ) also complained about the limitation on the number of amendments that the rule permitted. He argued that ?(even) if we agree to stay within the time constraints, (the Democratic majority) still won't allow us to substitute the amendments that we would like to offer.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 232-187. All Two hundred and thirty-two ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One hundred seventy-two Republicans and fifteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
Y Y Won
Roll Call 639
Jul 24, 2009
(H. Res. 673) Legislation providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R.3293 provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. It included $161 billion in spending. This was on a motion to have the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms of debate of the bill.

Rep Hastings (D-FL), who was leading the support for the resolution setting the terms for debate, claimed that H.R. 3293 continued Congress' ?commitment to fiscal responsibility by coming in $52 million below the President's request, and cutting 46 individual programs . . . .? The resolution for H.R. 3293 permitted that only a limited number of amendments could be offered to the bill.

The Republican minority had been engaged in an ongoing effort against what they maintained was the unfair practice of the Democratic majority of presenting rules limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially spending bills such as H.R. 3288.The Democrats were taking the position that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule of passing all spending bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

Rep. Flake (R-AZ), who had been among the most vocal opponents of the limitation on amendments, described the limiting of amendments as ?martial law, in legislative terms . . . .? He said: ?(W)e're in the minority, yes. But we do have some rights . . . .? Referring to the position of the Democrats that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule, Flake said it was ?(even) if we agree to stay within the time constraints, then they still won't allow us to substitute the amendments that we would like to offer.?

He claimed ?We're told, ?We've got to get it done today, and we're only going to allow four amendments from the (Republican) side, and they are the four that we pick.?? Flake added ?bad process always begets bad policy, and it will come back to bite at some point.?

Rep. Sessions (R-TX) argued that this was ?the first time in the history of the Republic? that restrictions on amendments in spending bills have been imposed. He described the schedule set by the Democratic majority on the passage of all spending bills as ?an arbitrary timeline . . . .? and claimed that there were hundreds of amendments that both Democrats and Republicans wanted to offer. Sessions said the limitation on amendments had particularly serious consequences on H.R. 3293, which had a ?huge increase in spending? over the corresponding figures in the current fiscal year.

The motion passed on a vote of 239-181. Two hundred and thirty-eight Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred seventy Republicans and eleven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate on the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 638
Jul 24, 2009
The Price of Georgia amendment, which would have overturned the prohibition on the possession of guns that several housing authorities had imposed - - on a procedural move to allow the amendment to be offered

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Several housing authorities in large cities had imposed prohibitions on the possession of guns. Rep. Price (R-GA) wanted to offer an amendment to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development that would have overturned those prohibitions. The chair ruled his effort to offer the amendment was out of order. He appealed that ruling to the House. This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) the appeal by Price of the ruling of the chair

Rep. Price (R-GA) originally claimed that he should have been permitted to offer his amendment as a ?matter of privilege?. The decision of the chair that he had appealed did not permit Price to offer his amendment because House procedures do not permit a ?matter of privilege? to be raised as a way to force a vote on an amendment.

Rep. Price was permitted to argue in support of his claim that his ability to offer the amendment was a ?matter of privilege?. He said Members may raise questions in privileged resolutions regarding their rights, and nothing ?is more fundamental to the rights of the Members of this House than the ability to represent their constituents and to affect the legislation that's brought to the floor.? Price also claimed: ?(T)he Democratic majority . . . has unilaterally--some would say brazenly, some would say repressively--ended a 220-year tradition of allowing any Member to (offer an amendment to) a spending bill.?

Price added: ?(W)hen my constituents sent me here to Congress . . . they sent me here . . . to exercise every single ability that a Member of the House is granted . . . If Members are not allowed to offer amendments, then the Member, him or herself, is unable to represent their constituents and consequently is disenfranchising every single American.?

The appeal was killed on a vote of 238-182. Two hundred and thirty-seven Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred seven-one Republicans and eleven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House effectively decided not to allow the offering of an amendment to overturn the prohibitions on guns in public housing projects.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Assisting Crime Impacted Communities
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Gun Control
Y Y Won
Roll Call 637
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R.3288) On passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on House passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. The bill included $123 billion in spending - - $47 billion for HUD programs and $76 billion for transportation infrastructure and support. Rep. Olver (D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed HR. 3288, said that the bill ?has emphasized investments in five key areas: One, building healthy communities with environmentally sustainable solutions; two, maintaining services in rural communities; three, supporting vulnerable populations; four, investing in the national infrastructure; and, five, ensuring transportation safety.? He also said that the level of HUD funding ?recognizes that foreclosure rates remain high and the current (poor) economic climate and weak job market have increased demand for affordable housing.?

Rep. Latham (R-IA), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3288, opposed passage of the bill in its current form. Latham noted that his opposition was based on the fact that its total spending was ?25 percent over the fiscal year 2009 level.?

He also opposed the passage of H.R. 3288 because he claimed that the procedures for debating the bill imposed by the Democrats limited the number of amendments that could be offered to reduce the spending levels. Latham argued that this limitation prevented ?a serious debate . . . to allow our constituents to have some say in how those funds are spent.? Latham gave as an example an amendment he had proposed, but which was not made in order, to transfer funds from rapid rail development to the highway construction fund, which he claimed was going to run out of money.

The legislation passed by a vote of 256-168. Two hundred and forty Democrats and sixteen Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-eight Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Transportation.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 636
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R.3288) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee to reduce all spending figures to the amounts requested by the Obama Administration

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3288 provided fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Latham (R-IA) to recommit (send the bill back) to the Appropriations Committee. The motion also included instructions to the committee to reduce the spending figures in any category that exceed the amount requested by the Obama Administration to those requested levels.

Rep. Latham (R-IA), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3288, said he ?would be a strong supporter of this bill if the funding levels weren't so astronomically out of proportion with the current reality.? He noted that the total funding in H.R. 3288 was 25% higher than the equivalent fiscal year '09 level, an increase he referred to as ?absurd, especially in the context of the huge sums of funding provided to the Department of Transportation and HUD through the (previously-passed economic) stimulus bill.? Latham also said: ?(T)his bill would fund these agencies at $68 billion on top of the more than $61.8 billion they received through the stimulus. How can these agencies possibly spend through this funding in an efficient and effective manner? So in response to this reckless pattern, my motion . . . saves the U.S. taxpayers $5.4 billion.?

Rep. Olver (D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed HR. 3288, opposed the amendment. He said that his subcommittee had ?taken an independent view? of the spending levels. Olver contrasted that approach with what he called the ?rubber-stamping? that the subcommittee did when it was controlled by the Republicans and it reviewed the budgets submitted by the Bush Administration. Olver also said that the increases in the bill above the levels submitted by the Obama Administration were to do ?something more for vulnerable populations.? He cited as an example the increase in the Section 8 rental subsidy program, which he said was made because ?the needs got greater from when the requests were made (by the Obama Administration) . . . because there are more people out of work than there were at the time the request was made . . . .?

The motion was defeated by a vote of 192-225. One hundred and seventy Republicans and twenty-two Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twenty-four Democrats and one Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation was not sent back to committee to have the levels reduced, and the House moved immediately to a vote on its passage.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 635
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment, which would have deleted $750,000 earmarked for the Philadelphia Museum of Art Transportation Improvement Program

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX), which would have deleted $750,000 earmarked for the Philadelphia Museum of Art Transportation Improvement Program. It was offered to H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling had been constantly criticizing ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills.

Hensarling began his remarks by noting the one trillion dollar federal deficit, and said ?I have no doubt that this is a good use of money . . . but I have a number of questions. Number one, why is this a federal responsibility (and if so) . . . why didn't this money go to the . . . thousands of other art museums in the nation, are they not equally deserving?  And if this is a federal responsibility, is it really a federal priority at a time when, under this Democratic majority, we now have the highest rate of unemployment that we've had in a quarter of a century . . .? Maybe our priority ought to be to try to create more jobs, and there are hundreds of thousands of small businesses . . . that could benefit from that money . . . .?

Hensarling went on to say, ?if I concede the argument that somehow this is not only a federal responsibility but a federal priority, again, is it of equal priority to creating jobs? Is it of equal priority to the money that goes to the National Institutes of Health for cancer research? . . . I think not . . .  it just doesn't meet the test of the taxpayers and the struggling families in this nation.?

Hensarling added that the taxpayers in his Texas district ?don't want to pay for (Philadelphia) transportation projects, and they have transportation needs of their own. If this is such a priority, why doesn't the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania take it out of their share of the Federal Highway Trust Fund? Why doesn't the State of Pennsylvania take it from their taxpayers? Why doesn't the City of Philadelphia take it from their taxpayers, or maybe the art museum has to charge a little bit more so that the struggling taxpayers . . . don't have to pay more in taxes . . . .?

Rep. Brady (D-PA), who was the Member responsible for having the earmark inserted into this spending bill, responded by saying ?the money does not go to the art museum. The art museum is located in the city of Philadelphia, and it benefits the entire region. This isn't private property. It's a public street that runs around a city-owned building. The contracts for this work will be let by Pennsylvania's transportation department, administered by the city of the Philadelphia . . . This area has proven to be extremely dangerous for drivers and pedestrians alike. I requested funding for this earmark because it's vitally important for the safety and well-being of my constituents, as well as the millions of others who visit Philadelphia every year.?   He added that: ?(T)he reason why government was formed is to protect our citizens. . . I am bringing back resources . . . .?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 192-226. One hundred and seventy Republicans and twenty-two Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twenty-five Democrats and one Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, the $750,000 earmarked for the Philadelphia Museum of Art Transportation Improvement Program remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 634
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment, which would have deleted $2,000,000 earmarked for the approach road to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX), which would have deleted $2,000,000, earmarked for the reconfiguration of the approach road to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. It was offered to H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. The Golden Gate Bridge is owned and operated by the state of California, which charges tolls on it. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling, had been regularly criticizing ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills.

Hensarling began his remarks by saying that not ?all earmarks are bad. I'm not even here to tell you that somehow this is a bad use of somebody's money . . . I've heard a number of people say, ?Well, relative to the Federal budget, this is kind of pennies and nickels.? Well, yes, maybe it is. I hope . . . I'm never in Congress so long that I consider $2 million to be pennies and nickels . . . if you don't start saving those pennies and nickels, how will you ever save the dollars?? Hensarling then said that the federal deficit is ?on its way to $1.8 trillion (and) . . . maybe $2 million is small relative to that, but if you don't change the culture of spending, how are you ever going to change the spending??

Hensarling then referenced the fact that Speaker of the House Pelosi (D-CA) was responsible for having these funds inserted into H.R. 3288. He argued that she had said ?prior to becoming the Speaker of the House, I'd just as soon do away with all earmarks . . . (and) if you would just as soon do away with earmarks why don't you lead by example and quit asking for them??

Rep. Olver (D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed HR. 3288, opposed the amendment. He noted that earmarks in the 2010 fiscal year HUD and Transportation Department funding bill had been cut to 50 percent of the 2006 levels they were at when the Republicans were in the majority and controlled the funding process. He also noted that, in 2009, new requirements were introduced by the Democrats ?to continue our effort to ensure that the appropriations process is open, transparent and worthy of the public's trust. As part of that, the committee vetted each (earmark) request with the agency under whose jurisdiction an earmark would fall. Also, each request has been publicly disclosed on Members' Web sites so everyone can know exactly what has been asked by every Member and what ones are being funded.?

Olver also noted that the Golden Gate Bridge and its approach roads are the only link between the San Francisco peninsula and Northern California counties, and are designated as a post-disaster recovery route.

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 124-309. One hundred and twenty-one Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-six Democrats and fifty-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $2,000,000 earmarked for the reconfiguration project for the approach road to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for HUD and the Department of Transportation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 633
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have deleted $500,000 earmarked for Rib Mountain Drive in Wisconsin

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $500,000, earmarked for additional turn lanes, signals and a sidewalk on Rib Mountain Drive near Wausau Wisconsin, from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. He repeated arguments he had been making against many earmarks in a series of spending bills. He first asked, rhetorically, ?why are we paying for a roadway that doesn't serve an interstate purpose . . . it's a parochial interest.?

Flake then argued ?that the State of Wisconsin has a program where they grant funding for programs like this . . . on a priority basis. Apparently, the State of Wisconsin didn't see this as a priority or they would have funded it, or perhaps they did, but in realizing there was a powerful Member here in Congress, felt they didn't have to because the federal taxpayer could pick up the tab.? The ?powerful Member? to whom he was referring was Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-WI).

Flake then returned to the claim he had been making during the debate on a number of spending bills that there is a ?pattern? whereby Members of the House leadership and of the Appropriations Committee received what he called the ?spoils? of earmarks. Flake supported that claim by noting that between 46% and 70% earmarked funds in all the recent spending bills had gone to districts represented by these Members, who constitute only 24% of the House.

He concluded his arguments by saying ?we should stand up and say that we cannot sustain this level of spending . . . it's not just a Democrat thing or a Republican thing. This body, as a whole, is guilty of it (and) earmarks are a large part of that . . . .?

Chairman Obey responded by first noting that his state, Wisconsin, receives far fewer federal dollars compared to what its taxpayers contribute than almost any other state. He then referenced the billions of federal dollars that Rep. Flake?s state, Arizona, had received for the Central Arizona Project that facilitated dramatic growth in Arizona, and said Arizona now ?begrudges somebody else trying to get pennies by comparison.?

Obey acknowledged that Rib Mountain Drive was not near the Interstate Highway System, but then asked, rhetorically, ?why on Earth should we confine federal responsibility only to communities lucky enough to be on Interstate roads? Why should we tell small rural towns, ?Sorry. Go off in the corner. You don't have a right to participate in Federal support.?'' He said ?we are trying to help the community of Rib Mountain . . . fix some problems on that heavily traveled and congested commercial corridor . . . .? Obey added that the unemployment rate in the Wausau area was 12%.   

Obey concluded his response by claiming that earmarks ?make up less than 1 percent of the discretionary part of the Federal budget . . . I don't know where (Rep. Flake) was when the previous (Bush) administration was turning $6 trillion in projected surpluses into a $1 trillion deficit.?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 105-329. One hundred and one Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-five Democrats and seventy-four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $500,000 earmarked for Rib Mountain Drive in Wisconsin remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 632
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have deleted $500,000 earmarked for the Millennium Technology Park project in Pennsylvania

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $500,000 earmarked for the Millennium Technology Park project in New Castle, Pennsylvania, from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. The supporters of the technology park claimed it would create ?new advanced job opportunities by providing small to large forward-thinking companies with pre-permitted, shovel-ready sites.?'

Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. He said that earmarking funds in spending bills is equivalent to saying that Congress does not trust federal bureaucrats to make the right decisions regarding how the funds should be spent. He added: ?(I)f we don't like the way they do it, then set up a structure and say you have to do it by merit. And if we don't like the way you've distributed it the following year . . . (and) prove that you did it on a basis that is not equitable, then we cut your funding completely the next year.?

Flake asked, rhetorically: ?(W)hy is it that we're being asked, as taxpayers in California and New Mexico, Arizona, New York, to pay for a technology park to attract businesses in Pennsylvania? ? He claimed that earmarks are disproportionately given to the Members in the congressional leadership and to Members of the Appropriations Committee. Flake gave as evidence of that claim the fact that districts represented by only 24% of all House Members received 70% of all earmarked funds.

Rep. Altmire (D-PA ), who was responsible for having this earmark inserted into H.R. 3288, responded to Rep. Flake. He noted that $18.7 million had already been spent on constructing the technology park and that this additional $500,000 would go only for access roads to it. Altmire said: ?I'm a second-term Member. I'm not an appropriator, and I'm not a chairman of a high-level committee, but I was elected to represent the Fourth Congressional District of Pennsylvania. I was elected to survey the need and to do everything I can to fight for my constituents and to fight for my district . . . I was able to convince the (appropriations) committee to put this money in because this is a good use of taxpayer funding. This is going to create jobs. This is going to grow the economy in two states across nine counties.?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 105-329. One hundred and one Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-six Democrats and seventy-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $500,000 earmarked for the Millennium Technology Park project in Pennsylvania remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for HUD and the Department of Transportation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 631
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have deleted $250,000 earmarked for the Monroe County Farmer's Market in Kentucky

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $250,000, earmarked for the Monroe County, Kentucky Farmer's Market construction project, from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation.

Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. He repeated arguments he had been making against many earmarks in a series of spending bills and asked, rhetorically ?why are we saddling the taxpayers with a bill for construction of one more farmers' market? I have no doubt that this farmers' market in Kentucky has seen a drop in business as a result of the economy. Virtually every business across this country has . . . The question again here is how do we choose? And why do we say, all right, we're going to aid this one but not another one? And in particular at a time like this, why are we taking money from the taxpayers and then distributing it out as we see fit, rather than allowing them to keep it themselves??

Rep. Whitfield (R-KY), who was responsible for having this earmark inserted into H.R. 3288, responded to Rep. Flake. Whitfield said that Monroe County ?is primarily economically driven by agriculture and the textile industry, except the textile industry has closed down over the last 10 years or so. The unemployment rate in Monroe County right now is 15 percent. The most important economic engine in Monroe County is agriculture. And that's why I requested (funds) . . . to develop this farmers' exchange facility to help the economic development in that area.?

Whitfield then noted that the farmers market in Washington, DC had recently received two million dollars in federal money, but that ?Monroe County does not have access to high-priced lobbyists. There's not a lot of influence in Monroe County. So when they came to me--and I don't get that many earmarks--I simply felt it was the proper thing to do . . .?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 98-331. Eighty-nine Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and eighty-four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $250,000 earmarked for the Monroe County Farmers Market remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 630
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have deleted $400,000 earmarked for the renovation of a vacant building in Jal, New Mexico

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $400,000, earmarked for the renovation of a vacant building to promote economic development in Jal, New Mexico. The earmark is was in H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation.

Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. He noted that the building to be renovated with these funds had been vacant for a number of years. He also noted that the city had a buyer in mind for the building, who had previously declined to purchase the old school due to its condition. Therefore, the city intended to use federal funds to rehabilitate the building to enable it to sell it to a private company.

Rep. Teague (D-NM), who was responsible for having this earmark inserted into H.R. 3288, responded to Rep. Flake. Teague said ?no one in (Washington) would likely ever know the name of (Jal) or that it existed at all . . . my job is) to put Jal on the map, to know the priorities and the needs of communities like Jal and to work to address them. If there is a problem in my district, it is my job to get to work solving it.?

Teague went on to say that Jal?s problem is that it needs to renovate the building for it to be useful again, which will enable the city ?to attract private industry to town. (This) will create jobs in Jal and increase the town's tax base. Projects like this are exactly why the Economic Development Initiative was legislated in the first place, and I'm proud to have sponsored this appropriation for Jal.? He added that he was ?not going to stand by and hope that some faceless bureaucrat looks kindly upon a place like Jal. I know the community's needs. I know the problems. I was elected to stand up for places like Jal, New Mexico, not hope that someone else does.?

Rep. Flake answered by saying that the earmark is ?just saying that we ought to give $400,000 to the city (even though) . . . every city in this country is hurting financially.? He added that if ?we won't trust these faceless bureaucrats to distribute earmarks or distribute Federal funding? as Rep. Teague suggested, then Flake ?would question the existence of this Economic Development Initiative (and) , we probably ought to get rid of it completely given the dire straits we are in financially as a federal government.? Flake concluded his remarks by arguing ?when you have a deficit that may hit $2 trillion . . . sometime this body has to say enough is enough. And if we can't keep (money) from going to a program like this, where are we going to start??

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 125-310. One hundred and eighteen Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-one Democrats and fifty-nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $400,000 earmarked for Jal, New Mexico remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 629
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have deleted $250,000 earmarked for the construction of a monument honoring Dominican immigrants in New York City

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $250,000 earmarked for the construction of a monument honoring Dominican immigrants in New York City from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation.

Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. In support of his amendment, he made a statement that reflected the arguments he had been making on all the earmarks to which he had been objecting. He said: ?I would hope that you would have people here to make decisions and say we can't fund every district in the country. So maybe we shouldn't have an account that allows Members to simply earmark wherever they will.? Flake also argued that ?the problem with accounts like these economic development initiatives, is (they become) a catch-all term and it seems to act as an account that Members can simply earmark.?

He then repeated another argument he had been making against other earmarks, and said that ?only the powerful Members in this body--either those who are on the Appropriations Committee, which makes up 14 percent of this body . . . or if you include chairmen and ranking minority members--powerful committees in leadership . . . 24 percent . . . takes the bulk--in some cases, in some bills up to 70 percent--of the dollar value of the earmarks.?

Rep. Rangel (D-NY), who was one of the Members responsible for having the earmark inserted in H.R. 3288, noted that private sector interests, many non-profit groups, and the local and state government got together to provide much of the funding for the monument. He also said: ?(W)e should anchor a place of culture where kids can go after school, where we have sports, gymnasiums, poets, health care, and some place where the Dominicans can say that in a great country and in a great city and in a great community, they had a place anchored.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 124-310. One hundred and fifteen Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifth-one Democrats and fifty-nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $250,000 earmarked for the construction of a monument honoring Dominican immigrants in New York City remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 628
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have deleted $250,000 earmarked for the Murphy Theatre Community Center in Wilmington, Ohio

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $250,000 earmarked for the Murphy Theatre Community Center in Wilmington, Ohio from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation.

Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. In support of his amendment, he raised one question that reflected the arguments he had been making on all the earmarks to which he had been objecting: ?Should the federal taxpayers in the State of Washington or Wisconsin or Arizona or Alaska or elsewhere be sending their hard-earned tax dollars to Washington to be earmarked to renovate a theater in Ohio . . . ?

Rep. Turner (R-OH), who was responsible for having the earmark inserted into H.R. 3288, responded by saying ?all across the country we are all experiencing the economic downturn, but specifically, in Wilmington, Ohio . . .  As a result, the Ohio delegation has sought increased Federal assistance to help the community as they recover from this economic emergency . . . The 91-year-old Murphy Theatre . . . is the actual, as well as symbolic, heart of the downtown . . .Today the Murphy Theatre hosts an average of 35 events a year, serving approximately 6,000 adults and 4,000 children. Funding for this project will provide critical infrastructure assistance to ensure the viability of this local landmark. . . Wilmington hasn't the funds to perform even basic repairs to stabilize the condition of this American landmark.?

Flake answered: ?(T)hat sounds like a wonderful theater. As I mentioned, I think we all have them in all our districts . . . But we can't have a policy at the Federal level where we renovate every theater across the country, particularly while we're running a deficit that could hit $2 trillion this year. How many theaters out there are in need of repair? How many districts are experiencing high unemployment . . . We cannot continue to spend money as we're spending money, and I would submit this is a good place to start to say let's not fund some of these renovations of theaters under the guise of economic development.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 105-328. Ninety-six Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-one Democrats and seventy-seven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $250,000 earmarked for the Murphy Theatre Community Center in Wilmington, Ohio remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 627
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have deleted $500,000 earmarked for the terminal replacement project at Grand Forks, North Dakota International Airport

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $500,000 earmarked for the terminal replacement project at Grand Forks International Airport in Grand Forks, North Dakota from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation.

Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. He said ?we're told that the funds that are being earmarked from this Airport Improvement Program . . . is a widely used competitive grant program that others can apply for grants from. The Competitive Grant Program stipulates later that the funds can't generally be used for terminals or terminal improvements. So the biggest question . . . is why in the world we're designating money from this account that is an account for competitive grants to be received by applicants, why we're designating it as an earmark to an airport terminal that typically falls outside of the purview of the funds in this account.?

Rep. Pomeroy (D-ND), who was responsible for having the earmark inserted into H.R. 3288, responded. He presented statistics showing that about 1/8 of the money in the competitive grant program is used for airport terminals. He said it is used where terminals are ?beyond repair and must be attended to on a priority basis for the needs of the general public . . . They involve issues of safety.? Pomeroy noted that the Grand Forks International Airport is the 22nd busiest airport in the country because is hosts a major pilot training program, which ?places a tremendous traffic burden on what would otherwise be a small airport facility.? 

Flake responded by saying ?I'm not questioning the need for renovations to the terminal?, but then repeated an argument he had been making against earmarks in a series of spending bills. He said ?we appropriate money to the various agencies, and we'll instruct them to establish a competitive grant program to distribute the moneys to worthy recipients. Then the folks at home in the municipal airports or states or whatever district they're in will decide that they want . . . these funds . . . I'm not blaming Democrats. Republicans are just as guilty of this . . . In this particular case, this earmark is taken from an account that is supposed to be competitively offered, and grants are to be awarded on a competitive basis on the basis of merit.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 108-327. One hundred and two Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-four Democrats and seventy-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $500,000 earmarked for the Grand Forks, North Dakota International Airport remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 626
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Stearns of Florida, which would have reduced the fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation by 25%

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Stearns (R-FL) which would have reduced the total amount in H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation by 25%.

Stearns argued that ?with the economy contracting and unemployment rising, it's not responsible to drastically increase spending . . . .? He pointed to the additional amounts provided to HUD and the Transportation Department in the recently-passed economic stimulus bill, and claimed that the total amount provided for the two departments would effectively remain at the fiscal year 2009 level ?if the stimulus act funding is taken into account, even with the 25 percent reduction that I am proposing . . . .?

Stearns acknowledged that there are ?a lot of good programs in this bill that I strongly support . . . .? He then said that ?funding for programs within this bill will have increased 146 percent since the Democrats took over in the year 2007. This level of spending is simply unsustainable in the light of the nation's growing deficits and the debt.? He also argued that additional spending ?at a time when we're drowning in debt and experiencing the worst economic crisis in decades is simply unwise.?

He referenced a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office warning ?that excessive spending proposed by this administration and the Democrat leadership in Congress such as contained in this bill . . . will (double) the national debt in 5 years. So we must hold . . . attempt to hold the line on spending and make sound budget choices . . . .? that are sustainable and that do not rely on continued deficits and borrowing. He then agreed that ?there's plenty of blame to go around, but here at this point we have an opportunity to stand up.?

Rep. Olver (D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3288, led the opposition to what he described as a ?slash and burn? amendment. Olver referenced previous arguments he had made to similar amendments in which he said that the amendments contained ? no direction as to how one might do it,? in which he raised the problem of not being able to determine the kinds of impacts they would have.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 152-279. One hundred and forty-seven Republicans and five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-three Democrats and twenty-six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no reduction was made in H.R. 3288 providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.


HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
N N Won
Roll Call 625
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Neugebauer of Texas amendment, which would have reduced the fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation by $13.5 billion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Neugebauer (R-TX) which would have reduced the total amount in H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation by $13.5 billion. The resulting amount would have equaled the funding provided to those departments in the 2009 fiscal year.

Rep. Neugebauer began his remarks by noting that the Department of Transportation received more than $21 billion in the recent ?rushed? legislation designed to stimulate the economy but that only eleven projects had been initiated. He said that his amendment is an acknowledgement that ?(W)e were wrong. We thought we could spend this $21 billion. We needed to get it out immediately. We found out we can't, so we're going to give part of that money back. We're going to give $13 billion of it back.? Neugebauer argued that not taking any of the money back is effectively saying:?(Y)'all did such a bad job of not spending the $21 billion we gave you back in the Spring that we're going to reward you. We're going to give you another $21 billion of the taxpayers' money.? He then added: ?(B)y the way, it's $21 billion we don't have.?

Rep. Olver (D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3288, led the opposition to what he described as a ?slash and burn? amendment. He argued that it contained ?no direction as to how one might do it, and I'm left with the question of what kinds of impacts this one might have.?

Olver then went on to argue that those impacts would be negative on transit programs ?that move people around in as efficient a way as they possibly can.? He also argued that the reductions in the amendment would have a negative effect ?on all of our air traffic safety programs, on all of the efforts that we have to make in order to have our airports and our air traffic controller systems function appropriately.? Neugebauer disputed the claim that these impacts would occur. He said: ?They're not even going to spend this $21 billion probably in the next fiscal year. They've spent only 11 percent since the inception of this bill. So we're not cutting anything.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 166-267. One hundred and fifty-two Republicans and fourteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and twenty-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no reduction was made in H.R. 3288 providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.


HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
N N Won
Roll Call 624
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Jordan of Ohio amendment, which would have reduced the fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation by $20 billion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Jordan (R-OH) which would have reduced the total amount in H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Transportation by $20 billion. The $20 billion dollar reduction would have put the funding for those departments at the same levels they were at in the 2008 fiscal year.

Rep. Jordan began his remarks in support of his amendment by noting that the federal deficit had just reached $1 trillion, ?and some estimate that this could go as high as $2 trillion.? He asked, rhetorically, ?(H)ow bad does it have to get before we can simply say this: Let's just hold the line. Let's just quit making the problem worse.? Jordan claimed ?this is not a cut.? He described his amendment as taking the ?first step in trying to get our fiscal house in order? by going ?back to where we were just 9 1/2 months ago (when the government was operating on the funding in the 2008 fiscal year HUD and Transportation bill), before the stimulus, before the omnibus, before all this ridiculous spending got a hold of Congress . . . After all, there are all kinds of families, all kind of small business owners, all kinds of American taxpayers who are doing just that.?

Rep. Olver (D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3288, led the opposition to the amendment. Referring to the fact that Jordan was proposing going back to fiscal year 2008 figures, Olver said ?(W)e're talking about a (fiscal) year starting several months from now and going forward a year, and he's talking about 9 1/2 months ago being the end of that fiscal year, the end of the 2008 fiscal year, and that was funding the year prior to that. So it is really taking a step backward 2 years in the funding level.? He also argued: ?There is no direction in the amendment, itself. It merely says cut the total expenditure by $20 billion, which is one-sixth of the sum total of the legislation.?

Olver referenced the recent weak economic conditions and argued that ?taking $20 billion out of this appropriation, then has the effect of cutting a huge number of programs by an average of 16 percent for the next fiscal year. It is an unsustainable number for the kinds of efforts that one needs to have in housing . . . .  On the transportation side, the major point of growth is in the high-speed rail program (which) . . . creates jobs over a period of time in the building of that infrastructure.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 145-287. One hundred and forty-one Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-four Democrats and thirty-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no reduction was made in H.R. 3288 providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.


HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
N N Won
Roll Call 623
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Blackburn of Tennessee amendment, which would have made a 5% across-the-board cut in the fiscal year 2010 funding, not otherwise required by law, for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) to H.R. 3228, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. The amendment would have made a 5% across-the-board reduction in all funding in the bill that was not otherwise required by law.

Rep. Blackburn said she was trying to decrease the level of federal spending, because increased spending ?hasn't brought back the millions of lost jobs . . . (and) hasn't promoted the economic growth that is so desperately needed. What it has done, it has produced a deficit that will likely top $2 trillion this year.? Blackburn noted that spending on the programs in H.R. 3288 ?has increased by 146 percent over the last 3 years . . . (and they) have already gotten $62 billion this year from the stimulus (legislation).? She also claimed that, even with a 5 percent reduction, the amounts in H.R. 3288 ?would allow each of the programs to still grow by 11 percent from last year's funding.?

Blackburn noted that states ?which function under balanced budget amendments, are great labs of experimentation in state budgeting? and they often make across-the-board cuts. She also claimed that ?a good thing about making across-the-board cuts is that it helps reset? budgets back to their baselines, from which judgments can be made about whether they should be increased.

Rep. Olver D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3288, led the opposition to the amendment. Olver claimed that an across-the-board cut ?is the worst possible way that one can? reduce spending. He then argued that the increased funding for the department of housing and urban Development was especially needed ?to fill the gap for what has happened over the last 8 years of cuts in so many of the housing investment programs.? cuts those places that we particularly wanted to put money into in order to fill the gap that has been growing over a period of years, and it's the wrong thing to do.

Olver then argued that a 55 reduction ?would hurt our elders. It would hurt our people who are in affordable housing in either the tenant- or the project-based systems . . . It would cut the program for housing for people with AIDS . . . and disabled housing.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 181-252. One hundred and sixty-one Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-eight Democrats and fourteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no across-the-board reduction was made in the fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation.


HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
N N Won
Roll Call 621
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Latham of Iowa amendment, which would have reduced fiscal year 2010 funding for high speed rail service by three billion dollars.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Latham (R-IA) to H.R. 3228, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Transportation. The amendment would have reduced fiscal year 2010 funding for high speed rail service by three billion dollars, from the four billion dollars in the bill back to the one billion dollars requested by the Obama Administration.

Rep. Latham noted that eight billion dollars was approved for high speed rail in the previously-enacted economic stimulus package. He also noted: ?(W)e are just now embarking on this high-speed rail initiative. The stimulus funds are still in the Treasury. They haven't been spent, and there is little reason to dump another $3 billion on top of an unspent $8 billion . . . .? Latham acknowledged that there was a large pent-up demand for high-speed rail, but asked, rhetorically, ?(A)re we really ready to embark on (when) . . . We don't even know if those grant applications have any feasibility at all??

Rep. Olver D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3288, led the opposition to the amendment. Olver said that the inter-city high-speed rail program ?is the most important transportation initiative since the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System . . . which took a generation, basically, to build.? Olver did claim that there was ?a huge? pent up demand for it, and noted that $100 billion of applications had already been submitted for $8 billion in the economic stimulus program.

Olver argued: ?(I)f we do not add significantly . . . by adding $4 billion to the $8 billion that is already there, then people will lose faith or wonder, Are we in this seriously? Are we going to do high-speed and intercity passenger rail, as had been proposed and put forward in the recovery bill earlier or aren't we intending to do that? I think we must keep this momentum going . . .

 Rep. DeLauro (D-CT) also opposed the amendment. She said that the large amount of funding for high-speed rail was needed ?to improve our way of life, create jobs, (and) foster long-term economic growth? and that those funds would ?leverage hundreds of billions of dollars in private capital to put toward rebuilding America.? Latham responded by saying ?I'm not against high-speed rail . . . but I'm just saying to have this money sit here and do nothing when we've got a critical issue, as far as the highway trust fund that needs funding immediately, is simply wrong.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 136-284. One hundred and thirty-two Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and forty Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the four billion dollars in fiscal year 2010 funding for high-speed rail remained in H.R. 3288.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
N N Won
Roll Call 620
Jul 23, 2009
(H.R. 3288) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment, which would have eliminated $250 million in funding from a HUD program that provides grants to local housing authorities to construct, rehabilitate and transform distressed public housing units into mixed-income communities

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) to H.R. 3228, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The amendment would have eliminated funding for HUD's HOPE VI program, which receives $250 million in the underlying bill.  The program provides competitive grants to local housing authorities to construct, rehabilitate and transform distressed public housing units into mixed-income communities. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) website noted that the HOPE VI program ?has completed its goal of contributing to the demolition of 100,000 severely distressed public housing units.?

Rep. Hensarling began his remarks in support of his amendment by claiming ?this Democratic-controlled Congress has spent $1.1 trillion on a government stimulus plan (and) . . . also passed an omnibus bill costing $410 billion . . . (and) We now have the single largest Federal deficit that we have ever had in our Nation's history. He then cited the previous remark by President Obama that: ?(I)f we're going to rebuild our economy on a solid foundation, we need to change the way we do business in Washington. We need to spend money wisely . . . That starts with the painstaking work of examining every program . . . and asking ourselves: Is this program really essential? Are the taxpayers getting their money's worth??

Hensarling then focused on the HOPE VI program and cited the OMB statement as evidencing the fact that ?the program . . . has already accomplished its original objective.? He then said he had been told ?that the program is sitting on almost $1 billion of unexpended balances.? Hensarling concluded his remarks by saying we're shoving more money their way and they can't even spend the money that they already have. It's time for us to lead by example, terminate one program . . . .?

Rep. Frank (D-MA) responded to Hensarling?s claim about the program having unexpended balances and therefore not needing any more funding. Frank said: ?(I)f program money is spent too rapidly and it is then spent inefficiently, there is criticism. What has happened with HOPE VI is that in response to some legitimate criticism, some controls were proposed to slow things down. This money ultimately (will) get spent, but it (will) get spent in a way that is less likely to be abused. He referred to that situation as a ?kind of a catch-22?.

Frank also said that that there are ?lose either way'' arguments made against public housing and the HOPE VI program. He claimed: ?(O)ften the criticism is in that public housing warehouses people in large projects that do not have the capacity to provide a decent living environment. HOPE VI is an effort to preserve the units, because we do have a shortfall for family public housing in many parts in the country . . . by redoing the projects to remove the stigma that has attached. And if you get rid of the HOPE VI program, you then abandon the notion that you are going to go to existing public housing to try to make it more livable and less concentrated. ?

Frank concluded his statement by arguing that, ?to simply shut the (HOPE VI) program off is, I think, to say to the people who live in the public housing that was built inappropriately--the residents didn't build it, society built it and put them there. It would say we are abandoning any effort to improve the livability of where you are, and also then make them more vulnerable to criticism and build opposition to the whole notion, when the alternative is to make the living conditions better for the people in the surrounding communities.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 152-276. One hundred and forty-four Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and thirty Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the $250 million in fiscal year 2010 funding for HUD to make grants to construct, rehabilitate and transform distressed public housing units into mixed-income communities, remained in H.R. 3288.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
N N Won
Roll Call 617
Jul 23, 2009
(H.Res. 669) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3288 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development. Included in H.R. 3288 was a total $41.1 billion in federal spending. The resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill included a limitation on the number of amendments that Members could offer. This was a vote on the rule.

Rep. Arcuri (D-NY), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, said that H.R. 3288 would, among other things, decrease traffic congestion, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The major element of disagreement in the rule was that it limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill.

The Republican minority had been engaged in an ongoing effort against what they were maintaining was the unfair practice of the Democratic majority of limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially spending bills such as H.R. 3288.The Democrats were taking the position that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule of passing all spending bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was leading the Republican effort against the rule, argued: ?(H)istorically, appropriations bills, such as the one being brought to the floor today, have come to the floor under an open rule, a rule that allows any Member, from either side of the aisle, to offer amendments . . . The new doctrine and process (of limiting the number of amendments) not only breaks two centuries of tradition and precedent in the House; it also runs contrary to one of the central tenets of the Democrats' election campaign. During the 2006 campaign, they claimed that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. . . But here we are today, Congress for the first time in history (is) completely shutting down the previously open appropriations process.?

Rep. Flake (R-AZ) raised a technical point of order against the rule, and characterized the limitation on amendments as forcing Republicans to be ?living under what is the equivalent of legislative martial law, where the majority has stated that they cannot allow appropriation bills to come to the floor because we have to get through this process . . . .? He argued that ?appropriating is one of the most--if not the most important--thing that Congress does. We maintain the power of the purse under article 1. This is our responsibility . . . It's not about an issue of time. Flake concluded with the claim that ?a bad process begets bad policy.?

Arcuri responded by noting that the rule made 23 amendments in order, ?each of which is debatable for 10 minutes.? He claimed that the point of order raised by Flake ?is not about anything other than delaying the passage of this very important bill.? Arcuri then referenced the many amendments Flake had been allowed to offer to a series of previous spending measures, said that H.R. 3288 was a ?critical bill?, and asked Members to ?vote ?yes?' so we can consider this legislation on its merits and not stop it by virtue of a procedural motion.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 235-183. All two hundred and thirty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Thirteen other Democrats joined with all one hundred and seventy Republicans present and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 616
Jul 23, 2009
Legislation designed to overcome a court decision that reduced the flow of water in the California Central Valley - - on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling of the chair that a move to bring the legislation to a vote was not in order

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

There had been an ongoing dispute between farmers and environmentalists regarding the protection of a small fish that lives in the Sacramento River in the Central Valley of California. The environmentalists had won a federal court ruling to limit water flow in the river in order to protect the fish. This dispute was occurring during a period of severe drought, which was causing major problems for Central Valley farmers. Legislation designed to overcome the court ruling, called the ?Turn on the Pumps Act?, had been introduced by Members representing the Central Valley. That bill had been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, which would not report it to the full House for consideration.

A resolution to force the Natural Resources Committee to report the bill for House consideration had been offered by Rep. Nunes (R-CA), who represents part of the Central Valley. He called the resolution a matter of ?privilege?. Under House procedures, ?matters of privilege? are voted on immediately. The Nunes resolution had been ruled out of order by the chair because House rules do not permit a ?privileged? resolution to be used to force a committee to report a bill. Nunes appealed that ruling. This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) his appeal.

Speaking in support of his resolution and his appeal of the ruling, Nunes said that passage of the ?Turn on the Pumps Act? would ?rectify the problems that the Democrat leadership has created out in California. If we move forward with this today, 40,000 people can go back to work . . . .?

The appeal of the ruling was killed by a vote of 249-179 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty eight Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred seven-five Republicans and three Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House decided not to force the Committee on Natural Resources to report legislation overcoming the federal court decision limiting Central Valley water flow.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Won
Roll Call 612
Jul 22, 2009
(H.R. 2920) On final passage of legislation designed to control the federal deficit; this would be accomplished by requiring any reductions in federal revenues to be offset by new revenue increases, and any additions to federal spending to be offset by other spending reductions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on House passage of the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act. This Act required that any action reducing federal revenues be offset by new revenue increases, and any spending increases be offset with other spending reductions. It also required an automatic reduction in federal spending in the event that the Act was violated.

Rep. Spratt (D-SC), the Chairman of the Budget Committee, was leading the effort on behalf of the Act. He said it was a move ?towards budget discipline?. He noted that the Obama Administration had ?inherited a colossal deficit swollen to accommodate massive recovery measures. As these measures pull us up out of the slump, we must focus attention on our longer-term fiscal fate.? Spratt acknowledged that: ?By themselves, budget process rules cannot convert deficits into surpluses, but . . . they can play a vital role. Statutory ?Pay-As-You-Go? works by reining in both new entitlement spending and new tax cuts . . . by insisting on deficit neutrality for these new policies, Pay-As-You-Go buffers the bottom line, holds it constant . . . at its core, it's a commonsense rule that everybody can understand: When you are in deficit, don't make it worse. When you want to spend a dollar, save a dollar.? Spratt acknowledged that the bill does not, in itself, solve the federal fiscal and deficit problems, but said ?it is a significant step in the right direction.?

Rep. Ryan (R-WI), the Ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, was leading the opposition to the Act. He first criticized the procedure the Democrats had adopted for bringing the bill to the House floor directly, rather than following the usual procedure of having the Budget Committee review and amend it before consideration by the entire House. Ryan described this procedure as an example of what he called ?a disturbing trend? of having legislation developed ?in the (Democratic) leadership offices, rush it to the (House) floor, ram it through Congress without legislators legislating.?

Ryan then moved to criticizing the substance of the bill. He said that ?we have got to do some things to get our fiscal house in order. We need to equip Congress with more and better tools to get this budget under control. Unfortunately, this (?Pay-as-You-Go? bill) isn't the tool. This tool does not work.? Ryan also said the bill was ?well-intended?, but then noted that there were already pay-as-you-go rules in effect and the deficit had increased from $161 billion to $1.8 trillion since those rules were adopted.

Ryan added that, unless specific spending caps that he had previously proposed unsuccessfully were included in the Pay-As-You-Go rules, the result would be ?a machine to raise taxes to pay for new and more costly government programs. It does nothing to attack the fact that just this year alone, discretionary spending is going up 8 percent . . . .? He concluded by arguing that passage of the proposed Act would be ?like buying a fire extinguisher after your house has burned down. Congress is going to commit all of these fiscal crimes only to put Pay-As-You-Go in place after they've been committed.?

Rep. Doggett (D-TX) responded by arguing that: ?Republican ideologues (had previously) urged the irresponsible approach of fiscal deficit with more borrow-and-spend and tax cuts as the best tactic to starve government and ensure that Democrats would never be able to address the other deficits in our society: Educational deficits, health care deficits, and more . . . This year, (Democrats,)with only 7 months so far to correct 8 years of (Bush Administration) failure, as we clean up the mess that we were given, we reaffirm our commitment to pay-as-you-go . . . Today's vote signals that we are abandoning the Republicans' fiscal model, which is straight out of the Magic Kingdom. Their rule, like the first law of Disney, is that ?wishing will make it so.? That may work well in the law of fairy tales, but it has been a budgeting disaster and an economic nightmare that we begin correcting today.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) then asked, rhetorically, why the Republicans ?when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, all of our government, for 8 long years, why didn't they control Federal spending??

The vote was 265-166. Two hundred and forty-one Democrats and twenty-four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-three Republicans and thirteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act and sent it on to the Senate.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 611
Jul 22, 2009
(H.R. 2920) Legislation designed to control the federal deficit; the bill required any reductions in federal revenues to be offset by new revenue increases, and any additions to federal spending to be offset by other spending reductions - - on a motion to impose new limits on federal spending in fiscal years 2011 through 2013

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion by Rep. Ryan (R-WI) to recommit legislation known as the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act to committee with instructions to add language that would have imposed new limits on federal spending in fiscal years 2011 through 2013. The ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act required that any action reducing federal revenues be offset by new revenue increases, and any federal spending increases be offset with other spending reductions. The Ryan motion would also have imposed a requirement that the Congressional Budget Office report the interest costs of all legislation, and also calculate the spending impact of all provisions included in all House-Senate reports which reconcile any differences in the versions of the same legislation passed by the House and the Senate.

The language in the Ryan motion was taken from a proposal that had been made earlier by the House ?Blue Dog? Democrats. The ?Blue Dogs? are a group of conservative Democratic Members.

Rep. Ryan, in his remarks in support of his motion, quoted from a 2004 statement by House Budget Committee Chairman Spratt (D-SC), when the Democrats were in the minority and the Republicans controlled the House. Spratt had said that ?Democrats believe that a set of discretionary spending caps arrived through bipartisan negotiation is an important part of an effective budget enforcement.? Ryan then said ?we agree that this bill will be far more effective if discretionary spending caps were added to it.?

Spratt responded to Ryan?s remarks by noting that the spending caps Ryan was seeking to impose had been proposed eight months previously, and that economic conditions had changed significantly since that time. Spratt also claimed that the Ryan motion ?is an effort . . . to kill (the Pay-As-You-Go bill and) . . . if we vote for the motion to recommit, we will (put its passage) at jeopardy because this is a procedural device to defeat a bill that they cannot defeat on the substance of the merits of the bill itself.?

Spratt?s arguments were supported by Rep. Hill (D-IN), the primary sponsor of the original Blue Dog proposal. Hill said ?I want to award an ?A' to the Republicans over here for cleverness because this is a very clever thing to do, but it's not the right thing to do.? Rep. Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader, also opposed the motion and said the Republicans do not like the bill since it ?constrains you in cutting taxes because it makes you pay for that, just as it makes us pay for any increases.?

The motion was defeated by a vote 196-234. One hundred and seventy-seven Republicans joined by nineteen Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and thirty-four ?nay? votes were cast be Democrats. As a result no future year spending caps were added to the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act and the House moved to a vote on its final passage.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Won
Roll Call 610
Jul 22, 2009
(H.R. 2920) On the Ryan of Wisconsin amendment to the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act; the amendment would have imposed limits on spending increases and total federal spending that would be determined by the rate of inflation and by the level of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act, as it was being debated, required that any change in the law reducing revenues or increasing spending be offset by other changes making up for the reduced revenue or increased spending. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Ryan (R-WI) that would have significantly changed the terms of the measure. The approach of the Ryan Amendment was to cap all discretionary spending increases at the same percentage as the inflation rate, and to cap total spending at a designated percentage of the Gross Domestic Product. Ryan described the basis of his proposal as relating the federal budget directly to the size and capacity of the economy.

 In his remarks in support of the amendment, Ryan said it was his goal ?to keep the size of the federal government relative to where it has been in history, and no larger, meaning don't let the government grow faster than the economy. Don't let the government grow faster than our constituents have an ability to pay for it . . . we keep spending historically where it has been, slightly above 20 percent of gross domestic product. ? He contrasted that approach with the one in the Pay-As-You-Go Act, which, he claimed ?allows spending to grow far in excess of where it has been before, meaning . . . it locks in place the growth of the Federal Government so that it will grow faster and higher than it ever has . . . .?

Rep. Spratt (D-SC), the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, opposed the amendment. He said, under its terms, Congress would have to ?rewrite the budget resolution, which we wrote and passed in both the House and Senate months ago, to go back to square one and basically begin all over again . . . go back and take at least $48 billion out of all those bills to comply with the numbers that Mr. Ryan proposes . . . .?

Spratt also criticized the way the Ryan Amendment calculated what would be allowable spending. Spratt said those calculations were too complicated, and that the language of the amendment did not actually impose a cap on spending. He also opposed the amendment because it required a two-thirds vote in each House to overcome any spending caps it set. Spratt suggested that changes in the cap numbers would be necessary ?if we had a downturn in the economy?, but that a two-thirds vote would be very difficult to obtain. Ryan responded by saying that ?we want to make it very difficult for Congress to avoid this budget discipline.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 169-259. One hundred and sixty-four Republicans and five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and twelve Republicans vote ?nay?. As a result, the caps on spending proposed in the Ryan Amendment were not added to the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Won
Roll Call 606
Jul 22, 2009
(H.Res. 665) Legislation requiring any changes in federal law that reduce revenue or increase spending be fully offset by other revenue increases or spending reductions - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House debate of H.R. 2920, the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act. The Act required that any future change in the law reducing federal revenues or increasing federal spending be fully offset by other revenue increases or spending reductions. The ?Pay-As-You-Go?Act also included a provision requiring an automatic reduction in federal spending in the event that the legislation was violated.

Rep. Arcuri (D-NY), was leading the effort on behalf of the rule. Referring to the substance of the Pay-As-You-Go-Act, he said ?(W)e in Congress must be forced to balance our spending the same way that every American family does. We should not spend what we cannot afford. In order to spend a dollar, we must find a dollar either in savings or in new revenue.? Arcuri claimed that the Act ?will force a serious examination of wasteful subsidies in the budget and of tax loopholes that can be eliminated to offset more worthwhile programs.? Anticipating Republican criticism that the bill was not strong enough, he said ?every journey is completed one step at a time. This bill is just a first step. It is part of a clearly delineated path toward fiscal responsibility.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the Republican opposition to the rule and the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act. He first noted that the federal deficit for the current fiscal year had already exceeded one trillion dollars. Dreier then said the, because of the severe economic downturn, Americans ?are spending less; they're saving more; they're paying off their debts; and they're asking themselves, Why is my government doing precisely the opposite?? Among Dreier?s specific criticisms of the Act was that it would only deal with automatic spending programs, and would leave out the 40% of the budget that is discretionary; he also said that its terms would effectively prevent Congress from enacting tax reductions.

Rep. Dreier went on to claim that ?the Democratic leadership wants to give the appearance of an interest in fiscal responsibility? He gave as support for his claims the fact that the Democratic-controlled Congress claimed it had adopted pay-as-you-go rules in 2007 when the deficit was $162 billion, and it had since ?skyrocketed? to more than one trillion dollars. Rep Scalise (R-LA) also opposed the rule and the underlying bill. He said there was a major flaw in the current ?pay-as-you-go? regulations because they had been waived on twelve different occasions. Scalise also criticized the rule for H.R. 2920 because it did not allow him to offer an amendment that he said would improve the measure.

The resolution passed by a vote of 243-182. All two hundred and forty-three ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Six other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy-six Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin its formal consideration of the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 605
Jul 22, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 597
Jul 21, 2009
(H.R.2729) On passage of the bill authorizing the designation of national environmental research parks by the Secretary of Energy

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

On a motion to suspend the House rules and pass H.R.2729, which authorizes the Secretary of Energy to designate national environmental research parks. The bill specifically authorized the designation of six existing locations in various parts of the country. The purpose of the parks is to provide facilities for scientific research on a range of subjects, including plant development, biomass energy production, environmental behavior, revegetation of lands, and the effects of increased temperature on fresh water ecosystems. The parks were also intended to provide facilities to educate the public on environmental sciences.

Rep. Lujan (D-NM), a member of the House Science and Technology Committee which developed H.R 2729, was leading the effort on behalf of the bill. He said that the measure ?was developed through a collaborative process that took into account comments and concerns from each of the sites, as well as helpful input and amendments from both minority and majority Members. I'm happy to present a bill with bipartisan co-sponsorship.? Rep. Hall (R-TX), the Ranking Republican on the Science and Technology Committee supported the bill.

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) expressed concerns about the impact of the legislation on the Hanford, Washington weapons facility, which is in his district. That facility produced nuclear weapons and was undergoing what Hastings referred to as ?the largest and most complex nuclear waste cleanup effort in the world.? He said:?(A)t a time when decisions about future uses of lands on the Hanford site have yet to be made, it is critical that this Congress and the federal government maintain flexibility in order to keep all options on the table--and not enact legislation that could complicate or prohibit future activities . . . .? He added that he had ?very serious concerns about rushing through permanent decisions on Hanford lands via legislation . . . with zero input from either the (Hanford) community or their Representative . . . .?

The legislation passed by a vote of 330-96. Two hundred and fifty Democrats and eighty Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety-five Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate the bill authorizing the Secretary of Energy to designate national environmental research parks.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Won
Roll Call 592
Jul 17, 2009
(H.R. 3183) On passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on House passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. The total expenditures in H.R. 3183 were more than $33 billion, which was approximately the same as the corresponding fiscal year 2009 figure and $1.1 billion less than the amount requested by the Obama Administration. The economic stimulus bill enacted earlier in the session had provided an additional $44 billion to the agencies funded by H.R. 3183.

Rep. Pastor (D-AZ), a member of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that had developed H.R. 3183, was leading the support for the measure. He described the bill as providing funding to deal with ?critical issues that affect our nation's security and prosperity--from addressing high gas prices, our energy crisis and climate change to advancing science and innovation, to preventing nuclear proliferation, to encouraging effective project management, and to investing in our nation's flood control and water infrastructure projects.? The measure also required the administration to submit a nuclear weapons strategy before any new nuclear warheads would be funded.

Rep. Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that had developed H.R. 3183, also supported the bill. He called it ?a significant improvement over the administration's budget request.?   Frelinghuysen did say he was disappointed that there were not additional funds for the Yucca Mountain, Nevada nuclear waste site in which more than $11 billion had already been spent, and which the Obama Administration had decided to close.

The main objection raised by Frelinghuysen was to the limitation that the Democratic majority had placed on the number of amendments that could be offered during the debate on the bill. This complaint had been raised by the Republicans in connection with a series of funding bills on which the number of amendments that could be offered had been limited. Frelinghuysen said: ?(W)ith all the debate about climate change, global warming, conservation, carbon footprints and green jobs, Members of Congress in both parties should have the right to propose amendments to address their concerns and support sources of power that they specifically favor and know about . . . .?

The Democrat majority had been arguing that limitations needed to be placed on the number of amendments that could be offered as a way of completing all the funding bills in a timely manner. During the past few years, there had been a number of occasions in which all the funding bills for a fiscal year were not completed before that year began. In the last of the second Bush Administration, no funding bills were passed before the fiscal year began.

The legislation passed by a vote of 320-97. Two hundred and forty-one Democrats and seventy-nine Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Won
Roll Call 590
Jul 17, 2009
(H.R. 3183) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment that would have eliminated a $500,000 earmark for the purchase of automated remote electric and water meters by South River, N.J. from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) that would have eliminated a $500,000 earmark for the utilities owned by South River N.J. from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. The funds are to be used to buy automated remote electric and water meters. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments.

Rep. Hensarling, in his statement in support of deleting the funds, first said he assumed the project is ?useful, cutting-edge kind of stuff (and) . . . good technology.? He then added that he also assumed ?it's a good use of somebody's money.? Hensarling then raised the questions of whether it is a federal responsibility, and why the funds should be spent in New Jersey and not some other state. Hensarling noted the very high unemployment rate and federal deficit and asked, rhetorically: ?(W)here do you draw the line??

He concluded by saying: ?(E)very dollar that is spent on an automated remote electric water meter for the Borough of South River by the Federal taxpayer . . . cannot be spent on cancer research . . . for a rural veterans health care clinic . . . for tax relief for small businesses--the job engine of America. That's the national priority now, to get the economy moving again.?

Rep. Holt (D-NJ), who had the earmark inserted in the bill, said he understood the argument of Rep. Hensarling about the need ?to rein in excessive government spending,? but then added ?he is really misguided on this one.? Holt argued that the use of the funds would be for ?a demonstration project that would serve as an example for the rest of New Jersey and the Northeast and indeed the whole Nation of how to use technology to conserve energy, to use it more wisely. In fact, every dollar spent . . . on smart metering, is indeed a dollar well spent.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 119-308. All one hundred and nineteen ?aye? votes were cast by Republicans. Fifty-six other Republicans joined with two hundred and fifty-two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the purchase of automated remote electric and water meters by South River, N.J. remained in the energy and water development funding bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 589
Jul 17, 2009
(H.R. 3183) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment that would have eliminated a $6.2 million earmark for the removal of Pier 36 in San Francisco from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) that would have eliminated a $6.2 million earmark for the removal of Pier 36 in San Francisco from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments.

Rep. Hensarling, in his statement in support of deleting the funds, first said: ?(A)lthough I have no doubt that removal of this pier must be a good thing, I'm kind of curious why the San Francisco Port Authority doesn't pay for it itself. I don't think the Federal Government owns this particular pier. I'm not going to debate that it's not a good use of money. I question whether or not it is a good use of the Federal taxpayer money at this time (of large deficits)?. Hensarling argued that was an example of the unfortunate ?culture of spending? that has created the deficits and that: ?(U)nless you change the culture of spending, you're never going to change spending.?

Hensarling noted that this earmark was inserted by Speaker of the House Pelosi (D-CA), who represents the San Francisco area. He claimed that ?(S)he, more than anybody else, can lead by example. And I'm disappointed this earmark was brought to us today.? He quoted her as previously saying ?I'd just soon do away with all earmarks,'' and then asked rhetorically ?Why is she bringing at least two of them today??

Rep. Pastor (D-AZ), a member of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3183, argued against the amendment. He first noted that the removal of the pier by the U.S. Corps of Engineers had been authorized in 2007. Pastor then said that the deteriorating sections of decking and wooden support pieces of the pier ?continue to rot, break, and float into the bay, which represents a potential hazard to navigation in the adjacent Federal Channel.? He argued that the pier removal ?is needed to ensure that the continued deterioration . . . would not cause a threat to navigation and the chemicals (in the pier) . . . would be eliminated as an environmental hazard.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 128-299. One hundred and twenty-five Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifth-three Democrats and forty-six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the removal of Pier 36 in San Francisco remained in the energy and water development funding bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 588
Jul 17, 2009
(H.R. 3183) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment that would have eliminated a $500,000 earmark for heating and air conditioning improvements at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) that would have eliminated a $500,000 earmark for the heating and air conditioning improvements at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments.

Rep. Hensarling, in his statement in support of deleting the funds, first raised the question of whether it is ?the responsibility of the Federal taxpayer to pay for this improvement in a heating, ventilation and air conditioning system.? He then raised the question: ?(A)nd if it's a federal responsibility is it really a federal priority?? Hensarling went on to note the projected trillion dollar federal deficit for fiscal year 2009, and asked, rhetorically: ?(A)nd if it's a Federal priority, is it equal to other Federal priorities? Is it as important for spending money for the National Institutes of Health to find the cure for cancer? Is it as important as spending money on our veterans? health care system? And particularly in this economy is it as important as giving tax relief to small business, the job engine in America??  Hensarling concluded his remarks by arguing that ?(S)pending is out of control. Let?s start (saving) somewhere.?

Rep. Maloney (D-NY, who was responsible for having the earmark inserted in H.R. 3183, responded by first claiming that the earmark had been reviewed by the Department of Energy, which ?decided that it will not only directly and positively impact my district but the Nation at large.? Maloney claimed that the innovative equipment that will be purchased with the earmarked funds will be energy-efficient, and the result will be ?a significant savings to the environment and a substantial reduction in energy use by a major museum.?

Maloney added that the Metropolitan Museum of Art ?is a national treasure . . . a cultural and artistic center in our country, and . . . part of the economic lifeblood of New York and this country. It pays considerable taxes, and it also generates revenues in our city from the over 5 million annual visitors to the museum. It is one of the top tourist attractions in the country, and by supporting this funding request, you support the thousands of small businesses in the community that will benefit from the many who visit it.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 133-290. One hundred and twenty-seven Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-five Democrats and forty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the heating and air conditioning improvements at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art remained in the energy and water development funding bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 587
Jul 17, 2009
(H.R. 3183) On the Flake of Arizona amendment that would have eliminated a $1,600,000 earmark for the Boston Architectural College's Urban Sustainability Initiative from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated a $1,600,000 earmark for the Boston Architectural College's Urban Sustainability Initiative from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of which Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments.

Rep. Flake noted in his statement in support of the amendment that the funds in this earmark would be used to construct a project in the Back Bay area of Boston, which he described as ?one of Boston's most high-rent neighborhoods.? Flake went on to say, ?perhaps this program is worthy of Federal money. Perhaps it isn't. It should have to compete for it. If we don't like the way the Federal agencies have set up the programs for competition, we should change them . . . But instead, here we're saying we don't like the way you do it over there so we're going to create a parallel (earmark) system and we are going to do it ourselves, and that's simply not right.? Flake went on to say: ?(E)armarks mean that you forego the competitive process. You circumvent it. You tell those that are competing for moneys like this, you will have to take a backseat because we're going to take that money that you could have competed for and we are going to give it to somebody else.? He concluded his remarks by arguing: ?(W)e simply can't afford to continue to earmark dollars for this program or others when we're running a deficit that could approach $2 trillion this year.?

Rep. Capuano (D-MA), who was responsible for having the earmark inserted in H.R. 3183, acknowledged that Back Bay ?is an affluent neighborhood?, but then added that the Boston Architectural College's ?is not affluent. The neighborhood is not doing the work; the school is going to do it. The neighborhood will benefit from it in some indirect way because they all live near the Charles River. The storm water currently runs into the Charles River and pollutes it.? Capuano then added: ?(T)his college does not have a lobbyist (and) . . . no one from the school has ever donated to my campaign.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 111-316. One hundred and six Republicans and five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty Democrats and sixty-six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Boston Architectural College's Urban Sustainability Initiative remained in the energy and water development funding bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 585
Jul 17, 2009
(H.R. 3183) On the Flake of Arizona amendment that would have eliminated a $2,000,000 earmark for the West Coast Port of Embarkation site from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated a $2,000,000 earmark for the Fort Mason Center Pier 2 Project at the West Coast Port of Embarkation site from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments.

Supporters of the funds for the site, through which immigrants from Asia passed before entering the United States, claimed that it set a standard for historic preservation and urban planning. Rep. Flake pointed out that the facility previously received a $13 million federal earmark. He then said ?I don't know why in the world we keep earmarking dollars for centers like this. They clearly are in areas, in this case, San Francisco, where there is other funding or other funding is already used.?

Flake referenced the fact the Speaker of the House Pelosi (D-CA), who represents the San Francisco area, had the funds inserted in the bill. He then returned to the argument he had been making during consideration of a number of funding bills, that ?58 percent of the (earmarked) funding is going to just 24 percent of the body, people who know their power and know that they can get earmarks.? He concluded his remarks by asking, rhetorically, ?(A)t what point do we say we have to make priorities here? When you have a deficit that may hit $2 trillion this year, at what point do we say we can't spend another $2 million for the Fort Mason Center Pier 2 earmark??

Rep. Pastor (D-AZ), a member of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3183, argued against the amendment. He said that the area around the Port of Embarkation site ?has been developing to assist the people of San Francisco and the surrounding areas as a center for culture, education and recreation and . . . this is an earmark that continues the development of the center.? Pastor also said that ?(T)he continued development of the center will now include more and extensive use of solar and wind energy and will serve as a model for sustainable practices within a historically sensitive context.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 125-301. One hundred and twenty Republicans and five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty Democrats and fifty-one Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the West Coast Port of Embarkation site remained in the energy and water development funding bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 584
Jul 17, 2009
(H.R. 3183) On the Flake of Arizona amendment that would have eliminated a $500,000 earmark for researching ethanol at Arkansas State University from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated $500,000 in funding for researching the potential of generating ethanol from agricultural products at The Arkansas State University Biosciences Institute from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments.

Flake had not only been opposing including earmarks in funding bills, but had also been arguing that those earmarks go disproportionately to powerful House Members. Flake noted that, 58 percent of the earmarked dollars in H.R. 3183 went to the districts of only 24 percent of all House Members. He referred to the situation as ?a spoils system? and complained that ?a small number of people in this body control too many of the dollars . . . .?

He also opposed including this $500,000 because the government was already spending a lot of money on ethanol. He noted that the $420 billion had been spent on ethanol research and . . . 30 years later, we are still subsidizing at about $28 billion annually . . . At some point, you have to question are we doing the right thing here with our dollars. When we are already spending $28 billion annually, does it make sense to throw in another $500,000 to Arkansas State University? Are they going to discover something that $28 billion annually for about 30 years has not discovered?? Flake also repeated an argument he had been making against many earmarks that they spent additional money unnecessarily at the same time ?we have a deficit nearing $2 trillion.?

Rep. Berry (D-AR), the Member responsible for having the earmark inserted in the funding bill, opposed the amendment. He said that the United States had succeeded economically and led the work in technology because of research, and that reducing it now would be ?the most foolish thing we could possibly do in this country.? Berry stated that the particular research that this earmark would fund is studying how to take straw left after a harvest and ?convert it to 270 gallons of ethanol.? He said the research will also study how to do the same thing with other crops and ?make it work for the American people and reduce our need for foreign oil.? Berry added that the Biosciences Institute, which would do the research, was created and funded by the state of Arkansas, which has made ?tremendous investments? in it.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 102-318. Ninety-five Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and seventy-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for ethanol research at Arkansas State University remained in the energy and water development funding bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
N N Won
Roll Call 581
Jul 17, 2009
(H.R. 3183) On the Campbell of California amendment that would have eliminated a $1,000,000 earmark for the Housatonic River Net-Zero Energy Building in Massachusetts from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA) that would have eliminated a $1,000,000 earmark for the Housatonic River Net-Zero Energy Building project at the Housatonic River Museum in Pittsfield, Massachusetts from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An ?earmark? is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. legislatively mandated grant or project inserted at the request of an individual Member in a funding bill. Several Republican Members, including Campbell, had been trying to have a number of earmarks removed from funding bills.

Rep. Campbell noted in his remarks against the earmark that the museum for which it is intended ?doesn't currently exist . . . they're still in the design and development phase of this building, and . . . would not even have construction completed until 2012. And of course, this is the appropriations funding for 2010, so this funding would be available for the museum 2 years before even their Web site indicates they might be completed.?

Rep. Olver, the Member responsible for having the earmark inserted, responded by noting that Congress created the Upper Housatonic National Heritage Area in 2006, and that the Housatonic River Museum was being created to focus on the cultural history of the area. Olver also noted that 90% ?of the money for this project is being raised privately, but the money provided in this bill will allow the museum to maximize energy conservation and efficiency using passive strategies such as natural lighting, natural ventilation, water conservation, high-performance building materials, and, in addition, to generate enough power for its own needs, all from renewable sources utilizing photovoltaic panels, recycled wood pellet boilers and a geothermal well system. The museum will return excess power to the public electricity grid when available and possible. All of these techniques and processes for energy conservation and efficiency will be made available for explanation and demonstration to thousands of visitors of all ages, but especially to school-age children from near and far.? Olver also noted that the museum ?will serve as a flagship demonstration project and an example of sustainable construction.

Olver acknowledged that the museum is not yet under construction, and Campbell raised the possibility that one million dollars could be going to a museum that never gets built. Campbell concluded his remarks in support of the amendment by asking, rhetorically, ?should the taxpayers from California and Texas and Louisiana and every place else put their tax money towards subsidizing a privately funded museum in Massachusetts no matter how admirable the message that that museum may be??

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 121-303. One hundred and eighteen Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-nine Democrats and fifty-four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Housatonic River Net-Zero Energy Building project at the Housatonic River Museum remained in the energy and water development funding bill.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Won
Roll Call 580
Jul 17, 2009
(H.R. 3183) On the Blackburn of Tennessee amendment that would have made a 5% across-the-board cut in all discretionary amounts in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. The amendment would have made a 5% across-the-board cut in all discretionary amounts in the bill, which would have reduced its total amount by $1.7 billion. Rep. Blackburn noted in her remarks that federal spending on energy and water programs increased by 183% between 2006 and 2009, with the programs funded by the 2010 bill having already $51 billion in stimulus funding and $7 billion in supplemental funding in fiscal year 2009.

Blackburn also justified the proposed cut by noting that, in 2009, Congress had already generated a trillion-dollar deficit, which she said ?represents the height of fiscal irresponsibility and is absolutely unconscionable.? She concluded her remarks by saying that she finds it ?absolutely incomprehensible that this body is not willing to turn to the bureaucrats that line all of these streets and these granite buildings and say, save a nickel out of the dollar.?

Rep. Pastor (D-AZ), a member of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that had developed H.R. 3183 was leading the support for the measure. He opposed the amendment and responded to Rep. Blackburn by claiming that the 2010 bill meets national priorities, ?supports fiscal responsibility?, was only ?slightly above last year's 2009 funding?, and was $1 billion below the President's request. Pastor described the funding levels in the bill as key parts ?of ongoing efforts to meet the infrastructure needs of the country; and after years of neglect, addressing the inadequacies of our national energy policies, we are trying to do it with this bill. Pastor argued that a 5% reduction would ?undercut a number of priorities at a time when we can ill afford to reduce them further.?

Rep. Frelinghuysen was the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that had developed H.R. 3183. He described the figures agreed upon in the bill as ?well balanced? and developed ?in a bipartisan way.? Frelinghuysen added that ?I worry about indiscriminate cuts . . . that would be pretty devastating.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of167-259. One hundred and forty-seven Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-four Democrats and twenty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no across-the-board reduction was made in the energy and water development funding bill.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 577
Jul 17, 2009
(H. R. 1018) On final passage of the Restore Our American Mustangs Act, which was designed to protect wild horses and burros.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the House passage of H.R. 1018, the Restore Our American Mustangs Act. The legislation was enacted, in large part, in response to a Bureau of Land Management announcement that it intended to kill 30,000 healthy horses and burros in its care and a Government Accountability Office review documenting many shortcomings in the federal horse and burro program.

Rep. Rahall (D-WV), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee that developed the bill, said it will prevent the killing of the animals and make the horse and burro program more cost-efficient. Rahall also said it will require consistency in management planning, better methods for calculating the number of animals on the range, strengthen the adoption program so that many more eligible horses and burros can be adopted, and authorize cooperative agreements with individuals and nonprofits so that large numbers of animals might be moved onto non-federal land. 

Rahall emphasized that the bill ?contains no direct spending . . . Any increase in funding for the wild horse and bureau program would be the result of appropriations, not this authorization bill. Increasing the number of federal acres available to horses and burros from the current 13 percent of Bureau of Land Management land back to the 20 percent available to them in 1971 (as the bill does) should not cost the taxpayers anything.?

Rep. Hastings (R-WA), the Ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee that developed the bill, was leading the opposition to it. He asked rhetorically ?what is the response of this Democrat Congress to month after month of lost jobs, record unemployment, out-of-control spending, and skyrocketing deficits? Their response is to vote on a bill to create a $700 million welfare program for wild horses and burros . . . if the American people want an illustration of just how out of touch this Congress has become on spending, they need to look no further than what's happening here on the floor of the House with this issue of wild horses and burros.? Hastings claimed that, when the Republicans controlled the House, they stopped the slaughter of horses and burros with $500,000, but that the Democrats are now doing it with a $700 million bill.

Rep. Lummis (R-WY) also opposed the bill, noting the wild horses were not native to the lands on which they graze and that they do great damage to it. She said the bill ?is based on emotion and not science?, and elevates ?wild horses above threatened and endangered (plant and animal) species?. Lummis noted that it was opposed by the Wyoming Nature Conservancy and Wyoming?s Democratic governor. Rep Moran (D-VA), a bill supporter, responded by saying: ?(T)he Bureau of Land Management's program really isn't working very well. This bill is a much better alternative and The U.S. Geological Survey, the Journal of Wildlife Management, and the General Accountability Office all agree that this (bill) saves more than $6 million as well as saving 30,000 horses.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 239-185. Two hundred and six Democrats and thirty-three Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and thirty-eight Republicans and forty-seven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the Restore Our American Mustangs Act.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 575
Jul 17, 2009
(H. Res, 563) Legislation designed to protect wild horses and burros - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the debate of H.R. 1018, legislation aimed at preventing roundups during which horses and burros were mistreated, promoting adoption of wild horses and burros who are taken off the range, and banning their sale or transfer for their processing into commercial products by the Bureau of Land Management.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), who was leading support for the rule setting the terms for debate of the legislation, described the goal of H.R. 1018 as restoring ?important protections for wild horses and burros.? The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to the fact that the rules for a series of bills, including this one, limited the number of amendments that could be offered. McGovern claimed that ?(R)epublican and Democratic amendments were offered and accepted through the regular order.? Under House procedures, before a bill can be considered, the House must first approve a resolution or rule setting the terms for consideration of the bill, including the number of amendments that may be offered.

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), was leading the opposition to the rule and also opposed the underlying legislation for which the rule set conditions for consideration. Foxx characterized that legislation as ?a $700 million welfare program for wild horses?, and said that it was being brought up ?at a time when more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats' $1 trillion stimulus bill became law and that it is somewhat of an insult to those people.? McGovern answered by arguing that ?this bill will have no cost.?

Foxx added: ?(W)e have a 9.5 percent unemployment rate and a budget deficit of more than $1 trillion which is predicted to go to $2 trillion before the end of the fiscal year. Given those facts, it's a little unclear to know what exactly are the priorities of the Democrats in charge of this Congress.? Referring to the fact that the bill protecting wild horses and burros had nothing to do with the ongoing economic crisis, Foxx argued: ?(T)his is just another example of how out of touch Washington Democrats are . . . I hardly think this is what the American people expect us to be doing these days as they face the many challenges that they're facing.? McGovern said, ?in response to (Rep. Foxx?) question about what the Democratic priorities are, they are to create jobs, they are to pass an energy bill to create more jobs, and to deal with climate change. Our priorities include passing a health care bill that will lower the cost of health care for average Americans.?

Rep. Rahall (D-WV), the Chairman of the House National Resources Committee that developed the legislation responded to Rep. Foxx? remarks by saying that the committee takes very seriously its responsibility as stewards of American?s animals, which he said ?are important responsibilities that the American people value . . . .? Rep. Foxx countered that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that ?we don't believe in growing government.? She said that the subjects of the legislation ?are not the things the Federal Government should be about. The Federal Government should confine itself to the very narrow set of issues laid out for us in the Constitution . . . which says that if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, then it's a province of the States . . . .?

Rep. King (R-IA) opposed the rule and the bill, claiming that the legislation was ?driven by the Human Society of the United States. They have hundreds of millions of dollars, and they have an agenda. They are seeking to take meat off the plates of the American people and all around the globe. So we just dance to this tune in this Congress because they say so.? Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT) noted that, in several western states, there are ?Indian tribes who have a vested interest in the management interest of the horse and burros. For the Democrats to actually deny us an opportunity to allow Native Americans to be represented on the board (overseeing the horses and burros) is just ridiculous?

The resolution passed by a vote of 236-186. Two hundred and thirty-two Democrats and four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixth-six Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to take up the legislation protecting wild horses and burros.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 574
Jul 17, 2009
(H. Res, 653) Legislation designed to protect wild horses and burros - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1018 was aimed at preventing roundups during which horses and burros were mistreated, promoting adoption of wild horses and burros that are taken off the range, and banning their sale or transfer for processing into commercial products by the Bureau of Land Management. This was a vote on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), who was leading support for the rule, described H.R. 1018 as restoring ?important protections for wild horses and burros.? The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to the fact that the rules setting the terms for debate on a series of bills, including this one, limited the number of amendments that could be offered. McGovern claimed that ?(R)epublican and Democratic amendments were offered and accepted through the regular order.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the rule and also opposed the underlying bill for which the rule set conditions for debate. Foxx characterized H.R. 1018 as ?a $700 million welfare program for wild horses?, and said that it was being brought up ?at a time when more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats' $1 trillion stimulus bill became law and that it is somewhat of an insult to those people.? McGovern answered by arguing that ?this bill will have no cost.?

Foxx added: ?(W)e have a 9.5 percent unemployment rate and a budget deficit of more than $1 trillion which is predicted to go to $2 trillion before the end of the fiscal year. Given those facts, it's a little unclear to know what exactly are the priorities of the Democrats in charge of this Congress.? Referring to the fact that H.R. 1018 did not deal with the economic crisis, Foxx argued: ?(T)his is just another example of how out of touch Washington Democrats are . . . I hardly think this is what the American people expect us to be doing these days as they face the many challenges that they're facing.? McGovern answered, ?in response to (Rep. Foxx?) question about what the Democratic priorities are, they are to create jobs, they are to pass an energy bill to create more jobs, and to deal with climate change. Our priorities include passing a health care bill that will lower the cost of health care for average Americans.?

Rep. Rahall (D-WV), the Chairman of the House National Resources Committee that developed H.R. 1018, responded to Rep. Foxx? remarks by saying that his committee takes very seriously its responsibility as stewards of America?s animals, which he said ?are important responsibilities that the American people value . . . .?

Rep. Foxx countered that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that ?we don't believe in growing government.? She said that the subjects of H.R. 1018 ?are not the things the Federal Government should be about. The Federal Government should confine itself to the very narrow set of issues laid out for us in the Constitution . . . which says that if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, then it's a province of the States . . . .?

Rep. King (R-IA) opposed the rule and the bill, claiming that the legislation was driven by the Human Society of the United States. King said: ?(T)hey have hundreds of millions of dollars, and they have an agenda. They are seeking to take meat off the plates of the American people and all around the globe. So we just dance to this tune in this Congress because they say so.? Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT) noted that, in several western states, there are ?Indian tribes who have a vested interest in the management interest of the horse and burros. For the Democrats to actually deny us an opportunity to allow Native Americans to be represented on the board (overseeing the horses and burros) is just ridiculous?

The resolution passed by a vote of 232-188. Two hundred and thirty Democrats and two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and eighteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debate of H.R. 1018.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 573
Jul 17, 2009
A resolution to prevent the FCC from implementing the ?Fairness Doctrine?, which required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a balanced way - - on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling that the resolution was not in order

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Fairness Doctrine is a rule of the Federal Communications Commission that requires the holders of broadcast license to present, in a balanced way, controversial issues of public importance. Rep. Walden (R-OR) had offered a ?privileged? resolution that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to implement the doctrine; the House is required to vote on privileged resolutions immediately. However, the Walden resolution had been ruled out of order based on a precedent that a privileged resolution could not be used to prevent the FCC from implementing a regulation. Rep Walden had appealed that ruling. This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) his appeal.

Rep. Walden, a former owner of a radio station claimed that the doctrine was developed at a time when there were comparatively few broadcasting outlets and that ?(T)here are now over 10,000 nationwide radio stations,? with different agendas and philosophies . . . .?

Conservative groups argued against the doctrine, claiming that it would limit the free speech rights of broadcasting stations. Progressive supporters of the doctrine argued that it will promote the free flow of all ideas. Conservatives responded to that point by claiming that progressives support the doctrine as a way of neutralizing the impact of talk radio, which is dominated by conservative hosts.

The appeal of the ruling was tabled (killed) by a vote of 238-174 on an almost straight party line basis. All two hundred and thirty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Four other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House decided not to take up a resolution aimed at preventing the FCC from implementing the ?Fairness Doctrine.?


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media
Y Y Won
Roll Call 571
Jul 16, 2009
(H. R. 3170) On passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 3170, providing fiscal 2010 year funds for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The bill provided $24.15 billion in funding, which represented a 7% increase above the fiscal year 2009 level. The funding focused on five areas: Supporting and expanding the regulatory agencies; providing capital and other assistance grants to small businesses and low-income communities, including $236 million more for the Small Business Administration and $137 million more for the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund; supporting, and accommodating the additional work load of the federal courts;  providing for tax collections and taxpayer assistance by the IRS; funding many of the operations of the local government of the District of Columbia.

The bill also included a provision eliminating the prohibition on using local D.C. tax funds for abortions. Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-WI), arguing in support of the measure, said it was a ?key part of efforts to restore the stability of, and public confidence in, America's financial institutions.? Rep. Serrano (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3170, claimed that the funds in the bill are ?directed to those programs where we believe the American people will derive the most benefit.?

Rep. Emerson (R-MO), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3179, said she was ?disappointed? that the Appropriations Committee was not working ?together in a totally bipartisan way?. Emerson said that the amount in the bill was ?much too large? and that ?the resource requirements of the agencies funded in the bill can be met with a smaller allocation.? She argued that ?at a time when every household in America faces difficult budgetary choices, Congress must be diligent when spending the taxpayers' money. The Federal Government, in this bill, is growing at an incredible rate at a time when employers who I represent in the district have cut jobs, and when people are really hurting. They're making the tough choices, and we really should too, as an example to them.?

Emerson went on to say that the 7% funding increase in the bill ?goes straight to the bureaucracy's bottom line. We're not making the tough decisions the American people feel we should consider at a crucial time for our Nation's economy.? She also expressed her objection to the rule that had set the terms under which H.R. 3179 was being considered. Emerson noted that only 17 amendments had been made in order under the rule, although requests for 97 amendments had been submitted to the Rules Committee. She argued that the rule did not display ?bipartisanship or regular order.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 219-208. Two hundred and fifteen Democrats and four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and thirty-eight Democrats voted ?nay? As a result, the House approved legislation providing 2010 fiscal year funding for a range of government operations and sent it on to the Senate.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 570
Jul 16, 2009
(H.R.3170) On tabling (killing) an appeal of a ruling of the House Speaker that a motion to prohibit federal funds from being used by the District of Columbia to perform abortions was out of order

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling of the House Speaker that a motion to prohibit federal funds from being used by the District of Columbia to perform abortions was out of order.

Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS) had moved to add language to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 federal funding for the District of Columbia. That language would have prohibited any funds in the bill from being used by the District to perform abortions. The motion to add that language had been ruled out of order by the Member who was sitting in the chair in the place of House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA). The basis of the ruling that had been appealed was that House procedures do not allow new law, such as Tiahrt was proposing, to be created in a spending bill.

Tiahrt began his remarks against the ruling and on behalf of his appeal by referring to the constitutional requirement that Congress oversee the expenditure of funds in the District of Columbia. He noted that: ?(I)t has been said that we are sidestepping our responsibility, or overstepping our responsibility by becoming mayor and city council member for the District of Columbia. But, in fact, we (do) have a constitutional requirement to deal with the finances of the District of Columbia.? Tiahrt then said that many Members of Congress had ?asked to have an opportunity to reduce the number of abortions (in the District of Columbia) . . . .? He urged that his motion to recommit be made in order ?so that we can have this clean up-or-down vote on the restriction of (abortion) funds in this spending bill.?

The appeal was killed on a vote of 225-195. All two hundred and twenty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-six other Democrats joined one hundred and sixty-nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the ruling of the chair prevailed. The House effectively decided not to prohibit the District of Columbia from using federal funds to perform abortions.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
Absent Y Won
Roll Call 568
Jul 16, 2009
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona amendment to, which would have eliminated a $100,000 earmark for the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse in Pennsylvania.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $100,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Tech Belt Life Sciences project of the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse is a private-public partnership that assists entrepreneurial life science enterprises in western Pennsylvania. An earmark is a legislatively mandated grant or project that is inserted into an appropriations bill at the request of a particular member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

Rep. Flake used a statement made by the CEO of the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse to support his amendment. The CEO had claimed that the objective of the tech belt was to ?create some excitement and get funding from the federal government? to build up the region. Flake said: ?(I)t's been successful at that. Believe me. There's a lot of money that has gone in federal earmark money, that's for sure . . . in this year's omnibus appropriation act alone, (the) district received $55 million in federal funding from earmarks.?

Rep. Doyle (D-PA) was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the appropriations bill. He noted in his statement that the goal of this facility ?is to promote partnerships between various biotech industries and encourage growth in biosciences.? He noted that ?the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse has worked with companies in over 20 counties throughout western Pennsylvania (and that) . . . $14.5 million has been committed in over 60 companies which have leveraged over $300 million in additional funding from venture capitalists and angel investors. 228 companies have been launched or grown using Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse services. Over 300 jobs have been created or retained in the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse-invested companies.?

Doyle also claimed that this Tech Belt Life Science Project ?takes these activities to the next level by creating . . . $1 billion in combined National Institute of Health research dollars which can spin off hundreds of companies and, in turn, create jobs.? He concluded his remarks by saying this will ?improve public health, generate economic growth in a region in need of jobs, and ultimately make the region an international destination for biosciences and high-tech innovation. Promoting such growth and development not only benefits the State of Ohio, but the State of Pennsylvania and the entire country as a whole.?

Rep Ryan (D-OH) also opposed the amendment. He referred in his remarks to Rep. Flake?s continued effort to reduce federal earmark funding, which Flake almost always targeted to local areas. Ryan claimed that Flake?s congressional district in Arizona ?wouldn't even exist (but for) . . . the $7 billion Central Arizona Project . . . paid for by the taxes of the steelworkers in Pittsburgh.? Ryan concluded by saying that states with older industries ?helped build the West . . . and now we're saying we need to retool our economy.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 104-325. Ninety-eight Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty Democrats and seventy-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Tech Belt Life Sciences project of the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse remained in H.R. 3170. 


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 567
Jul 16, 2009
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona, which would have eliminated a $100,000 earmark for the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Conference Center in South Carolina.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $100,000 earmark for the expansion of the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Conference Center in Myrtle, Beach, South Carolina. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

During his remarks regarding the amendment, Rep. Flake acknowledged that he was frustrated because the Republicans ?were in the majority for the first 6 years (and) . . . We could have cut (spending) but we didn't. And now we have appropriators now in the minority party blaming the appropriators in the majority party for doing what we should have done a few years ago.? He also repeated an argument that he had been making, during the consideration of a series of spending bills, that earmarks are disproportionately given to powerful House Members, calling it ?the spoils system?. Flake used as evidence of this argument the fact that ?70 percent of the dollar value of (all) earmarks go to just 24 percent of the House . . . .?

Regarding this particular earmark, Flake noted that the center in Myrtle Beach already draws a large number of civic and public events, having hosted over 500 different groups in 2008, has had a reported annual economic impact of more than $55 million, and was the site of the 2008 South Carolina GOP presidential candidates debate. He then asked, rhetorically, ?(W)hy in the world are we spending another $100,000, when we have nearly a $2 trillion deficit, for a . . . convention and conference center? There are convention and conference centers all over the country. There are many in my home State of Arizona. Why we should choose one and say they're worthy of an earmark and the other one isn't, and saying that they shouldn't compete for dollars . . . ??

Rep. Emerson (R-MO), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, opposed the amendment. She noted that the ?funding recommendations included in this bill were made in full compliance with the applicable rules and procedures of the House, and the Small Business Administration was given an opportunity to vet this project, and provided the committee with no negative feedback regarding the project or the grantee.?

Rep. Brown (R-SC) was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the spending bill. He began his statement in opposition to the amendment by saying that ?the economy of Myrtle Beach is suffering . . . The tourism industry is the number one industry in the Myrtle Beach region, and the lifeblood of the surrounding area. The Myrtle Beach International Trade and Conference Center is an important part of that industry, with local economy impact . . . However, it has reached capacity, limiting its ability to attract major conventions. In light of this, the community has embarked upon a multiyear effort to expand the Center, funded through a mix of local and other dollars.?

Brown argued: (N)ot only will improvements to the Center assist in attracting national conventions to Myrtle Beach, which will result in more good-paying jobs for the region, but it also serves as the emergency command center for the city of Myrtle Beach in the event of a hurricane or other types of national disasters, which is why this project has received past support from the Department of Homeland Security.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 99-332. Eight-eight Republicans and eleven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and eighty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the International Trade and Conference Center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina remained H.R. 3170. 


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 566
Jul 16, 2009
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, would have eliminated a $125,000 earmark for the Defense Procurement Assistance Program in Pennsylvania.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $125,000 earmark for the Defense Procurement Assistance Program of the Economic Growth Connection of Westmoreland in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. This earmark was designed to provide funding to small and medium-sized business in the area with additional support in the government contracting and acquisition process. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

Rep. Serrano (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, opposed the amendment. He said that the Defense Procurement Assistance Program advances the goals of developing small business by offering assistance ?on how to work with the Defense Department, including assistance with federal acquisition regulations and workforce training; acting as a liaison between prime contractors and local suppliers to identify opportunities for subcontracting; conducting seminars to enhance the skill sets of the local workforce in this supply chain, including workshops on military certifications, process improvements, and quality assurance; and developing a manufacturing database to identify local companies and their capabilities.? Serrano claimed that ?over the last 3 years, clients (of the program) have been awarded on average $40 million each year in procurement contracts.?

Rep. Flake said the congressional district in which the Economic Growth Connection of Westmoreland (is) located, is ?hardly the poorest of the poor.? He noted that the district ?has benefited from more than a billion dollars in federal contracts from 2004 to 2009?, and claimed that the majority of those contracts were not awarded on a fully competitive basis. Flake concluded his remarks by arguing ?if we're going to step up at any time, and say, enough is enough, let's step up here; for an earmark for $125,000 to go to . . . an area that (already) receives billions and billions of dollars in defense procurement.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 119-312. One hundred and nine Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and sixty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Defense Procurement Assistance Program of the Economic Growth Connection of Westmoreland in Greensburg, Pennsylvania remained in H.R.3170. 


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 565
Jul 16, 2009
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona, which would have eliminated $90,000 earmarked for the Commercial Kitchen Business Incubator in California.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $90,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Commercial Kitchen Business Incubator in Watsonville, California. The funding was for the purchase of industrial kitchen equipment for food service microenterprise to be used by this small business incubator. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

Rep. Farr (D-CA) was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the spending bill. He first noted that the local area around Watsonville, California had been suffering economically and had an unemployment rate over 25 percent. Farr then said the area was rich in crops and had been trying to ?create businesses that people who have no capital, have no ability to go out and borrow money can start (and one of those) . . . is the catering business . . . .? Farr also said ?in order to do that and to get into the commercial world, you have to have a commercially licensed kitchen.? Farr concluded his remarks by saying the amendment goes ?after the poorest of the poor who want to get on their feet, who want to get off welfare and have that American Dream.?

Rep. Flake, speaking on behalf of his amendment, said ?there are a lot of areas in the country that are hurting . . . (and) there are a lot of business incubator services provided by chambers of commerce, trade associations and private sector organizations just wishing to supply services and to make a dollar. And yet now they are going to be asked to compete with a government entity that is receiving federal largesse. And it simply doesn't work very well. We know we don't have sufficient money to spread around to everybody who wants it. We are running a deficit that could approach $2 trillion. So we have to prioritize here. I would suggest it is time to say that we can no longer fund these business incubators that have kind of a nebulous mission . . . . ?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 120-311. One hundred and twelve Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-eight Democrats and sixty-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Commercial Kitchen Business Incubator in Watsonville, California remained in H.R. 3170. 


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Absent N Won
Roll Call 564
Jul 16, 2009
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have eliminated $100,000 earmarked for the Florida Institute of Technology.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $100,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Activity Based Total Accountability Project of the Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Florida. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

Rep. Flake noted in his statement in support of the amendment that the earmarked funds are ?to be used for, quote, activity-based total accountability.? He then said ?I find it ironic that we are using the least accountable system, (earmarks), for distributing funds in order to increase transparency somewhere else. At some point, we are all going to scratch our heads and say, wouldn't it be better when we are running at what could be a $2 trillion deficit this year to actually save the money and not spend it and concede to the taxpayers we can't continue to go on this way??

Rep. Culberson (R-TX), a Republican member of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3170, opposed the amendment. He said: ?(O)n a bipartisan basis, we have scrutinized thousands of Members' requests and recommended funding for those projects that the committee believes are most meritorious. In addition, the Small Business Administration was given an opportunity to vet this project and provided the committee with no negative feedback regarding the project or the grantee.?

Rep. Posey (R-FL) was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the appropriations bill. He argued that activity-based total accountability, which is what the earmarked project deals with, ?helps us better understand unit-based accounting--what it does, what it costs the government to accomplish a certain task, how does that compare on a State-by-State basis . . . It's the most useful kind of cost accounting which presents the cost for all government activities in a format anyone can understand. Taxpayers can see line by line what government actually accomplishes with its resources.?

Posey noted that the Florida legislature established the Activity-Based Total Accountability Institute on a strong bipartisan vote, and that the state had put $750,000 into the institute. He also noted that activity-based total accountability has been proposed as model legislation by the American Legislative Exchange Council, which he described as ?the Nation's oldest and largest bipartisan and nonprofit association of State lawmakers?. Posey then argued: ?(I)f you support better government accountability, you should vote against this amendment . . . .?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 102-326. Ninety-five Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and seventy-nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Activity Based Total Accountability Project of the Florida Institute of Technology remained in H.R.3170. 


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 563
Jul 16, 2009
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona amendment that would have eliminated $150,000 earmarked in the bill for the Green Business Incubator in Maryland.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $150,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Green Business Incubator project of Montgomery County, Maryland. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from appropriation bills.

Rep. Flake said in his statement in support of the amendment that there is a department for economic development in thousands of counties, ?but we're singling out one here, the Montgomery County Department of Economic Development. We're saying, you don't have to compete with everybody else for any dollars that the Small Business Administration has to send out, because we're going to earmark those dollars, and you're going to get them regardless of the merit of your program. It may be good; it may not be, but it doesn't matter because a powerful Member of Congress can simply say you're going to get that money, and that's what's happening here.? Flake also argued that many private-sector organizations across the country already provide the kind of business incubation services that this earmark would support with public funds.

Flake then repeated an argument that he had been making, during the consideration of a series of appropriation bills, that earmarks are disproportionately given to powerful House Members. Flake claimed that ?60 percent of the share of earmarks are associated with appropriators, leadership, committee chairs or ranking minority members, who comprise just 24 percent of this body, and 70 percent of the dollar value is associated with that group.? Flake said that other entities that apply for funding from the Small Business Administration for the same category of funds earmarked for the Montgomery County incubator ?won't be able to compete because a particular powerful Member of Congress simply siphoned off the funding so that an organization or institution in his or her district could receive those funds without competing for them. . . . It's basically an acknowledgement that you don't want the organization or institution in your district or elsewhere to compete for the funding, so you are going to ensure that they get it.?

Rep. Van Hollen (D-MD), who was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the spending bill, noted that Montgomery County, Maryland had become one of the nation's centers in the biotech area. He claimed that ?(O)ne of the reasons they were able to do that is they pursued a successful strategy of creating incubators.?

Van Hollen also noted that the country was moving toward clean energy technology and energy efficiency, and that: ?(T)hese funds would be used by Montgomery County on a competitive basis to provide seed funding for (energy-efficient) startup small businesses, companies that have to meet very rigorous criteria, just as the kind of criteria they used and was applied in the biotech sector. So I think this is an incredible example of strong public-private partnerships. Again, these will be distributed on a very competitive basis.?

Rep. Edwards (D-MD), who was also responsible for having the earmark inserted in the spending bill, argued that the amendment would ?prohibit funding for a project that will have a tremendously positive economic impact not only to Montgomery County but to the entire State of Maryland.? She also said project is an example of how local communities ?can spark economic growth within a region . . . with small local businesses that are most closely connected to the people and their communities.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 114-318. One hundred and eleven Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-four Democrats and sixty-four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Green Business Incubator in Montgomery County, Maryland remained in H.R. 3170. 


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 562
Jul 16, 2009
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have eliminated $200,000 earmarked for the Greenstone Group project, a small business incubator in Minnesota.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $200,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Greenstone Group project of the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund, a small business incubator located in Virginia, Minnesota. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

Rep. Flake argued in his statement in support of the amendment that this project ?is something that private-sector organizations, chambers of commerce, trade associations, and other businesses offer and do all over this country--hundreds in every State. Yet here we are singling one out and are saying this one is worthy of a Federal earmark, and we're going to give $200,000 to it. That's not right. We can't continue to spend money this way.  Every dime that we are spending over and above what we spent last year, and a lot of what we spent last year, is borrowed. When will we decide enough is enough and that we can't continue to do business as usual and fund earmarks in this fashion??

Rep. Oberstar (D-MN), who was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the spending bill, argued that the amendment would ?be muzzling job-creating opportunities in northeastern Minnesota, an area in my district where unemployment rates are 12.9 percent, 15 percent and 16 percent in one community after another.? Oberstar claimed that The Entrepreneur Fund ?has created 1,000 businesses (and) 2,500 jobs (for) people who are . . . paying Federal, State and local taxes that would not otherwise be paid. The return to the federal government on this investment is significant and real and tangible. The Entrepreneur Fund has provided $7 million in loans to 350 businesses. Over 9,000 individuals have been helped by the fund . . . . ?

Oberstar then referred to Rep. Flake?s comment that other entities should be providing this funding and said: ?(T)hey're not doing it all by themselves . . . the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Blandin Foundation, Minnesota Power Company, and the Lloyd K. Johnson Foundation all are partners and participants with the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund and with the Greenstone Group. There is a public-private partnership that has been very successful and that has the support of the private sector.? Oberstar added that ?the Entrepreneur Fund and the Greenstone Group . . . provide, in participation with the private sector, professional business coaching. People with real world business experience have helped these beginning entrepreneurs do the right thing--develop good business plans, get on their feet, and operate successful businesses . . . This is a good investment of Federal dollars.?

Rep. Flake responded that ?rather than continuing to fund entities that have received earmarks year after year and that have no real prospect of not being reliant on federal government funding in the future, we've got to say enough is enough.? Rep Oberstar answered: ?(W)hen (Rep Flake) waves his magic wand over the northeastern part of my district and restores economic stability and growth and job creation, then we won't need this helping hand.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 93-337. Eighty-nine Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and eighty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Greenstone Group project of the Northeast Minnesota Entrepreneur Fund remained in H.R. 3170. 


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 560
Jul 16, 2009
(H.R. 3170) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have eliminated $200,000 that had been earmarked for the Commercial Driver Training Institute of Arkansas State University.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $200,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Commercial Driver Training Institute project of Arkansas State University. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

Rep. Flake began his remarks in support of his amendment by saying he was ?all for driver safety . . . .? He then went on to say he was ?not sure why the federal government is funding this particular driving program. Nor do I understand why this institute is receiving another earmark, having received nearly a quarter of a million dollars in earmark funds in the omnibus bill that we passed just a few short months ago. In fact, it appears that this institute was established and built in part with taxpayer dollars, federal taxpayer dollars, thanks to a nearly $350,000 earmark it received in the fiscal year 2008 transportation spending bill . . .there are dozens . . . of commercial driving training schools all over the country. None of them have received this kind of federal largesse. Why do we continue to fund institutes like this? Aren't some of the others just as deserving? Or is it just because we have Members in a position to do it??

Rep. Flake then repeated an argument that he had been making during the consideration of a series of spending bills and noted that: ?(S)ixty percent of the earmarks in this bill are going to just 24 percent of the body. That represents appropriators, chairmen, ranking minority members, so-called powerful Members . . . this is a trend that we've seen throughout the appropriation bills this year, a small number of Members get a big chunk of the cash.?

Rep. Berry, (D-AR), who was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the spending bill, first argued that the Constitution provides for members of Congress to direct how federal funds are spent. He then said that the truck driving course that the funds will support trains workers for good jobs in an area that had experienced difficult economic times.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 115-314. One hundred and nine Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-nine Democrats and sixty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Commercial Driver Training Institute project of Arkansas State University remained in H.R. 3170. 


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 558
Jul 16, 2009
(H.R. 3170) On the Broun of Georgia amendment, which would have prohibited any funds going to the president?s ?climate czar?, deputy ?climate czar?, or the Council on Environmental Quality.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Broun (R-GA) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Council on Environmental Quality, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have prohibited any funds in the bill from going to the Assistant to the President on Energy and Climate Change, the so-called ?climate czar?, the Deputy Assistant to the President on Energy and Climate Change, the so-called ?deputy climate czar?, or any position in the Council on Environmental Quality. Rep Broun said he offered this amendment as a way to stop an executive branch practice of avoiding Senate confirmation requirements and congressional oversight by appointing officials such as the ones for whom his amendment would prohibit funding. Broun acknowledged both Democratic and Republican administrations have engaged in this practice.

In his statement in support of the amendment, Broun said he did not have a problem with any administration ?seeking advice from outside experts on the important issues of the day.? Broun argued that the Council on Environmental Quality operates under a ?veil of secrecy (which) . . . should be unacceptable to every Member of this House. It's no small secret that the council's actions are overtly political and lacking a proper legislative check, and it didn't just happen overnight. The previous administration's Council on Environmental Quality had its fair share of problems as well. Congress has the authority and responsibility to oversee the administration, and we're not doing our job, frankly, and it's about time for us to do our job. ?

Broun also argued that the Assistant to the President on Energy and Climate Change appointed by President Obama ?doesn't look at (the) scientific facts that there are thousands of scientists that say that there is minimal, if any, human effect on global temperatures.? He added that this administration has given (her) tremendous amounts of power outside the purview of what they should have under the Constitution . . . We have an administration that has loaded up this council with people who are carrying out a political process, and it's been politicized, and it should be totally unacceptable.?

Rep. Dicks (D-WA), who chairs the Interior and Environmental Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, opposed the amendment. He suggested that the real purpose of Rep. Broun was to ?defund the Council on Environmental Quality?, which Dicks noted was created by a Republican president (Nixon). Dicks described the amendment as representing ?a misguided view on the subject of climate change and global warming?, and argued that: ?(A)s the United States finally faces up to its responsibility to adapt to climate change, (Rep, Broun) wants to hobble our efforts for some illogical reason.? Dicks also opposed preventing the funding of the positions of Assistant, and Deputy Assistant, on Energy and Climate Change, and said ?(W)e need all of the expertise that we can muster as we figure out how to adapt and mitigate climate change.?

Rep. Serrano (D-NY), who chaired the subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee that developed H.R. 3170, also opposed the amendment. He said: ?(I)t's amazing that we hear about oversight now . . . (since) the other side never claimed oversight when the (Bush) White House was having meetings determining what our energy policy should be between the White House and lobbyists and no Members of Congress were present . . . .?

The vote was defeated by a vote of 149-282. One hundred and forty-eight Republicans and one Democrat voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-five Democrats and twenty-seven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no prohibition on funds for the Assistant or Deputy Assistant to the President on Energy and Climate Change, or for the Council on Environmental Quality, was added to H.R. 3170. 


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 557
Jul 16, 2009
(H.R. 3170) On the Blackburn of Tennessee amendment to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have reduced all discretionary funding in the bill by 5%.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have made an across-the-board cut of 5% in all discretionary funding in the bill. H.R. 3170 had $24 billion of discretionary spending, which meant that the amendment would have reduced the amount by $1.2 billion.

Rep. Blackburn said in her statement in support of the amendment that she expected the Democratic majority to argue ?how responsible the bill is? and that the programs it funds ?are just too vital to be cut.? She then asked, rhetorically, ?How many hard choices can possibly be being made by Members of this Chamber when every year we spend more and more and more.? Blackburn said she would concede that ?indeed we do have critical programs that need to be funded.? She then went on to urge that ?in this economy, when people are losing their jobs, when businesses are struggling, with a $1 trillion deficit already on the books for this year, we consider reducing by 5 percent the amount (of spending in the bill) . . . .?

Rep. Serrano (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, opposed the amendment. He began his remarks against it by noting that, when the Republicans speak about the national debt, they ?never bring up the debt that the last (Bush) administration rang up through the Iraq war. That's got to be at least half a trillion dollars, if not more. And I'm still waiting to find the weapons of mass destruction.?

Serrano then itemized the impact of the amendment that Rep. Blackburn proposed. He said it would ?cut $51 million from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would slash 120 staff members who . . . go after the crooks on Wall Street . . . prevent new IRS enforcement initiatives . . . resulting in over $600 million in lost tax revenues . . . (and not allow) the Small Business Administration . . . to meet the borrowing needs of small businesses. SBA lending, in its popular 7(a) loan program, which both sides support, would be reduced by $875 million.? Serrano also argued that the federal courts would lose 1,000 employees. He concluded by saying that the 5% reduction would be ?hurting the very people we should protect.?

The vote was defeated by a vote of 184-247. One hundred and sixty-four Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-six Democrats and eleven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the proposed 5% across-the-board reduction was not made in the bill providing 2010 fiscal year funding for a range of federal government operations.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 556
Jul 16, 2009
(H.R. 3170) On the Emerson of Missouri amendment, which would have eliminated half of the funding for state grants made by the Election Assistance Commission

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Emerson (R-MO) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Election Assistance Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have reduced the amount for state grants to be awarded by the Election Assistance Commission to the $50 million level that was requested by President Obama, from the $100 million figure that was in the bill. The Commission is responsible for developing guidelines for voting systems and for making grants to states to help implement changes in those systems. In the 2000 presidential election, more than two million ballots were ruled ineligible because they registered multiple votes, or did not register any vote, when run through vote-counting machines.

Rep. Emerson is the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081 and generally supported the funding levels in the bill. She began her remarks about her amendment by saying that she does respect ?the need for election reform and certainty in the election process.? She went on to say that free and fair elections are ?a hallmark of our democracy, and we must always work to safeguard our elections.? Emerson then gave as her reason for offering the amendment that this is ?one account that has a demonstrated lack of funding needs for the coming fiscal year. Even the President recognized the opportunity to save the taxpayer $50 million.?

Emerson pointed to the fact that 62% of the states had not yet applied for their fiscal year 2008 funds under this grant program, She also noted that, of the $115 million provided in fiscal year 2008, only about 20% of the funds have been obligated; and of the $100 million provided for state grants in fiscal year 2009, less than 4% had been given out. Emerson then said that ?we have almost $186 million still sitting in the Treasury for these grants. I see little need to provide another $100 million in unused funds to then get to a total of $286 million in untapped funds.?

Rep. Holt (D-NJ) opposed the amendment. He said ?(N)othing is more important in a democracy than the integrity of the democratic process. Everything we do in this body is based on the assumption that the voters put us here as the result of a fair, accessible, and accuracy of the voting process. If there is anything we should not shortchange, it is our ability to conduct the most exemplary elections in the world. And we have not reached that standard yet.?

Holt then noted that ?the major national election official organizations and more than 25 civil rights, disability rights and other public interest groups have asserted that local jurisdictions still need all the funding . . . .? Among those organizations were the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the National Association of Secretaries of State, which is comprised of the state officials typically responsible for administering voting.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 172-250. One hundred and fifty-seven Republicans and fifteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-five Democrats and fifteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the funds for the state grants from the Election Assistance Commission remained at the level that was in H.R. 3081.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Fair Elections
N N Won
Roll Call 555
Jul 16, 2009
(H.R. 3170) On the Price of Georgia which would have eliminated funding for the President's Council of Economic Advisers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Price (R-GA) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the President?s Council of economic Advisors, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated the $4.2 million in H.R. 3170 that was designated to fund the President's Council of Economic Advisers. Price acknowledged that his amendment ?is more than a vote to eliminate funding. It is a vote of ?no confidence? on this (Obama) administration's economic policies and those of the Council of Economic Advisers.?

Price cited the fact that the unemployment rate had gone from 7.6% when Barack Obama was inaugurated to 9.5%, that the Council of Economic Advisers had promoted the large economic stimulus plan Congress recently passed as a way to control unemployment, and that Christine Romer, the chair of the Council, had predicted that ?the unemployment rate would max out at 8 percent if the plan were adopted.? Price said ?to put it mildly, the administration and Ms. Romer were just plain wrong.? He concluded by arguing that the economic stimulus plan promoted by the Council of Economic Advisors ?just isn't working . . . This (Democratic) majority clearly doesn't have the appropriate program. This administration clearly doesn't have the appropriate program.?

Rep. Serrano (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, opposed the amendment. He argued that Republicans were trying to ?make it make it sound as if the last few months have been the months that caused the economic crisis that we are in. The fact of life is that this President is trying to clean up the mess that was created during the last 8 years (of the administration of George W. Bush) . . . It fell apart during these last 8 years. And we are trying to recover.?

Serrano went on to say ?(W)e need the Council of Economic Advisors to help the administration make better policy for the future. Today, the Council has been involved in developing and evaluating the Recovery Act, health care options, energy and greenhouse gas policies, tax changes, job and training programs and other major economic challenges of our time. As the administration develops policies in all these critical areas, the Council brings solid, scientific evidence on the economic effects of alternative policies into the discussion. This is probably one of those times where we really need this kind of a federal agency. And this is not the time to do away with it.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 146-279. One hundred and thirty-nine Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-five Democrats and thirty-four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, funds for the Council of Economic Advisors remained in H.R.3081.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 553
Jul 16, 2009
(H. Res, 644) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3170 provided fiscal 2010 year funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. The rule for H.R. 3170 permitted a limited number of amendments to be offered during consideration of the measure. The Republican minority had expressed its strong opposition to the fact that the rules for a series of spending bills, including this one, limited the number of amendments that could be offered.

Rep. Flake (R-AZ), had been among the leaders of those stating these objections. He went through the formality of raising a point of order against the rule and then said he wanted ?to plead with the majority party to lift the legislative version of martial law that's been imposed on appropriation bills this year. We're more than halfway through the (appropriation) season and so far we've had, for appropriation bills, more than 700 amendments filed with the Rules Committee. Only 119, or less than 20 percent, have been made in order.? Flake did acknowledge that: ?(R)oughly a quarter of them that have been made in order have been my earmark amendments, which I'm pleased for. ?Earmark amendments? are those that attempt to remove legislative mandates for particular projects that have been inserted into appropriation bills.

The rationale that Democrats had been expressing for the series of rules limiting amendments on spending bills was that that the House needed to adhere to its schedule of completing those bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had sometimes failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

Referring to that reasoning, Flake argued: ?(I)t's not right . . . to bring up the issue of timing, to say, we don't have time to deal with all the amendments that have been offered . . . It wouldn't have taken any extra time . . . We adjourned or we were finished with legislative business by around four o'clock yesterday. We were finished with amendments by five o'clock . . . This isn't an issue of time. But . . . the majority party simply doesn't want to deal with certain amendments.? He added: ?(T)hat . . . isn't the legislative process that we're used to here. Traditionally, appropriation bills have been brought to the floor under an open rule.?

Rep Perlmutter (D-CO) was leading the support for the rule. He opposed the technical point of order that Rep. Flake raised, and argued ?this point of order is . . . about delaying the bill that is under consideration and about, ultimately, stopping it. I hope my colleagues see through this attempt and will vote ?yes?' so we can consider this legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule today, and we must pass this legislation.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 216-213. All two hundred and sixteen ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Thirty-nine other Democrats joined with all one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move to debate the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for a range of federal government operations.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 552
Jul 16, 2009
(H. Res, 644) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3170 provided fiscal 2010 year funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. This was a vote on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of the bill. The rule for H.R. 3170 permitted very few amendments to be offered during consideration of the measure. The Republican minority had expressed its strong opposition to the fact that the rules for a series of spending bills, including this one, limited the number of amendments that could be offered.

Rep. Flake (R-AZ), had been among the leaders of those stating these objections. He went through the formality of raising a point of order against the rule and then said he wanted ?to plead with the majority party to lift the legislative version of martial law that's been imposed on appropriation bills this year. We're more than halfway through the (appropriation) season and so far we've had, for appropriation bills, more than 700 amendments filed with the Rules Committee. Only 119, or less than 20 percent, have been made in order.? Flake did acknowledge that: ?(R)oughly a quarter of them that have been made in order have been my earmark amendments, which I'm pleased for. ?Earmark amendments? are those that attempt to remove legislative mandates for projects that benefit only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which are inserted into a spending bill by individual Members.

The rationale that Democrats had been expressing for the series of rules limiting amendments on appropriations was that that the House needed to adhere to its schedule of completing spending bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had sometimes failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

Referring to that reasoning, Flake argued: ?(I)t's not right . . . to bring up the issue of timing, to say, we don't have time to deal with all the amendments that have been offered . . . It wouldn't have taken any extra time . . . We adjourned or we were finished with legislative business by around four o'clock yesterday. We were finished with amendments by five o'clock . . . This isn't an issue of time. But . . . the majority party simply doesn't want to deal with certain amendments.? He added: ?(T)hat . . . isn't the legislative process that we're used to here. Traditionally, appropriation bills have been brought to the floor under an open rule.?

Rep Perlmutter (D-CO) was leading the support for the rule. He opposed the technical point of order that Rep. Flake raised, and argued ?this point of order is . . . about delaying the bill that is under consideration and about, ultimately, stopping it. I hope my colleagues see through this attempt and will vote ?yes? so we can consider this legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule today, and we must pass this legislation.?

The motion passed by a vote of 227-200. Two hundred and twenty-five Democrats and two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-two Republicans and twenty-eight Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debate of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for a range of federal government operations.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 543
Jul 15, 2009
(H.R. 3081) On the Pastor of Arizona amendment adding $45 million to the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies Program, reducing the administrative budget for the Department of Energy by $30 million, and making a number of other funding changes in the fiscal year 2010 energy and water development funding bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Pastor (D-AZ) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water development programs. The amendment made a number of changes among categories to this $33.3 billion measure. The largest change added $45 million to the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies Program, $30 million of which was offset by a reduction in Departmental of Energy administration costs and $15 million of which was offset by a reduction in the Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program. Rep. Pastor, a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, was managing the bill on the House floor. It is not uncommon for a bill manager to offer an amendment that makes a number of changes in a bill he or she is managing.

Rep. Frelinghuysen, the Ranking Republican on the subcommittee that developed H.R.3081 and a supporter of the legislation as written, opposed the amendment. He first said ?I don't have any real problem with the content of (the) amendment. However, he then said he opposed it because :?(N)one of the content of this chairman's amendment was discussed with the minority, and none of the changes were made or suggested by the minority. If the changes are important, then I think we should be able to discuss them. Otherwise, I fear it is only a matter of time before the majority will include everything they can in this sort of en masse amendment. This will be bad for the institution and I think bad for the American people.? Pastor responded by apologizing and saying it was his understanding that the amendment had been shown to Frelinghuysen for his approval. Pastor also said he was particularly apologetic ?because I think it's important that this bill, along with the manager's amendment, continue to be bipartisan.?

The question of offering amendments on the House floor to spending bills had become rather controversial. During the debate on H.R. 3081 and other spending bills, the Republican minority had objected to the limitations that the Democratic majority had been placing on the number of amendments that could be offered.

Rep. Flake (R-AZ), had been among the leaders of the Republicans who had been opposing the limitation on amendments. He had argued that ?the majority simply doesn't want to take votes on these amendments. For the first time in years, in decades, we are shutting down an appropriations process, and saying, you can't offer the amendments you want. You only offer the amendments we want. Now, that is simply wrong . . . . He referred to the procedure as ?basically, martial law in terms of appropriations bills . . . and I just want to register an objection to that because we ought to have the freedom to offer the amendments that we have offered like we've been able to do for decades in this House.?

The rationale that Democrats had been expressing for the series of rules limiting amendments on spending bills was that that the House needed to adhere to its schedule of completing those bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing many spending bills, and had sometimes failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

The amendment passed by a vote of 261-172. Two hundred and thirty-six Democrats and twenty-five Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-two Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, a number of changes of $45 million or less were made among categories in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Won
Roll Call 539
Jul 15, 2009
(H. Res, 622) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water development - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3183 provided fiscal 2010 year funding for energy and water development. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of H.R. 3183. The rule provides the terms under which the legislation will be considered, including the amendments that will be made in order to be offered. The rule for H.R. 3183 permitted very few amendments to be offered during consideration of the measure.

The Republican minority had expressed its strong opposition to the fact that the rules for a series of appropriation bills, including this one, limited the number of amendments that could be offered. Rep. Flake (R-AZ), had been among the leaders of those stating these objections. He raised a point of order against the rule and argued that ?(T)raditionally, appropriations bills have been open rules . . . Members are allowed to offer as many amendments as they wish--striking funding, moving funding around, making a policy point.? Flake added that permitting unlimited amendments to be offered is particularly important overcome a relatively recent practice ?of loading up and larding up these appropriations bills with all kinds of congressionally directed spending.?

Flake also said ?(O)ne would like to think that the Appropriations Committee would vet these earmarks (or projects that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which are inserted into a spending bill by an individual Members), and would actually check them out to see if they're meeting federal purpose, if money is being wasted . . . but they don't.? Flake then noted that ?for this bill, there were 103 amendments submitted. Now, because you have to pre-file your amendments, a lot of Members will submit more amendments than they intend to offer on the floor just to protect their place. So the majority party knows that we would never have offered 103 amendments on the floor. We won't have time to do it . . . (but) 78 Republican amendments were submitted, and only 14 were made in order.?

Rep. Gingrey (R-GA), another of the Republicans who had been objecting to restrictions on amendments, said that the Democratic leadership has ?taken away so many opportunities . . . for the minority to represent their constituencies . . . on these 12 spending bills--which, after all, are probably one of the two most important things that we as Members of the legislative branch are charged constitutionally to do . . ..?

The rationale that Democrats had been expressing for the series of rules limiting amendments on spending bills was that that the House needed to adhere to its schedule of completing those bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had sometimes failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered. Referring to that reasoning, Gingrey said ?I commend the majority for wanting to get the work done and for wanting to have all of that done by the end of the fiscal year. It's insanity not to do that, but we can do it in an open way.?

Rep. Matsui (D-CA) was leading the effort on behalf of the rule. She referred to the point of order that Rep. Flake had raised and said: ?(T)echnically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and, ultimately, the underlying bill. In reality, it is about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation, itself. I think that is wrong, and I hope my colleagues will vote to consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass this legislation today.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 238-185. All two hundred and thirty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Nine other Democrats joined with all one hundred and seventy-six Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin to debate the bill providing fiscal year 2010 energy and water development funding.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 538
Jul 15, 2009
(H. Res, 622) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 energy and water development funding - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 3183 provided fiscal 2010 year energy and water development funding. This was a vote on a motion to bring to an immediate vote the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. The rule permitted very few amendments to be offered during consideration of the measure. The Republican minority had expressed its strong opposition to the fact that the rules for a series of spending bills, including this one, limited the number of amendments that could be offered.

Rep. Flake (R-AZ) had been among the leaders of those stating these objections. He raised a point of order against the rule and argued that ?(T)raditionally, appropriations bills have been (debated under) open rules . . . Members are allowed to offer as many amendments as they wish--striking funding, moving funding around, making a policy point.? Flake added that permitting unlimited amendments to be offered is particularly important to overcome a relatively recent practice of loading up and larding up these appropriations bills with all kinds of congressionally directed spending.?

Flake also said ?(O)ne would like to think that the Appropriations Committee would vet these earmarks (or legislatively mandated funding of special projects), would actually check them out to see if they're meeting Federal purpose, if money is being wasted . . . but they don't.? He then noted that ?for this bill, there were 103 amendments submitted. Now, because you have to pre-file your amendments, a lot of Members will submit more amendments than they intend to offer on the floor just to protect their place. So the majority party knows that we would never have offered 103 amendments on the floor. We won't have time to do it . . . (but) 78 Republican amendments were submitted, and only 14 were made in order.?

Rep. Gingrey (R-GA), another of the Republicans who had been objecting to restrictions on amendments, said that the Democratic leadership has ?taken away so many opportunities . . . for the minority to represent their constituencies . . . on these 12 spending bills--which, after all, are probably one of the two most important things that we as Members of the legislative branch are charged constitutionally to do . . ..?

The rationale that Democrats had been expressing for the series of rules limiting amendments on spending bills was that that the House needed to adhere to its schedule of completing those bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had sometimes failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered. Referring to that reasoning, Gingrey said ?I commend the majority for wanting to get the work done and for wanting to have all of that done by the end of the fiscal year. It's insanity not to do that, but we can do it in an open way.?

Rep. Matsui (D-CA) was leading the effort on behalf of the rule. She referred to the point of order that Rep. Flake had raised and said: ?(T)echnically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and, ultimately, the underlying bill. In reality, it is about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation, itself. I think that is wrong, and I hope my colleagues will vote to consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass this legislation today.?

The motion passed on a vote of 237-177 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and thirty-six Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. Five other Democrats joined with all one hundred and seventy-two Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water development.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 527
Jul 10, 2009
(H. Res, 622) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs - - on the resolution setting the terms for consideration of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House consideration of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The rule for the bill permitted very few amendments to be offered during its consideration. The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to the fact that the rules for a series of appropriation bills, including this one, limited the number of amendments that could be offered.

Rep. Flake (R-AZ), had been among the leaders of those stating these objections. He claimed: ?For years--and decades--appropriation bills have been brought to the floor under an open rule, allowing Members to offer amendments to various sections of the bill and not be precluded from that. But these bills are being brought to the floor all year under closed or structured rules, allowing very, very few amendments.?

Rep. Gingrey (R-GA) described the limiting of amendments to spending bills by the Democratic majority as ?unconscionable?. He said ?this has never happened, to my knowledge, in the history of this Congress. These should be open rules so that every Member, not just members of the Appropriations Committee, the 40 or 50 members that study these bills, but every single Member of this body who represent 675,000 people across this country and these 50 states should have an opportunity to offer amendments. I have submitted 10 amendments to (various spending) bills. Not one has been made in order, and not one of these amendments is dilatory.?

Rep. Pingree (D-ME) was leading the effort in support of the rule. She gave the rationale that the House Democratic majority had been expressing to explain the series of rules that limited the number of amendments. Pingree said that the House needed to limit the time during which spending bills could be considered in order to adhere to its schedule of completing all the 2010 spending bills before the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had often failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

Rep. Obey (R-WI), who chairs the Appropriations Committee, argued for the rule. He first noted that the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee traditionally brings tax bills to the House floor under rules that do not permit any amendments. Obey said ?there is no inherent difference between the two (committees) . . . .? Obey also noted that ?the Appropriations Committee has the right to bring to the floor its appropriation bills without ever going to the Rules Committee . . . So it has been an advantage to individual House Members for the Appropriations Committee to go to the Rules Committee, whether or not there's a totally open rule . . . because at least then individual Members have some capacity to influence the results.?

Obey also claimed that ?we have made quite clear to the (Republican) minority side we would like to proceed in as open a fashion as possible . . . and I went to the Republican leadership . . . and asked them if there was some way that we could work out time agreements so that we can finish these 12 (appropriation) bills before we go home for the August recess . . . And the response was, ?if we did that, our (Republican) caucus would elect somebody else.? Obey concluded by saying ?there is nothing radically new about this. We're simply trying to get the job done.?

The vote on the rule was 241-179. All two hundred forty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eight other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin considering the fiscal year 2010 Department of Veterans Affairs funding bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
Y Y Won
Roll Call 526
Jul 10, 2009
(H. Res, 622) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for consideration of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for considering the bill providing fiscal 2010 year funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The rule for the bill permitted very few amendments to be offered during its consideration.

The Republican minority had expressed its strong opposition to the fact that the rules for a series of spending bills, including this one, limited the number of amendments that could be offered. Rep. Flake (R-AZ), had been among the leaders of those stating these objections. He raised a formal point of order during the debate on the rule and said he did it ?because it's about the only mechanism we have to talk about the fact that we are bringing appropriation bills to the floor under (rules limiting amendments), which violates basically every precept we've had in this House about openness and transparency on appropriation bills.? Flake claimed: ?For years--and decades--appropriation bills have been brought to the floor under an open rule, allowing Members to offer amendments to various sections of the bill . . . But these bills are being brought to the floor all year under closed or structured rules, allowing very, very few amendments.?

Rep. Sessions (R-TX), who had also been arguing against the series of rules limiting amendments said that opposing a vote on the resolution ?is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan.?

Rep. Pingree (D-ME) was leading the effort in support of the rule. She gave the rationale that the House Democratic majority had been expressing to explain the rules that limited the number of amendments to a series of spending bills. Pingree said that the House needed to limit the time during which spending bills could be considered in order to adhere to its schedule of completing all the 2010 spending bills before the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had often failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

Pingree also said: ?There may have been a tradition in the past of appropriations bills coming under more of an open rule, but I balance that with . . . the tremendous amount of work we're expected to get done. I can tell you, from my constituents back in the State of Maine, they say . . . you've got a lot of work to do on renewable energy, on health care. We want to see you move forward on those issues. We want to see (progress on) appropriations bills, like the one we're talking about today, that are going to provide vital services for our veterans . . . We don't want to listen to you with hours of endless debate . . . .?

The motion to vote on the rule was 244-169 along almost straight party lines. All two hundred and forty-four ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Five other Democrats joined one hundred and sixty-four Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on the rule setting the terms for considering the fiscal year 2010 Department of Veterans Affairs funding bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
Y Y Won
Roll Call 525
Jul 09, 2009
(H.R.3081) On passage of the fiscal year 2010 State Department funding bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on House passage of H.R. 3081, the fiscal year 2010 State Department appropriation bill. H.R. 3081provided $48.4 billion to fund what Rep. Lowey (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, called ?our foreign policy and national security interests.? The total figure was $3.2 billion below the amount requested by the Obama administration and $1.2 billion below the fiscal year 2009 level. Among its major expenditures was $4.7 billion to help stabilize, strengthen, and rebuild Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.

During the debate on the rule setting the terms for the consideration of the bill, Rep Cardoza (D-CA), said the bill was designed to protect national security, combat terrorism, provide resources to meet global health and development problems, ensure adequate oversight and accountability of foreign assistance programs, and reform and rebuild America's diplomatic and development capacity.

Rep. Lowey described the support for the bill in her subcommittee as ?bipartisan?. However, a number of Republican Members had tried to amend the measure on the House floor to reduce its level of funding. Among these was Rep. Buyer (R-IN), who opposed passage of H.R. 3081. He repeated the argument he and other Republicans had made during the debate on a number of spending bills that Congress would be jeopardizing ?America's economy if we do not get our fiscal house in order.? Buyer said in his statement opposing the measure: ?(T)his isn't my quote; this is the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB). In May, OMB projected that if we continue this type of spending, the Federal debt will grow to $23.3 trillion in 2019 . . . .? Buyer added that ?the plea here is that all Members should weep and cry about the challenges that are all around the world. Well, what about the challenges in America? . . . Will (Congress) be fiscally responsible . . .??

The legislation passed on a vote of 318-106. Two hundred forty-two Democrats and seventy-six Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety-seven Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate the bill providing fiscal year 2010 for the State Department.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
Y Y Won
Roll Call 524
Jul 09, 2009
(H.R.3081) Legislation providing the fiscal year 2010 funding for the State Department - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee and reduce the amount for the Organization of American States by $15 million, and increase the amount for the National Endowment for Democracy by the same amount.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Kirk (R-IL) to send the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the State Department back to committee with instructions that would have reduced the funds for the Organization of American States (OAS) by $15 million, and increased funds for the National Endowment for Democracy by the same amount. The National Endowment for Democracy is a private organization, funded primarily through an annual congressional allocation, which provides grants and publishes periodicals. It has reportedly been accused by both right-wing and left-wing groups of interfering with foreign regimes, and of being a mechanism that legally enables the CIA to continue its otherwise prohibited activities of support to selected political parties abroad.

Kirk criticized the OAS for inviting Cuba back into the organization and for leading support for the former Honduran president, who had recently been overthrown in a military coup, ?even after his supreme court ruled that he could not extend his term.? Kirk argued that ?we should reduce the increase for the OAS, which doesn't know if it supports democracy, and give that money to the National Endowment for Democracy, which does.?

Rep Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who co-sponsored the motion, claimed: ?(R)ecent events call into question the commitment of the OAS to its historic values of democracy and human rights.? She noted that the United States ?is footing 60 percent of the entire budget bill for the OAS while that organization pursues an agenda of appeasement toward repressive governments in the hemisphere . . . The National Endowment for Democracy has a long record of fighting for fundamental freedoms, for democracies around the world.?

Rep Lowey (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, opposed the motion. She argued that the OAS ?is the preeminent multilateral organization in our hemisphere. It helps resolve or minimize many threats, including terrorism, narcotics, and political conflicts. It also plays an important role in promoting sustainable development in Central America, supports the election process in places like Ecuador, Paraguay, Haiti, and El Salvador.?

 Lowey added that ?(W)hile we may not agree with every issue and every member in the OAS, it is the key conduit for discussions among all of our hemispheric partners. We have made an international commitment as a member of OAS to pay our dues. Cutting our assessment payment will create arrears and undermine the work of the Secretariat, located here in Washington. The OAS is an international organization, and the United States has a legal commitment to provide our assessed contribution. The OAS is the only regional organization in the Western Hemisphere that has all of the democratically elected members of the region, and all of them strive to enhance and secure democratic principles and values . . .?

Rep. Berman (D-CA), the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee also opposed the amendment. He said that he wanted ?everybody to understand the party proposing this motion to recommit is the same party that held the White House for 8 years where our policies and relationships towards the entire Latin American region so degraded our reputation and our effectiveness that they should be embarrassed to make suggestions.? He also claimed that, although he is a ?great fan of the National Endowment for Democracy . . . I tell you they don't want this amendment to pass.?

The motion was defeated by a vote of 192-233. One hundred seventy-two Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-one Democrats and two Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no funds were shifted from the OAS to the National Endowment for Democracy, and the House moved to a vote on final passage of the 2010 State Department funding bill.


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Won
Roll Call 523
Jul 09, 2009
(H.R. 3081) On tabling (killing) an appeal of a ruling of the Speaker that a motion to add language in favor of permitting unlimited amendments to all legislation was out of order

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote to table (kill) the appeal of the ruling of the Speaker of the House that a motion was out of order. The motion that had been ruled out of order would have sent a bill the House was considering back to committee with instructions to add language in favor of permitting unlimited amendments to be offered to all legislation. The ruling was actually made by a Democratic Member who was sitting in the chair in the place of House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA). The Republicans appealed the ruling.

The Republican minority had been complaining that the Democratic majority had been unfairly limiting the number of amendments that could be offered to a series of federal government appropriation bills. To highlight their objections, the Republicans had engaged in a number of procedural tactics. One of those tactics was this motion by Rep. Kirk(R-IL) that had been ruled out of order.

The specific language of the Kirk motion was to add language to the bill the House was considering noting that it was the sense of the House that it should adhere to previous statements in favor of permitting unlimited amendments, which were made by Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-WI). Those statements were made by Obey when he was in the minority. The language in the motion had been ruled out of order based on the House regulation prohibiting any non-spending provision, such as the one offered here, to be added to a spending bill. Kirk had moved to add the additional language to a bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the State Department.

During a previous debate on a similar effort by the Republicans, Rep. Simpson (R-ID) said ?(W)e have (limited amendments) in the name of expediency . . . instead, what we have done is cut Members out not being able to offer amendments on the floor, not only minority Members but majority Members too. . . Members have the right and the ability to represent their constituents . . . That means offering amendments to appropriation bills. Our history has been that appropriation bills come to the floor under an open rule so that Members have the right to offer amendments . . . Our job is to come here and debate issues, not expediency, trying to get them done at a specific time.?

The Democratic majority had been arguing that the reason for the limitations on the number of amendments that could be offered to spending bills was that the House was scheduled to complete work on a large number of those bills by the end of July; the Democrats claimed that permitting unlimited amendments on each of the spending bills would prevent adherence to that schedule. In recent years, it was not unusual for several spending bills not to be completed before the before the beginning of the fiscal year to which they applied.

The appeal of the ruling was killed on a vote of 238-175 along almost straight party lines. All two hundred and thirty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Five other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the ruling that the motion was out of order prevailed, and the House effectively decided not to adopt language favoring the offering of an unlimited number of amendments to all bills.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 522
Jul 09, 2009
(H.R. 3081) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have eliminated an $8 million special educational, professional, and cultural exchange grants program

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the State Department and its foreign operations. The amendment would have eliminated a one-time $8 million special educational, professional, and cultural exchange grants program from the bill. Rep. Flake had been a leading opponent of ?earmarks in spending bills. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. He noted that the report accompanying H.R. 3081 said there were no earmarks in the bill. Flake referenced this grant program and said ?I would have to disagree.?

Flake noted that the report accompanying the bill also said that the State Department was to award the grants on a competitive basis. He then argued that: ?The problem here is the fact that the report also says, The Secretary is encouraged to consider the following proposals for this competitive program, and then it lists several specific exchange programs.? Flake said he had ?been a long supporter of cultural exchange programs, (but) I am also supportive of these grants being awarded on a competitive basis. The recommendations of funding for these 12 specific programs certainly look like earmarks to me and certainly look like earmarks to a handful of Members who requested them, so much so that they actually listed the earmark requests on their Web sites --a number of them did. So to them it looked like an earmark . . . .?

Rep. Lowey (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, opposed the amendment. She noted that the amount in the bill for these grants was already $33 million below the amount requested by the Obama Administration and that the Flake Amendment would reduce the amount in this category to more than $40 million below the administration request.

Lowey then argued that the legislation did not include any earmarks. She said: ?(G)rants under this program are required to be competitively awarded . . . All entities highlighted in the report under the Special Grants Program must compete with all other applicants, whether listed in the report or not.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 164-268. One hundred and fifty-one Republicans and thirteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and twenty-five Republicans, voted ?nay?. As a result, the level of funding for the special educational, professional, and cultural exchange grants program in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the State Department was not reduced.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 520
Jul 09, 2009
(H.R. 3081) On the Culberson of Texas amendment reducing fiscal year 2010 funding for international political, military and economic organizations, including the U.N., back to their fiscal year 2009 levels.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Culberson (R-TX) to the bill appropriating fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department and its foreign operations. The amendment would have reduced the amounts in the bill for international political, military and economic organizations, including the U.N., back to their fiscal year 2009 levels plus inflation. Participation by the U.S. in these multilateral organizations are intended to advance U.S. strategic goals by addressing challenges that require international consultation and coordination.

Culberson?s argument in favor of his amendment was based on the idea that ?if we have a financial downturn . . . in the private sector (you) understand that you start to cut expenses. The first thing to go . . . is discretionary dollars . . . and the United States of America is in a similar situation.  The nation is hurting. Unemployment is climbing. We have lost a record number of jobs. Under the new liberal leadership of this Congress, our new liberal administration in the White House, this Congress, this President has spent more money in less time than any Congress in the history of the United States . . . So those of us in the fiscally conservative minority have offered (amendments) . . . to cut 5 percent; 1 percent; 10 percent. On every bill on every occasion, we have searched for some way, somehow that the liberal majority might try to save some of our kids' money.?

Culberson also said he would have preferred, ?as a fiscal conservative, to cut far more at this time of record debt, record deficit, of increasing unemployment; but we want to give the liberal majority some opportunity to cut somewhere. He concluded by asking ?(A)nd if we will not cut foreign multilateral assistance simply by keeping the level of funding at last year's level . . . where will we cut??

Rep. Lowey (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, opposed the amendment. She said that she recognized it was ?quite easy in a time of fiscal belt tightening to offer an amendment to reduce funding for the international financial institutions, but I would encourage my colleagues to recognize that voting in favor of this amendment has serious consequences to U.S. interests.?

Among the consequences she listed were reduced funding for the Asian Development Fund, ?which provides basic loans and grants to support health care, education, infrastructure and economic development resources for Afghanistan and Pakistan?; reduced funding for The World Bank, ?which provides debt relief to developing countries, (and) is supporting an integrated agricultural initiative to address the global food crisis?; and undermining the ability of the United States to meet its commitments to global debt relief efforts and to countries around the world that rely on our assistance.? Lowey concluded by saying that the spending levels in the bill are ?in the interest of our national security. These (supported) institutions fund valuable initiatives that provide opportunities to millions of people.?

Rep. Frank (D-MA) also opposed the amendment. He argued that ?alleviating poverty overseas . . . is a far better use of our money morally and also in terms of national security because I repeat again what (Defense) Secretary Gates and what (former Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs Chairman) Powell have said, what sensible military leaders have said, a much smaller amount of money spent in these ways on sensible efforts to alleviate the miserable conditions that lead to support for terrorism, not the terrorists themselves, is a very good way to preserve the national security much more cheaply in terms of human lives and in terms of money than a purely military solution.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 174-256. One hundred and sixty-four Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and twelve Republicans, voted ?nay?. As a result, the funds in the State Department funding bill for the 2010 fiscal year for international political, military and economic organizations were not reduced.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Won
Roll Call 519
Jul 09, 2009
(H.R. 3081) On the Weiner of New York amendment eliminating language allowing funds to go to Saudi Arabia if the President certifies that it is combating terrorism. The amendment was offered to the bill appropriating fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep.Weiner (D-NY) to H.R. 3081, the bill appropriating funds fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department and its foreign operations. The bill did not permit any funds to go to Saudi Arabia, unless the President certified that Saudi Arabia is ?fully cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and such (financial) assistance will facilitate these efforts.? The amendment deleted this language, thereby insuring that none of the appropriated funds would go to Saudi Arabia.

Weiner began his remarks in support of his amendment with what he called ?a noncontroversial statement (that) the American people and this body of their representatives believe that there should be no . . . taxpayer dollars, going from the people of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.? He referenced the overwhelming House votes to that effect in 2006 and 2007, and also noted that ?the bill we have before us says that no money in this bill will go to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.? Weiner then said that, ?despite the fact that we in this House keep expressing that sentiment loudly and clearly . . . money continues to flow (there). That has to stop.? Weiner said that the reason funds keep flowing is ?a loophole you can drive a truck through?. He was referring to language in the bill that permits assistance to go to Saudi Arabia, if the President certifies it is cooperating with anti-terrorism efforts.?

Weiner then argued that ?(P)residents seem to develop a love affair with the notion of Saudi Arabia based on what they say. They say they want to be friends to the United States. They say they want to be a fulcrum against terrorism. They say they want to be a moderate force in the Middle East. And yet, year after year, we see evidence that they do the opposite.? Weiner then claimed that Saudi Arabia has continued to finance terrorism, as well as to violate human rights and teach hatred.

Rep. Ellison (D-MN), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, opposed the amendment. He said that the funds were limited to ?American-to-Saudi joint military training?, and described that training as ?an opportunity for Americans and Saudis to work in concert so that we can continue to build a bridge with our historically so that we can be in a better position to influence Saudi society . . . .?  He went on to argue that ?(T)he fact is that this particular amendment does not bring America safety, doesn't bring it security. It brings it the opposite . . . This new (Obama) administration, this new Congress is about opening a new era of foreign policy, a new page in diplomacy that is smarter, more respectful of other countries, more appreciative of our allies. Saudi Arabia is one of the most important allies in the Middle East.?

Ellison concluded his remarks by citing a 2008 State Department Country Report on Terrorism that, he said, ?praised Saudi Arabia in Saudi counter-terrorism practices, credited Saudi cooperation with U.S. counterterrorism efforts as significant, and characterized Saudi anti-extremism initiatives as aggressive.? Rep. Crenshaw (R-FL), who serves on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, also opposed the amendment. The primary reason he gave for his opposition was that its effect would be to restrict the operating ability of President Obama in foreign affairs.

The amendment passed by a vote of 297-135. One hundred and fifty-eight Democrats and one hundred and thirty-nine Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety-eight Democrats, including the majority of the most progressive Members, and thirty-seven Republicans, voted ?nay?. As a result, the bill no longer included language permitting the President to override the prohibition on funds going to Saudi Arabia.


WAR & PEACE Relations with Saudi Arabia
Y N Lost
Roll Call 518
Jul 09, 2009
(H.R. 3081) On the Stearns of Florida amendment to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department; the amendment would have reduced funding for the Peace Corps by $76,560,000 to match the President's request.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Stearns (R-FL) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department and its foreign operations. The amendment would have reduced the amount appropriated to The Peace Corps by $76,560,000 to match the President's request of $373,440,000.  In fiscal year 2009, the Peace Corps was funded at $340 million. President Obama had requested $373.4 million, an increase of $33 million or approximately 10%. H.R. 3081 had Peace Crops funding of $450 million, or $77 million more than what President Obama had requested, and $110 million above the FY 2009 level.

Rep. Stearns said in his statement in support of the amendment that he supported the Peace Corps. He also said that he agreed with President Obama that its mission could be accomplished in fiscal year 2010 for $373 million. Stearns then argued that, ?with the (U.S.) economy the way it is we should keep the money in America and not in 76 other countries. Certainly the money that we are spending overseas could be used in this country.? He also repeated the argument that Republicans had been making throughout the consideration of appropriation bills that ?we are spending Federal tax dollars at a rate we can't sustain, and we are putting ourselves into deeper debt.?

Rep. Lowey (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, opposed the amendment. She said the Peace Corps is one ?America's most effective tools in directly reaching citizens of other countries, demonstrating firsthand the best of American values and generating goodwill for our Nation around the world.? Lowey noted that, in 2008, ?Peace Corps volunteers helped train 148,000 teachers, health care workers and other professionals overseas. Their efforts improved the lives of over 2 million people in developing countries, including countries that are vital to our national security interests.?

Lowey defended the significant funding increases by arguing that ?(I)n recent years (under the Bush Administration), the Peace Corps has been chronically underfunded. Last year the agency was forced to cut 500 new positions. Funding the Peace Corps at the $450 million level lays the groundwork to fulfill the President's pledge to increase the number of Peace Corps volunteers at a responsible pace. In addition, the bill calls for the Government Accountability Office to conduct a management review to ensure that every dollar is well spent and every volunteer's effort is well placed.?  Lowey also argued that the Peace Corps is ?a job-creation program for our young people.? Rep. Stearns responded to Lowey?s last point by claiming: ?(I)t is cheaper to give a job to a student, a college graduate, here in the United States than to send them oversees into all these 76-100 countries that we have allocated it for. It's also cheaper logistically.?   

The vote on the amendment was 172-259. One hundred and fifty-nine Republicans and thirteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-two Democrats and seventeen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the amendment was defeated and no reduction was made in the funding for the Peach Corps in the 2010 fiscal year appropriation for the State Department.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
WAR & PEACE Peace Corps Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 517
Jul 09, 2009
(H.R. 3081) On the Buyer of Indiana amendment to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department; the amendment would have reduced funding for diplomatic and consular programs, global health efforts and the Agency for International Development back to their fiscal year 2009 levels.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Buyer (R-IN) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department and its foreign operations. The amendment would have reduced funding for diplomatic and consular programs by $1.2 billion, for global health efforts by $670 million, and for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) by $330 million. The resulting figures would reduce the funding for these three categories back to their 2009 fiscal year levels.

Rep. Buyer began his remarks in support of the amendment by saying that ?Americans are feeling the burden of a shrinking economy, empty pocketbooks and also economic uncertainty. What is clear is that the American people are hurting and that we are continuing to lose jobs. I believe the American people know we cannot tax and spend nor bail our way out to a growing economy. So what are we doing here today? We are continuing this practice of reckless spending.? He then noted that the figures in the fiscal year 2010 bill represent a 33% increase from the equivalent 2008 fiscal year levels. Buyer said he had ?great respect for the men and women that represent our country in Foreign Service abroad . . . They deserve the best the Nation can provide to them. What I oppose is the continued habit of reckless and seemingly endless spending that this bill represents.?

Rep. Lowey (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, opposed the amendment. She referred to the comments of President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, former Secretary of State Rice, and Secretary of Defense Gates ?that the State Department and USAID have to start leading U.S. Government efforts to address the global threats of the 21st century, including preventing and responding to conflict. As our new administration sets priorities, develops strategies and creates greater efficiencies and harmony in our foreign policy, this requires an expansion of people and resources.? Lowey argued that the proposed cuts in the amendment ?strike at the very heart of the bill's efforts to strengthen our civilian capacity. This amendment would have a devastating impact on USAID and the Department of State's ability to carry out their diplomatic, development, and reconstruction mission.?

Lowey noted, specifically, that the effect of the amendment would be to ?halt support for over 200 existing personnel, including in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan, putting the U.S. Government missions in those countries in jeopardy . . . (and) stop the construction of secure and safe facilities for USAID employees in nearly 30 countries overseas and halt the hiring of 350 new Foreign Service officers as planned in the development leadership initiative which is intended to rebuild the civilian development workforce.?

She also argued that ?USAID is a global leader on health, and the proposed cuts would hamper their ability to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. The proposed cut in this amendment could result in 18.3 million women being without access to voluntary family planning services, which could lead to an estimated 5.5 million additional unintended pregnancies, 300,000 additional under-5 deaths per year and 15,000 additional maternal deaths per year, and approximately 800,000 people in four high-burden countries going hungry.?

Rep. Buyer responded by referring to the term ?jeopardy'' that Rep. Lowey had used. He said: ?(T)hat is exactly what Congress is doing to America's economy if we do not get our fiscal house in order. This isn't my quote; this is the Office of Management and Budget's. In May, the Office projected that if we continue this type of spending, the Federal debt will grow to $23.3 trillion in 2019.?

The vote on the amendment was 156-271. One hundred and fifty Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and twenty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the amendment was defeated and the proposed reductions were not made in the 2010 fiscal year funding bill for the State Department.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 516
Jul 09, 2009
(H.R. 3081) On the Lowey of New York amendment making a number of changes to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department. The most significant of the changes increased international safe water and sanitation programs by $25 million, and restricted foreign military financing to Sri Lanka.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep.Lowey (D-NY) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department and its foreign operations. The amendment made a number of changes to spending categories, the largest of which increased international safe water and sanitation programs by $25 million,to this $44.8 billion bill. The safe water program and other increases were  offset by reductions to the Department of State Capital Investment Fund and USAID's Capital Investment Fund. The amendment also restricted foreign military financing to Sri Lanka, but included up to $1 million for Sri Lanken demining activities to help the Sri Lankan Government return the Tamil population displaced by the recent war to their homes.

Rep. Lowey chairs the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081. It is not unusual for the chair of the committee or subcommittee that developed a bill to offer an amendment such as this one, that makes a number of changes to a bill, when the measure reaches the House floor. That type of amendment is often non-controversial.

The Republican minority had been consistently objecting to the fact that the Democratic majority had imposed limitations on the number of amendments that could be offered to appropriation bills, including the one for the State Department. The minority used the offering of the Lowey Amendment as another opportunity to express its opposition to that limitation.

Rep. Kirk (R-IL), a member of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, first said that there ?are many parts of the amendment that I support, like moving funds away from accounts that received a significant increase in the (recently passed large economic) stimulus bill . . . Unfortunately, I oppose this amendment for what it represents. We are continuing the movement away from bipartisan consideration of amendments because it appears that the new practice under the Rules Committee, (as here), is to take a number of Democratic amendments and put them in one group under the chairman's aegis so that it looks like we have a balanced list of amendments offered but really a much larger number of Democratic amendments are being considered. This is a very troubling practice that has now entered into the appropriations bills.

?Once again, I would point out . . . the only amendments that are allowed under our rules on the floor are money amendments that cut or rearrange funds, not policy amendments. That gives awesome power to the committee on both sides to limit debate on this bill. It's very odd that in all the consideration of appropriations bills before, we haven't really made this a standard practice like is happening now.?

Lowey responded by noting that one of the changes made by her amendment was requested by Rep. Granger (R-TX), the Ranking Republican on the subcommittee that developed the bill. Lowey also noted that it ?is not a money amendment. It's a policy amendment as well.?

Rep. Kirk then expressed his concern about a specific change made by the amendment ?because it cuts off Foreign Military Financing for Sri Lanka. Now the Sri Lankan-elected democratic government was fighting the Tamil Tigers, registered as a terrorist organization by the State Department . . . So we're now sending a signal that a democracy who is fighting a terrorist organization and wins will be cut off in its financing by the United States.?

Lowey answered by noting the section of the amendment that provided ?up to $1 million for demining activities . . . for the Sri Lankan Government to help the displaced Tamil population return to their home. . . I think it is essential that the Government of Sri Lanka respond to that challenge and help those people return to their homes. So I know that we will continue to follow this issue to be sure that the policy that is in place adjusts to the actions that the government takes.?

The vote on the amendment was 261-168. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and nine Republicans voted ?aye?. One Hundred and sixty-five Republicans and three Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the amendment was adopted and the changes in the Lowey Amendment were made to the bill providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the State Department.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
Y Y Won
Roll Call 513
Jul 09, 2009
(H.Res.617) On agreeing to the rule setting the terms for debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the ?rule? setting the terms for House consideration of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department and its foreign operations. The rule for H.R. 3081 permitted only certain designated amendments to be offered during consideration of the measure. The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to the limitations on amendments that had been imposed on a series of appropriation bills the House had considered. Under House procedures, before a bill can be considered, the House must first approve a resolution or rule setting the terms under which the legislation will be debated.

Rep. Lowey (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, acknowledged in her statement on behalf of the rule that ?my colleagues on the other side would have preferred an open rule.? She then stated the argument against a completely open rule that the Democratic majority had been making to explain the reason that it had been placing limitations on the rules for all appropriation bills: That argument was based on the idea that the House was scheduled to complete work on a large number of appropriation bills by the end of July, and that permitting unlimited amendments on each of those bills would prevent adherence to that schedule. In recent years, it was not unusual for several appropriation bills not to be completed before the before the beginning of the fiscal year to which they applied.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart was managing the rule for the Republican minority. He said that, while he supported the substance of the State Department appropriation bill, he ?opposed the rule by which the majority is bringing this bill to the floor. Last month, the majority set a dangerous precedent to limit debate on appropriations bills, debate that historically was almost always considered under open rules, open debate process. Today we are set to consider the sixth of 12 appropriations bills, and every bill considered so far has been considered under a structured rule that severely limits the ability of all Members of this House to introduce amendments and have them debated.?

Diaz-Balart argued that the limitations on the offering of amendments violated ?historical order (and) . . . the tradition of an open debate process on appropriations bills. He said that the Republicans had ?even offered . . . to persuade Members to not offer dilatory amendments which would hamper the ability of Congress to complete its appropriations work on time . . . if an open debate process was returned to. However, the majority once again blocked Members from both sides of the aisle from offering amendments. ?He concluded by claiming that ?closing debate on appropriations bills . . . (is) breaking two centuries of precedence.?

The vote on the rule for the State Department appropriation bill was 223-200. All 223 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-four other Democrats joined with one hundred and seventy-six Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the rule was approved, and the House was able to begin debate on the bill providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the State Department.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 512
Jul 09, 2009
(H.Res.617) On moving immediately to a vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on ?ordering the previous question? and bringing to an immediate vote the ?rule? setting the terms for House consideration of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the State Department and its foreign operations. The rule for H.R. 3081 permitted only certain designated amendments to be offered during consideration of the measure. The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to the limitations on amendments that had been imposed on a series of appropriation bills the House had considered. Under House procedures, before a bill can be considered, the House must first approve a resolution or rule setting the terms under which the legislation will be debated.

Rep. Lowey (D-NY), the chair of the House Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, acknowledged in her statement on behalf of the rule that ?my colleagues on the other side would have preferred an open rule.? She then stated the argument against a completely open rule that the Democratic majority had been making to explain the reason they had been placing limitations on the rules for all appropriation bills: That argument was based on the idea that the House was scheduled to complete work on a large number of appropriation bills by the end of July, and that permitting unlimited amendments on each of those bills would prevent adherence to that schedule. In recent years, it was not unusual for several appropriation bills not to be completed before the before the beginning of the fiscal year to which they applied.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart was managing the rule for the Republican minority. He said that, while he supported the State Department appropriation, he ?opposed the rule by which the majority is bringing this bill to the floor. Last month, the majority set a dangerous precedent to limit debate on appropriations bills, debate that historically was almost always considered under open rules, open debate process. Today we are set to consider the sixth of 12 appropriations bills, and every bill considered so far has been considered under a structured rule that severely limits the ability of all Members of this House to introduce amendments and have them debated.?

Diaz-Balart argued that the limitations on the offering of amendments violated ?historical order (and) . . . the tradition of an open debate process on appropriations bills. He said that the Republicans had ?even offered . . . to persuade Members to not offer dilatory amendments which would hamper the ability of Congress to complete its appropriations work on time . . . if an open debate process was returned to. However, the majority once again blocked Members from both sides of the aisle from offering amendments. ?He concluded by claiming that ?closing debate on appropriations bills . . . (is) breaking two centuries of precedence.?

The effect of ordering the previous question is to bring the matter pending before the House, in this case the rule for H.R. 3081, to an immediate vote. The House Rules Committee parliamentary web site suggests that ordering the previous question is analogous to asking: ?Is the House ready to vote on the bill or amendment before it?? The web site also notes that, ?in order to amend a rule . . . the House must vote against ordering the previous question.?

The vote on ordering the previous question on the rule for the State Department appropriation bill was 217-187. All 217 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Sixteen other Democrats joined with one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the previous question was ordered and the House moved immediately to a vote on the rule for debating the bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 511
Jul 09, 2009
(H.R.2965) On a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a procedural ruling. The ruling had prevented a vote on adding language to H.R. 2965 that said unlimited amendments should be allowed to all funding bills the House considered.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling that a resolution was out of order. The resolution had been offered by Rep. Price (R-GA). It would have committed the House ?report out open rules for all general appropriations bills?, to ?practice fiscal restraint and develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway Federal spending?, and to have ?an open and transparent appropriations process . . . .?

The Price resolution was part of an ongoing campaign by Republicans against what they were claiming was a practice of the Democratic majority of limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially appropriation bills. The resolution had been brought up under a procedure called a ?question of the privilege of the House.? Price said that the issues he was putting forward related to ?the integrity of (House) proceedings.? He argued that ?the unprecedented actions that have been taken by the Democrats in charge have disenfranchised every single Member of this House. Appropriations bills have been, by tradition and previously by rule, brought to the floor under what?s called an ?open rule,? which means that every single Member of the House has an opportunity to affect the bill, to represent his or her constituents . . . When Members are not allowed to bring amendments to the floor on the spending of their constituents? tax money, that disenfranchises those Members. That is an affront to the House.?

The Democrat majority had been arguing that limitations needed to be placed on the number of amendments that could be offered as a way of completing all the appropriation bills in a timely manner. During the past few years, there had been a number of occasions in which all the appropriation bills for a fiscal year were not completed before that year began. During the previous year, which was the last of the second Bush Administration, no appropriation bills were passed before the fiscal year began.

Rep. Simpson (R-ID) had previously commented on the Democratic timing argument. He has said that ?in the name of expediency . . . what we have done is cut Members out not being able to offer amendments on the floor, not only minority Members but majority Members too.  .    . Members have the right and the ability to represent their constituents . . . That means offering amendments to appropriation bills. Our history has been that appropriation bills come to the floor under an open rule so that Members have the right to offer amendments . . . Our job is to come here and debate issues, not expediency, trying to get them done at a specific time. By doing that, what we do is cut off Members' ability to represent their constituents on this floor.?

The resolution had been ruled out of order based on a House precedent that a question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to require a particular order in which the House should proceed, and that ?directing the Committee on Rules to report a certain kind of resolution proposes a special order of business.?

The vote on whether to kill the appeal of the ruling was 240-179 on an almost straight party line basis. All two hundred and forty ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Three other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy-six Republicans and voted ?nay?.  As a result, the appeal of the procedural ruling was not voted on, and the Republicans did not succeed in having unlimited amendments allowed for all funding bills the House considered.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 510
Jul 09, 2009
(H. R. 2997) On passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2997 providing fiscal 2010 year funds for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and related agencies. The bill provided almost $23 billion in funding, which represented an $11billion increase over corresponding 2009 levels. Most of that increase went toward the Women, Infants and Children food program, the FDA, and International Food Aid. The bill also included a total reduction of more than $735 million from certain 2009 spending categories.

Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2997, led the support for the measure. She said that ?the bill focuses on several key areas, such as: Protecting public health; bolstering food nutrition programs; investing in rural communities; supporting agriculture research; strengthening animal health and marketing programs; and conserving our natural resources.? DeLauro claimed that: ?(T)o protect the public health, the bill provides a substantial increase for the Food and Drug Administration . . . That is to hire additional inspectors, conduct more inspections of domestic and foreign food and medical products . . . This is not only a matter of public health and consumer safety, it is a matter of national and economic security.?

DeLauro argued that these increases came ?after years of underinvestment (by the second Bush Administration) in the Federal Government's capabilities, in protecting public health, supporting American agriculture, strengthening rural communities, and conserving the environment.? She focused particularly on the FDA, which she claimed ?has been underfunded for far too long?, and on the Women, Infants, and Children program, which she said is ?a program that we simply cannot afford to underfund any longer, particularly given the gravity of the current economic climate.? DeLauro summarized the goals of the bill by saying it was Congress? ?fundamental responsibility as legislators and as leaders, to say nothing of basic morality and fairness, (to) demand that we do everything we can to help Americans suffering right now from poverty and malnutrition.?

Rep. Kingston, the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2997, said that, although he ?certainly supports many parts of this bill?, he had to opposed it. Kingston?s opposition was based in part on his claim that it did not have sufficient spending reductions, and in part on his idea that it ?grows the bureaucracy (but) doesn't always get something done better or faster.? Kingston argued that ?we spend a lot of time talking about increase in spending, but we don't talk about efficiency and effectiveness. The purpose of Congress really shouldn't be just to spend more money on an authorized program. We should make sure that the programs are effective, they're efficient, and are doing their intended purpose.? He added that this type of bill should do more ?to help encourage people to be more independent so they do not have to depend on the U.S. Congress year after year.?

Kingston added that ?as a Republican, one reason why we are in the minority is because we spent too much money. Republicans had a brand identity of being fiscal conservatives, and unfortunately we threw that away . . . (and now), particularly with this (Obama) administration, spending seems to be on supercharge . . . .?

The vote was 266-160. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and twenty-seven Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay? As a result, the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture-FDA funding bill passed and was sent onto the Senate.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 509
Jul 09, 2009
(H.R.2965) On a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a procedural ruling. The ruling had prevented a vote on adding language to H.R. 2965 that said unlimited amendments should be allowed to all legislation the House considered.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling that a motion to recommit the bill and add certain specified language was out of order. The motion had been made by Rep.Kingston (R-GA). The language he sought to add was that it was the sense of the House that it should adhere to statements made in 2000 by Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-WI), Those statements favored permitting unlimited amendments to be offered to legislation. Obey, a Democrat, made them when the Republicans had control of the House.

Kingston had moved to add the additional language to the bill that provided fiscal year 2010 funds for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. The language was ruled out of order based on the House regulation that prohibits ?legislating? on a funding bill, rather than just changing the amount or way that the federal government is to spend money. The language that Kingston sought to add was ruled to be legislating on H.R, 2965.

Kingston?s motion to add this language was part of an ongoing campaign by Republicans against what they were claiming was a practice of the Democratic majority of limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially funding bills. Kingston said: ?(W)e are on the verge of voting on a (multibillion dollar) bill which represents a 14 percent increase over last year's spending level in the backdrop of a nation that has an $11 trillion national debt . . . what this motion to recommit does is say that we were not allowed to vote on 90 different amendments offered by Democrats and Republicans (and) these amendments, had we had the opportunity to vote on them, would have improved the bill. Rep. Young (R-AK), who has been in the House for 39 years, said that he had never seen appropriations handled in such an ?unfair manner??.  

The Democrat majority had been arguing that limitations needed to be placed on the number of amendments that could be offered as a way of completing all the funding bills in a timely manner. During the past few years, there had been a number of occasions in which all the funding bills for a fiscal year were not completed before that year began. During the previous year, which was the last of the second Bush Administration, no funding bills were passed before the fiscal year began.

Rep. Simpson (R-ID) had previously commented on the Democratic timing argument. He had said that ?in the name of expediency . . . what we have done is cut Members out (by) not being able to offer amendments on the floor, not only minority Members but majority Members too.  .    . Members have the right and the ability to represent their constituents . . . That means offering amendments to appropriation bills. Our history has been that appropriation bills come to the floor under an open rule so that Members have the right to offer amendments. Our job is to come here and debate issues, not expediency, trying to get them done at a specific time. By doing that, what we do is cut off Members' ability to represent their constituents on this floor.?

The vote was 246-174 on an almost straight party line basis. All two hundred and forty-six ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Five other Democrats joined one hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and voted ?nay?.  As a result, the appeal of the procedural ruling was not voted on, and the Republicans did not succeed in having unlimited amendments allowed for all bills the House considered.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 508
Jul 09, 2009
(H. R. 2997) On the Kingston of Georgia Amendment, which would have prohibited any money in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and rural programs from being used for rural broadband loan and loan guarantee programs before September 15, 2010.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Kingston (R-GA) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. The amendment would have prohibited any money in the bill designated for the broadband loan and loan guarantee programs being used before September 15, 2010. The amount of funding for rural broadband programs in H.R. 2997, was approximately $400 million, which had been the same amount allotted for this purpose in recent years. An additional two and a half billion dollars for the Department of Agriculture broadband grant and loan programs had been included in the massive economic stimulus package that passed earlier in the session.

Rep. Kingston began his statement in support of his amendment by noting the large previous increase in the category of broadband funding in the economic stimulus bill, and commenting that is was like ?winning the lottery.? He suggested that the $400 million allotted to broadband in this funding bill was therefore not needed. Kingston said the purpose of his amendment was to prevent the Department of Agriculture from using any of this new $400 million until it had spent the $2.5 billion allotted in the stimulus package.

Kingston argued that ?when the stimulus bill was passed, there was so much talk about we are going to use this money immediately, shovel-ready projects, jobs will be created. And as we know, that was when the unemployment level was 8 percent and now it is nearly 10 percent. It has not stopped the bleed and job loss. But the fact is that $2.5 billion is still sitting there, and yet we are coming along now and giving another $400 million . . . this amendment says is we can't use the $400 million until the $2.5 billion is paid down.? Kingston concluded that ?all I am saying to the oftentimes gluttonous government here in Washington, D.C., is, don't go back through the buffet line until you have consumed what you've got.?

Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2997, opposed the amendment. She argued that prohibiting funds from being used in the manner proposed by the amendment ?would gut this critical program at a time when we need to redouble our efforts in this area . . . (It would) stop critical oversight and monitoring of existing borrowers, functions that the government cannot afford to lose, especially if we are to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are well spent.

 DeLauro then argued: ?(N)o one can deny the need to expand (broadband) access. The United States is currently 15th in the world in providing broadband service. Only 38 percent of those living in rural America now have broadband at home, compared to 55 percent of all adult Americans. In rural communities, 24 percent of dial-up users said broadband wasn't available where they lived, more than 7 times those in cities. This is not a partisan issue. There is unanimous support for increased broadband service to rural communities.?

DeLauro then cited a statement by The National Farm Bureau that ?the (funds) allocated for broadband (in the stimulus package) will help rural communities participate in a recovering economy, while modernizing rural education and health care. It creates an economic opportunity for rural Americans, (and) allows farmers and ranchers to take advantage of the technology to help them remain profitable and competitive.?  She concluded by saying: ?We need to do everything we can right now to promote rather than stifle economic innovation in small towns.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 140-292. One hundred and thirty-eight Republicans and two Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-three Democrats and thirty-nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no restrictions were placed on when the broadband funds in H.R. 2997 could be spent.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Telecommunications Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media
N N Won
Roll Call 506
Jul 09, 2009
(H. R. 2997) On the Flake of Arizona Amendment, which would have eliminated $1,000,000 earmarked for the Agriculture Energy Innovation Center in Georgia

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have eliminated $1,000,000, earmarked for research and education activities at the University of Georgia Agriculture Energy Innovation Center from the bill providing fiscal 2010 year funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

Rep. Flake had been a consistent critic of earmarks in spending bills. He based part of his argument against this particular earmark by noting that a great deal of money had been provided in other bills to do research and education in the area of agriculture and energy. He then said it was ?folly in a bill like this, just to be able to direct money for a Member to say, all right, the university in my district is going to get this research money. They won't have to compete for it on merit. They won't have to compete for it because I'm going to earmark it, and they are going to get it when maybe a university elsewhere . . . might want to compete for that project but they can't because the money is earmarked and it goes specifically to this university.?

Flake asked, rhetorically, ?why, if you have such a deserving, respectable program like this, why do we need to earmark these dollars at all? Surely they can compete for it and do well. But why do we circumvent the process of competition simply because we are on the committee or we are a powerful chairman or a ranking minority member or somebody who can get this funding and earmark it so that nobody else can compete for it? That simply doesn't make sense.?

Flake then returned to an argument he had been making during the consideration of a number of spending bills and noted that a disproportionate number of earmarks have been for members of the Appropriations Committee or of the House leadership. He argued ?that is not because there is more merit in those programs. It is because we have powerful Members in those positions (and) . . . we are circumventing that process of competition and awarding by earmark through the political process.?

Rep. Kingston (R-GA), who was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the bill, said the funds were to be directed to ?a program that works on future food production and technology by decreasing the cost of production and looking at ways to have some fuel independence.? Kingston then dealt with what he called Rep. Flake?s problem with ?the process of directing (the money) to the University of Georgia.? Kingston noted ?that the University of Georgia is a land grant university with one of the oldest agricultural colleges in the country. And they do compete for competitive grants on a regular basis, and they do get competitive grants. When they have put skin in the game, Congress has, in fact, not just for the University of Georgia, but for a lot of universities, put some matching money in it.?

Kingston went on to say that, ?in this case, the money is really not matching as the college itself has already put in about $5 million. And they have been working on this over the years, but they have gotten $500,000 from private foundations in 2010, and (in) 2011 they will get $800,000 from private foundations. And then they have State money, and then they have university money in it. So it is not something where the $1 million is a new start-up for a program that is not out there.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 103-328. Ninety-four Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-five Democrats and eight-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $1,000,000 earmarked for the University of Georgia Agriculture Energy Innovation Center remained in H.R. 2997.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
N N Won
Roll Call 505
Jul 09, 2009
(H. R. 2997) On the Flake of Arizona Amendment, which would have eliminated $638,000 earmarked for a project at the Environmental Management Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have eliminated $638,000, earmarked for a project being undertaken at the Environmental Management Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland. The project focused on the use of bi-products of a process in which certain types of sand are used to form molds for metal castings. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. The funding for this project was included in the bill providing fiscal 2010 year funding for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies.

A number of Republicans had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills. Rep. Flake had been the leading opponent of earmarks. He noted that the committee report accompanying this spending bill said that the research project that would be funded with the $638,000 was finished. He then asked ?why are we earmarking funds seemingly for a project that has already been completed??

Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2997, responded to Flake by saying: ?(T)here is considerable need for ongoing funding to study the beneficial uses of other industrial byproducts in agriculture. We need to allow these funds to be flexible as opposed to being directed at one specific material . . . we cannot always be aware in advance of potential new beneficial uses of various industrially and agriculturally derived materials.? She added: ?(F)inding these new uses not only would benefit American agricultural producers, it assists the American public and the environment by avoiding increasingly expensive options of sending these materials to a landfill.?

Flake then presented an argument he had made on other spending bills - - that earmarks in spending bills were not equally distributed among Members. He said ?67 percent of the dollar value (of earmarks) are going to either appropriators or powerful Members, either chairmen or ranking minority members of committees . . . It is a spoils system.? Flake concluded his remarks by arguing: ?(W)e should set parameters. We should tell the Federal agencies, Here is how you should distribute the money, instead of saying, All right, I'm a powerful member of the Appropriations Committee or of leadership and I'm going to direct that money to my district.?

Rep. DeLauro responded by claiming ?we have been very open. There has been a great deal of scrutiny that has gone into this process this year. There have been new requirements that (Appropriations Committee) Chairman Obey put into practice to continue our efforts to ensure that the appropriations process is open, that it is transparent, and that it is worthy of the public's trust. In terms of vetting each request with the agency under whose jurisdiction the earmark would fall, there has been public disclosure on Members' Web sites, and the committee made earmark lists available after the subcommittee consideration on the bill . . . .?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 115-319. One hundred and twelve Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-four Democrats and sixty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $638,000 earmarked for the project at the Environmental Management Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland remained in H.R. 2997.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 504
Jul 09, 2009
(H. R. 2997) On the Campbell of California Amendment, which would have eliminated $235,000, earmarked for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture research and education activities on specialty crops in Indiana

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA), which would have eliminated $235,000, earmarked for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture research and education activities on specialty crops in Indiana. The amendment was offered to the a bill providing fiscal 2010 year funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

Rep. Campbell, speaking on behalf of his amendment, noted that the country was ?in a period of great fiscal strain, where we have a $2 trillion deficit running this year, another $1 trillion deficit every year for as far as the eye can see, and 46 cents of every dollar . . . this year will be borrowed.? He referenced the recent statement by the Congressional Budget Office that the current budget levels are ??unsustainable? given the situation that we're in, given the deficits we're running, given the debt we're building up, given the amount of money that we're borrowing, given the spending that we're going through . . . .?

Campbell suggested that spending should be limited to what he called ?true national priorities, true things that are really those things that we must do and can only do right now rather than things that are designed for a specific district, specific area or a specific industry?. He then said ?that this particular earmark . . . does not rise to that level of national and critical importance . . . .?

Rep. Ellsworth (D-IN), who was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the spending bill, began his remarks opposing the amendment by noting that he had 9,000 farms in his district, while Rep. Campbell had only 72 farms in his district. Ellsworth noted that the specific project that would be funded with the $235,000 that the amendment sought to remove would be undertaken by an agricultural center that ?provides an important resource for farmers to improve crop quality and yields and decrease pesticide use.? He added that it ?is critical for conducting research on crops in our area . . . (which is) within a day's drive of 40 percent of the American population . . . And because approximately 40 percent of the Nation's population live within a day's drive of that area, we think it's extremely important to explore all of the possibilities of that area.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 111-320. One hundred and eight Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and sixty-eight Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $235,000 earmarked for the research and education activities on specialty crops in Indiana remained in H.R. 2997.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
N N Won
Roll Call 503
Jul 09, 2009
(H. R. 2997) On the Hensarling of Texas Amendment that would have eliminated $200,000 ?earmarked? for the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy project

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX),which would have would have eliminated $200,000 that was ?earmarked? for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy project in Kiski Basin, Pennsylvania. The amendment was offered to the bill providing fiscal 2010 year funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills.

Rep. Hensarling, speaking on behalf of his amendment, said he wanted to put it in ?a broader context.? He said the ?the national priority has got to be job growth, economic growth. And, by any standard, the economic policies of this Democratic Congress, the economic policies of this administration have been an abject failure.? Hensarling referred to the large amounts that had been proposed by President Obama and approved by the Congress to overcome the current economic crisis and asked ?what do we have to show for it? Nothing but debt . . . .? Hensarling argued that his amendment was ?an opportunity for the taxpayers to maybe save $200,000. Not to borrow that money from the Chinese.?

He added that ?(I)'m sure good things can be done with this money by the Natural Biodiversity and their holistic habitat management program . . . But let me tell you other good things that can be done with the money. That money could be used to go against the deficit . . . And if we're going to spend it, maybe we ought to spend it on small businesses . . . We could save eight small businesses in America.  But, most importantly right now, we could tell America that we know what the priorities are--and it's not weed management by Natural Biodiversity in the Kiski River Basin. I have no idea how this became a national priority.?

Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2997, opposed the amendment. She said that the program from which the amendment would eliminate funding ?was initiated in response to citizens' concerns for invasive plant problems in the . . . Allegheny River and Ohio River Basin (and that) . . .  Subsequent work has been expanded . . . to include the Juniata watershed of the Chesapeake Bay, the State of Pennsylvania, and a much larger mid-Atlantic region. Invasive plant management work has led to innovative approaches, including native plant restoration and comprehensive land stewardship practices.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 122-307. One hundred and fourteen Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-five Democrats and sixty-two Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the funding earmarked for the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy project in Kiski Basin, Pennsylvania remained in H.R. 2997.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 502
Jul 09, 2009
(H. R. 2997) On the Blackburn of Tennessee Amendment that would have reduced overall discretionary spending by 5% in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) to H.R. 2997, the bill providing fiscal 2010 year funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. The amendment would have reduced overall discretionary spending in H.R. 2997 by 5%. Total funding in the bill amounted to $22.9 billion.

Rep. Blackburn, in her statement in support of the amendment, said that the common overriding concern of Americans is ?spending, the deficit, and national debt?, that they are asking:?Where is this money coming from? . . . (and) what we can do to stop this excessive spending.? She described her amendment as ?a good first step . . . to slow the Federal spending.? Blackburn said that the amount in the spending bill ?represents nearly a 12 percent spending increase over last year. And if you add all the stimulus spending, which was $26.5 billion, and the emergency spending, which was $7.9 billion, these programs have benefited from about a 125 percent increase over the past 3 years. So can any of us say that spending 125 percent more than we did on these programs last year in this economic climate is responsible?? Blackburn added that many states have had across-the-board cuts, ?and they have used that to rein in the bureaucracy and say tighten your belts.?

Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2997, opposed the amendment. She said that its impact would be ?a cut of $1.1 billion from the bill. Now, this is exactly the wrong time to cut funding for critical programs . . . that protect the public health, bolster food nutrition assistance programs, invest in rural communities, in agriculture research, strengthen animal health and marketing programs, and conserve our natural resources.?

DeLauro went on to say: ?(W)hile the bill received a relatively large increase over 2009, it is important to understand that the large majority goes to fund just three priorities: $681 million for higher Women Infant and Children Program participation and for food costs, $560 million for International Food Aid programs, and $299 million for the Food and Drug Administration to better protect our public health. At the same time, the bill made cuts in a number of programs below 2009 totaling $274 million. We also rejected $735 million in increases in the budget request.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 185-248. One hundred and sixty-three Republicans and twenty-two Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-five Democrats and thirteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the amount in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration was not reduced.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
N N Won
Roll Call 501
Jul 09, 2009
(H. R. 2997) On the Broun of Georgia Amendment that would have reduced fiscal year 2010 funding for the Food and Drug Administration by $373 million

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Broun (R-GA) to the bill providing fiscal 2010 year funds for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration (?FDA?) and related agencies. The amendment would have returned the 2010 fiscal year funding for the FDA back to its fiscal year 2009 level by reducing the amount provided for it in H.R. 2997 by $373 million.

Rep. Broun began his statement in support of his amendment by saying: ?(A)s American families struggle to tighten their fiscal belts and spend less . . . I believe Congress should stop spending so much (and) . . . I think most people would like for us to be more frugal.? Broun said ?as the House conducts one of its most important tasks, the appropriation of funds, we owe it to the American families and people to . . . work towards real fiscal constraint here in Washington.?

Rep. D Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2997, opposed the amendment. She noted that its impact would be to cut staffing that would be ?devoted to inspections and other field activities, (and) make real improvements in FDA's work to ensure the safety of foods and medical products . . . The FDA will also be able to update its labs . . . This is especially important during food-borne illness outbreaks . . . .?

DeLauro also noted that ?the increased funds will help the FDA work on new screening tests for blood-borne disease to better understand the adverse events related to medical devices that are used in pediatric hospitals (and will) . . . allow the FDA to make substantial investments in information technology for both foods and medical products.?

Rep. Broun responded by claiming that his amendment ?won't do a thing to cut all those programs . . . .? He went on to argue: ?(M)y amendment would simply put the funding at the current level. We are stealing our grandchildren's future by spending so much money, by creating a huge debt. I'm not picking on the FDA. What I'm trying to do is I'm trying to save my grandchildren's future.? Rep. DeLauro countered by saying: ?I'm trying to save your grandchildren's lives and other grandchildren's lives and my own as well.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 135-292. One hundred and thirty-two Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-eight Democrats and forty-four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the FDA spending levels for fiscal year 2010 were not reduced.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Food and Drug Inspection & Funding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
N N Won
Roll Call 498
Jul 09, 2009
(H. R. 2997) On the DeLauro of Connecticut Amendment, which made a series of changes totaling $5.5 million to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. DeLauro (D-CT) to H.R. 2997, the bill providing fiscal 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. DeLauro was the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2997. The amendment transferred approximately $5.5 million dollars within a number of categories in the bill, which provided a total of $22.9 billion to the departments and agencies it funded.

The opposition expressed to the amendment was not to the specific funding changes it made. Rather, the debate on the amendment served as an opportunity for the Republican minority to continue its ongoing complaint that the Democratic majority was using its control to restrict the ability of Members to offer amendments to spending bills.

Rep. Kingston (R-GA) acknowledged that his opposition to the amendment had nothing to do with its substance, but rather with ?the Rules Committee because there were so many amendments that the Rules Committee did not allow by the minority, and the (technical) reason that the Rules Committee said they did not allow them was because they were authorizing on an appropriation bill (which violates House rules).?

The amendment passed by a vote of 266-161. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and nineteen Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-seven Democrats and four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, a series of funding changes amounting to $5.5 million were made in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 494
Jul 08, 2009
(H. Res, 609) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration - - on a procedural vote to decide whether the House should reconsider its previous decision to approve the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was one of a series of votes resulting from procedural tactics of the Republican minority to protest what it said was the unfair limitation that the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments that could be offered to spending bills. This vote was formally on the motion to reconsider the previous decision to approve the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R.2997, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration.

The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to what it was claiming were the unfair limitations that the Democratic majority had been including in rules on this and other spending bills. To protest these restrictions, the Republicans had been making a series of procedural motions to force votes that delayed the process of considering these bills.

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), a Member of the House Rules Committee, had been among the leading voices argued against the rules that limited amendments. During the debate on this and other motions, she said: ?(T)hroughout this appropriations season, the Democrat majority has taken unprecedented steps to silence both the minority and their own Democrat colleagues by offering all appropriations bills under (very restrictive) rules. This has consistently eliminated the ability of Members to speak up for how their constituents believe their money should be spent.? Foxx went on to claim that ?when Republicans were in the majority, the most regular appropriations bills considered under a restrictive rule in any single season was four in 1997 . . . .? 

Rep. Dreier (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the Rules Committee, argued that ?we are preventing Members from having an opportunity to bring about any kind of reduction in spending . . . One of the things that has been great about the appropriations amendment process in the past has been simply that Democrats and Republicans could stand up and offer germane amendments that could bring about reductions in spending.?

Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2997, countered by claiming: ?(W)e have had an open process throughout the subcommittee and committee markups . . . Clearly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had an opportunity to speak their minds on these issues and have their amendments considered (during the subcommittee and Appropriations Committee drafting sessions).? Rep. Farr (D-CA), another Democratic member of the Appropriations Committee disagreed with the Republican argument that they had been shut out, since he said they were permitted to appear at Appropriations Committee hearings and they participated in the committee process of actually drafting the bill.

The motion was defeated by a vote of 170-254. One hundred and sixty-six Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and eleven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move on to its next piece of legislative business, the debate on the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 493
Jul 08, 2009
(H. Res, 609) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R.2997 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R.2997. The rule l permitted very few amendments to be offered during its consideration.

The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to what it was claiming were the unfair limitations that the Democratic majority had been including in rules on this and other spending bills. Rep. Foxx (R-NC), a Member of the House Rules Committee, had been among the leading voices arguing against the rules that limited amendments. During the debate, she said: ?(T)hroughout this appropriations season, the Democrat majority has taken unprecedented steps to silence both the minority and their own Democrat colleagues by offering all appropriations bills under (very restrictive) rules. This has consistently eliminated the ability of Members to speak up for how their constituents believe their money should be spent.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) added that approval of the rule ?set a record (for) . . . the largest number of restrictive rules for consideration of appropriations in the history of the Republic.? He added ?by virtue of the action that I suspect this House will take . . . the rights of the American people . . . are being subverted . . . (T)he new norm is a restrictive process shutting down the rights of Democrats and Republicans from having an opportunity to amend appropriations bills.?

Dreier acknowledged that the argument over a restrictive rule ?is all inside baseball, but the fact of the matter is it comes down to the effort being made by the (Democratic) majority to (prevent) . . . Members from having an opportunity to bring about any kind of reduction in spending . . . .?

The Democratic majority took the position that a limitation on the number of amendments, and the resulting limitation on the length of debate, was needed in all the 2010 fiscal year spending bills. They argued this limitation was needed in order to meet the goal of enacting all the spending bills by the beginning of that fiscal year. In recent years, many spending bills had not been signed into law before the beginning of the fiscal year to which they applied.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA) was leading the support for the rule. He said that the Republicans ?can complain all they want, but it won't feed a single hungry child. (They) can try all the obstructionist tactics that they want, but it won't save a single rural family farm . . . I think too many of my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to me more interested in delaying, obstructing, and killing important legislation than advancing it. That may be the advice of some high-priced political consultant at the Republican National Committee, but it is a bad way to serve the American people. Our side has repeatedly tried to reach out and reach an accommodation on debate and on amendments with the minority, only to be rebuffed.?

Rep. Farr (D-CA), a Democratic member of the Appropriations Committee disagreed with the Republican argument that they had been shut out, since he said they were permitted to appear at Appropriations Committee hearings and they participated in the committee process of actually drafting the bill.

The resolution passed by a vote of 238-186. Two hundred and thirty-seven Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-six Democrats and ten Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move to debate the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 492
Jul 08, 2009
(H. Res, 609) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration - - on a procedural vote to decide whether the House should reconsider its previous decision to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was one of a series of votes resulting from procedural tactics of the Republican minority to protest what it said was the unfair limitation that the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments that could be offered to spending bills. This vote was formally on the motion to reconsider the previous decision to bring to an immediate vote the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R.2997.

The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to what it was claiming were the unfair limitations that the Democratic majority had been including in rules on this and other spending bills. To protest these restrictions, the Republicans had been making a series of procedural motions to force votes that delayed the process of considering these bills. This was one of those motions.

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), a Member of the House Rules Committee, had been among the leading voices arguing against the limitations that the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments that could be offered to a series of bills, especially spending bills. She had said: ?(T)hroughout this appropriations season, the Democrat majority has taken unprecedented steps to silence both the minority and their own Democrat colleagues by offering all appropriations bills under (very restrictive) rules. This has consistently eliminated the ability of Members to speak up for how their constituents believe their money should be spent . . . the Democrat majority has (surpassed) . . . the number of restrictive rules ever offered during appropriations season in the House of Representatives.?

Rep. Kingston (R-GA) said he was opposing the rule ?simply because it's a closed rule. You know, we come here, 435 Members representing 300 million people all across the United States of America with different ideas, and we are about to vote on a $123.8 billion bill in which these 435 Members of Congress have different ideas . . .  Now, you know the expression, you're dressed up with no place to go. That's what it's like . . . and when you get to the dance, you find out you're not even allowed to dance.?

He went on to say that, under the terms of the rule ?the minority (Republican) Members really can't participate today. . . (W)e submitted 90 amendments--we, Democrats and Republicans--in an effort to improve this bill, and of those, I believe 12 have been agreed upon. And of those, four are noncontroversial and five of them are a little bit superficial, if not routine.?

The Democratic majority took the position that a limitation on the number of amendments, and the resulting limitation on the length of debate, was needed in all the 2010 fiscal year spending bills. They argued this limitation was needed in order to meet the goal of enacting all the spending bills by the beginning of that fiscal year. In recent years, many spending bills had not been signed into law before the beginning of the fiscal year to which they applied.

In addition, Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), who chairs the subcommittee that developed the legislation, claimed: ?(W)e have had an open process throughout the subcommittee and committee markups . . . Clearly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had an opportunity to speak their minds on these issues and have their amendments considered (during the subcommittee and Appropriations Committee drafting sessions).?

The motion to reconsider the previous decision was defeated on a vote of 175-251. One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-two Democrats and nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move on to the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 491
Jul 08, 2009
(H. Res, 609) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on bringing to an immediate vote the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2997. That bill provided fiscal year 2010 funds for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. The rule for H.R. 2997 permitted very few amendments to be offered during consideration of the measure. The vote on whether to move to an immediate vote is known as ?ordering the previous question.? The Rules Committee parliamentary web site notes that, ?in order to amend a rule . . . the House must vote against ordering the previous question.?

The Republican minority had expressed its strong opposition to the limitation on amendments in this and other rules. Rep. Foxx (R-NC), a member of the House Rules Committee, argued that: ?(T)hroughout this appropriations season, the Democrat majority has taken unprecedented steps to silence both the minority and their own Democrat colleagues by offering all appropriations bills under (very restrictive) rules. This has consistently eliminated the ability of Members to speak up for how their constituents believe their money should be spent.  But today marks a record in modern history. Today, the Democrat majority has gone even further by surpassing the number of restrictive rules ever offered during appropriations season in the House of Representatives.?

Rep. Conaway (R-TX) claimed that the Democratic majority ?continue(s) to . . . defend their idea . . . that the amendments that would make this bill better are somehow trivial and shouldn't be debated on this floor.? He went on to say that if ?218 (a majority) of us say we disagree with the hard work that the Appropriations Committee has done and want to reduce that spending . . . that money wouldn't get spent; that money would actually reduce the deficit. My colleagues on the other side are frightful . . . that the will of this Congress may be that we disagree with the appropriations process. The Appropriations Committee . . . should just get one bite at that apple (and) . . . then allow the 435 of us, the rest of us who aren't on the Appropriations Committee, to have our say . . . .?

The Democratic majority took the position that a limitation on the number of amendments, and the resulting limitation on the length of debate, was needed in all the 2010 fiscal year spending bills. They argued this limitation was needed in order to meet the goal of enacting all the spending bills by the beginning of that fiscal year. In recent years, many spending bills had not been signed into law before the beginning of the fiscal year to which they applied.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA) was leading the support for the rule. Referring to the underlying legislation and the fact that amendments to it had been limited under the rule, he said: ?There are programs that I think should be funded at higher levels and other programs that should be reduced. Other colleagues undoubtedly have different priorities. But I believe that this bill is a solid, thoughtful, good compromise.?

Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2997, argued that: ?(W)e have had an open process throughout the subcommittee and committee markups. I believe this rule sets in motion what has been a fair process . . . Clearly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had an opportunity to speak their minds on these issues and have their amendments considered (during the subcommittee and Appropriations Committee drafting sessions).?

Rep. Farr (D-CA), another Democratic member of the Appropriations Committee and a supporter of the rule, disagreed with the Republican argument that they had been shut out, since, he argued, they were permitted to appear at Appropriations Committee hearings and they participated in the committee process of actually drafting the bill.

The motion passed by a vote of 230-177. All 230 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Six other Democrats joined with one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move to a vote on the rule setting the terms for debating H.R. 2997.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 489
Jul 08, 2009
(H.Res. 609) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration - - on a procedural motion relating to whether the House should bring up and consider the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was one of a series of votes resulting from procedural tactics of the Republican majority to protest what it said was the unfair limitation that the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments that could be offered to spending bills. This vote was formally on the motion to have the House bring up and consider the resolution or ?rule? that set the terms for consideration of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, for rural development, and for the Food and Drug Administration. Among the terms in that rule were limitations on the number of amendments that could be offered when that spending bill was being considered.

The procedural question was raised by Rep. Flake (R-AZ). He had formally raised a point of order against taking up the rule on the funding bill, based on a claim that the measure contained a provision violating the Congressional Budget Act. However, Flake began his remarks by acknowledging that he raised the point of order ?because it's the only vehicle we've got to actually talk about this rule and this bill and how we are being denied the ability to actually offer the amendments that we would like to . . . and how this is a break again from the hallmark and tradition of this House, which is to allow open debate on appropriation bills.?

Rep. Flake had been a consistent opponent of including ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated spending, in funding bills. He noted that the Agriculture-FDA spending bill had ?hundreds and hundreds of earmarks in it . . . .?

Rep. McGovern (D-MA) was leading the effort for the Democrats in support of the rule for the Agricultural-FDA funding bill. He noted that ?technically this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and ultimately the underlying bill. In reality, it's about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation itself . . . (and) the underlying bill that we want to consider here is a bill that provides food and nutrition to some of the most desperate people in this country. It's a bill that will provide much-needed help to farmers in rural areas all across this country. This is an important bill for a number of reasons, and I think it's wrong to try to delay this bill or block this legislation from coming to the floor. I hope . . . we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural obstructionist motion. Those who oppose this bill can vote against it on final passage.?

The motion passed by a vote of 244-185. All two hundred and forty-four ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eight other Democrats jointed all one hundred and seventy-seven Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to take up the rule setting the terms for debating the bill providing funding in fiscal year 2010 for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 485
Jul 08, 2009
(H.R.2965)On tabling (killing) an appeal of a ruling of the Speaker of the House that a motion in favor of permitting unlimited amendments to all legislation was out of order

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote to table (kill) the appeal of the ruling of the Speaker of the House that a motion was out of order. The motion that had been ruled out of order would have sent a bill the House was considering back to committee with instructions to add language in favor of permitting unlimited amendments to be offered to all legislation. The ruling was actually made by a Democratic Member who was sitting in the chair in the place of House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA). The Republicans appealed the ruling.

The Republican minority had been complaining that the Democratic majority had been unfairly limiting the number of amendments that could be offered to a series of federal government appropriation bills. To highlight their objections, the Republicans had engaged in a number of procedural tactics. One of those tactics was this motion by Rep. Simpson (R-ID) that had been ruled out of order.

The specific language of the Simpson motion was to add language to the bill the House was considering noting that it was the sense of the House that it should adhere to previous statements in favor of permitting unlimited amendments, which were made by Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-WI). Those statements were made by Obey when he was in the minority.

\Rep. Simpson had moved to add that additional language to a bill relating to the reauthorization of small business innovation research and technology transfer programs. His motion was ruled out of order based on the House regulation prohibiting non-germane language from being offered to a pending bill. This language was deemed to be non-germane to the subject of small business research and technology.

Simpson said ?we know the damage that (limiting amendments) does to this Institution. We have done it in the name of expediency . . . instead, what we have done is cut Members out not being able to offer amendments on the floor, not only minority Members but majority Members too. . Members have the right and the ability to represent their constituents . . . That means offering amendments to appropriation bills. Our history has been that appropriation bills come to the floor under an open rule so that Members have the right to offer amendments.  Is it frustrating? Yes. Does it take a lot of time? Yes. Are there some amendments that we wish wouldn't be offered? Sure. But that is our job. Our job is to come here and debate issues, not expediency, trying to get them done at a specific time. By doing that, what we do is cut off Members' ability to represent their constituents on this floor.?

The appeal of the ruling was killed by a vote of 246-181. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-five Republicans and six Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the ruling that the motion was out of order prevailed, and the House effectively decided not to adopt language favoring the offering of an unlimited number of amendments to all bills.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 480
Jul 08, 2009
(H.Res. 610) Legislation reauthorizing funding for the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2965. H.R. 2965 reauthorized funding for the Small Businesses Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. The Innovation Research Program makes grants to thousands of small businesses. Its purposed is to help small innovative businesses gain access to federal research and development funds, and to allows federal agencies to benefit from the ideas generated by small private companies. The Technology Transfer Program includes non-profit research institutes for the same purpose.

The rule setting the terms for debate limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the legislation. The Republican minority had been complaining during most of the congressional session about rules they claimed restricted the ability of Members to offer amendments to various pieces of legislation the House had been considering.

Rep. Polis (D-CO), who was leading the support for the rule, claimed that these research and technology programs had been very successful. He noted that many patents had resulted from them and that 1.5 million workers were employed by program participants. Polis claimed that: ?(A)cross the country, communities have enjoyed the economic impact of investment in small business. The projects of (program) participants have resulted in not only high-wage, direct research employment but also have generated manufacturing jobs right here in this country and a host of support industry jobs.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the rule. She first said that H.R. 2965 was a ?relatively noncontroversial bill which might not even have needed to be considered under a rule except for the opportunity for some of our Democratic colleagues to get some amendments passed.? Then she claimed that the process of debating and voting on a rule could have been accomplished very quickly, if the Democratic majority had proposed a rule under which there would not have been any limit on the number of amendments that could be offered.

Foxx went on to say that ?the (Democratic) majority has continued its process of shutting out not only the minority, but many (Democratic Members) . . . by not allowing their amendments to be made in order. So we will oppose this rule on that basis.? Foxx also said that amendments should be freely permitted to this particular measure as a way for the House to consider language that will ?make sure that the money that is going to help small businesses in this country is being used as wisely as it can.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 236-187. All Two hundred and thirty-six ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twelve other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debate on the bill reauthorizing funding for small business research and technology programs.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N Y Won
Roll Call 477
Jun 26, 2009
(H.R. 2454) On passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which contained the new cap and trade program; that program mandated significantly reduced emission levels, and permitted higher emitting companies to purchase pollution credits from lower emitters.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2454, an energy bill titled the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The bill included, among other things, new renewable requirements for utilities, incentives for the development of carbon capture technologies, energy efficiency incentives for homes and buildings, grants for green jobs, and a ?cap-and-trade? plan designed to reduce ??greenhouse gas emissions: Under cap-and-trade, an enforceable and declining limit, or cap, is established on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that a company is allowed to emit, until the overall reduction goal is met. Companies emitting higher pollution levels than the law would allow are permitted to buy, or trade, pollution ?credits? from entities that emit much lower pollution levels.

Rep. Waxman (D-CA), a sponsor of H.R. 2454, claimed it ?will break our dependence on foreign oil, make our Nation the world leader in clean-energy jobs and technology, and cut global warming pollution.? Waxman also said that, as a result of the bill, ?we will create millions of clean-energy jobs for America and restore our technological leadership in clean energy. We are also protecting consumers.? Waxman went on to argue ?(T)he evidence on global warming, on the consequences of carbon emission is overwhelming, and we have based our bill on the science. . . And there is an economic imperative to act. This legislation is an enormous jobs bill for America. It will promote investment and growth for decades ahead, creating jobs for the new-energy economy of the 21st century. Referring to the cost of the bill, he said: ?(C)ontrary to what we will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Congressional Budget Office found that this legislation will cost households an average of only $175 in 2020, less than 50 cents a day. EPA's analysis put the cost at 22 to 30 cents a day, less than the cost of a single postage stamp, while lowering utility bills by 7 percent.?

Waxman said that supporters of the measure had ?forged compromises? that satisfied the interests of the auto, steel and coal industries, farmers, and low-income families. He claimed that the bill was supported by electric utilities, manufacturers, and the leading ?environmental organizations, labor unions, and faith-based groups.? He added that: (P)eople in industry have told us that as soon as this legislation becomes law, we will find billions of dollars invested in infrastructure over the next 5 years . . . .?

Republicans opposed the bill on various grounds. A statement issued by House Majority Leader Boehner (R-OH) characterized the cap and trade program as ?a new national energy tax which will significantly increase the cost of energy and impose an unprecedented bureaucratic stranglehold on the economy, resulting in millions of lost jobs and higher costs for millions of American families for virtually every good and service they need.?

Rep. Inglis (R-SC) called the component of the new program that permitted the sale of pollution credits ?another Wall Street trading scheme.? Rep Schock (R-IL) said he believed the country can achieve its energy pollution goals ?without putting the conventional methods of energy out of business.? Rep. Lucas (R-OK), the Ranking Republican on the Agricultural Committee, argued it ?is the single largest economic threat to our farmers and ranchers in decades. We have more than 115 agricultural and food groups who publicly oppose this bill . . . (because) costs will escalate as a direct result of the energy tax (from the cap and trade program).? Lucas also claimed that H.R. 2454 ?does not exempt agriculture from performance standards in the bill, which means the EPA could tell our producers how to manage their farms.?

Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA) said the bill ?stifles the ability of the people of this country to have the kind of competitiveness they need in the world to be able to get inexpensive sources of energy.? Rep. Hastings (R-WA) argued: ?(B)y imposing this national energy tax (in the cap and trade program) and creating a massive new bureaucracy to regulate the entire economy, this bill will drive up the cost of doing business in America . . . .? Rep. Rogers (R-MI) cited statements by President Obama and renowned investor Warren Buffett that, as a result of the bill, ??(E)lectricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.? Under this bill, we create the single largest energy tax in United States history. Warren Buffett called it ?a huge tax, and there's no sense calling it anything else. Very poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.?'' Rogers also argued that the bill essentially is claiming that ?the government can control the weather by raising your taxes, taking your job and dictating your life.? His fellow Michigan Republican, Rep. McCotter, said: ?(T)his is the hubris of Big Government, the delusion that our families' economic futures rest in the manicured hands of Congress rather than the hardworking hands of the American people.?

The vote was 219-212. Two hundred and eleven Democrats and eight Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred sixty-eight Republicans and forty-four Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent to the Senate H.R. 2454, a major energy bill and the first one to mandate and provide a program to achieve significant reductions in global warming.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Automobile Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 476
Jun 26, 2009
(H.R. 2454) On the Forbes of Virginia amendment to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009; the amendment called for a public-private commission to develop a national energy plan and set seven energy independence goals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Forbes (R-VA) to H.R. 2454, a major energy bill titled the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The amendment was intended to substitute for all the provisions of H.R. 2454. The purpose of the amendment, according to Rep. Forbes, was to ?bring together a commission . . . from government, from the private sector, from academics, and have them create in the next year a plan of energy for this country that would get us 50 percent independent from foreign oil in 10 years and 100 percent in 20 years or tell us why we can't get there.? The amendment also set seven goals for energy independence, including doubling vehicle fuel efficiency, cutting home and business energy usage in half, having solar power work as cheaply as coal, making biofuels work as cheaply as gasoline, safely and cheaply storing carbon emissions from coal-fired plants, safely storing nuclear waste and producing electricity from nuclear fusion reactions. It created grants and prizes as incentives to meet certain of the goals.

Rep. Forbes argued that H.R. 2454, as it was currently being considered, was ?essentially redistributing another $800 billion of taxpayer money because we think we know what's best for Americans.? Rep. Schock (R-IL), speaking in support of the amendment, said that we can achieve our energy goals ?without putting the conventional methods of energy out of business.  The Forbes amendment will do just that.?

Rep. Waxman (D-CA) was a sponsor of H.R. 2454, which included the establishment of a new cap and trade program mandating reduced emission levels, and permitting higher emitting companies to purchase pollution credits from lower emitters. He responded to Forbes by arguing that ?good ideas come with market incentives and competition and rewarding people for good ideas with something more than a good ribbon to pin on their chest. This amendment strikes the whole bill and substitutes this idea of giving prizes. . . (but) the American Clean Energy and Security Act, is a comprehensive energy policy. . . This substitute amounts to a grant program and a competition with prizes for good ideas. There is no comparison between the two. The bill before us is a real solution to our very real energy challenges. The Republican amendment simply fails to rise to the challenge.? Rep. Markey (D-MA), who also sponsored H.R. 2454, said the Forbes Amendment contained ?the same discredited policies from the past that have gotten us into this economic national security and environmental situation that we live with today.?

The vote on the amendment was 172-256. One hundred and sixty-five Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-five Democrats and eleven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the amendment was defeated and the provisions of H.R. 2454, including the new cap and trade plan, remained intact.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Automobile Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Won
Roll Call 475
Jun 26, 2009
(H. R. 2996) On final passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The spending in the bill totaled $32.3 billion. This amount included what Rep. Dicks (D-WA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2996, called ?historic increases for the environment, natural resources, and Native American programs, especially Indian health . . . (and) significant allocations to protect our public lands, invest in science, and support important cultural agencies.? The spending in the bill represented an increase of 17% over fiscal year 2009, with the largest increase devoted to grants to improve drinking water treatment facilities and sewer systems. The bill also contained $6.8 billion for Native-American programs, $3.66 billion for fire control activities, and $420 million for climate change adaptation and scientific study In addition, there was also a total of $320 million in reductions in, or terminations of, various programs.

Rep. Dicks justified the overall 17% spending increase by claiming that many of the programs supported by the funding in the bill ?have been chronically underfunded and (the bill) provided the allocations necessary to reverse that trend.? Dicks argued that the bill ?invests taxpayers' dollars in our natural resources, and for this investment all Americans will see great returns.? He also noted that programs funded by the measure ?will return more than $14.5 billion to the Treasury next year. That's revenue. The Department of the Interior alone is estimated to return more than $13 billion to the Treasury through oil, gas and coal revenues, grazing, timber, recreation fees, and (other) revenues . . . .?

Rep. Simpson (R-ID), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2996, led the opposition to the bill. He acknowledged that the country ?has some serious environmental challenges that need to be addressed?, but described the funding in the bill as an ?overly generous allocation to meet many of those needs.? He claimed that ?too often we believe that our commitment to an issue is measured by the amount of money we spend rather than how we're spending that money. History has shown us that bigger budgets do not necessarily produce better results.? Simpson also said: ?(T)his legislation is funding large increases in programs without having clearly defined goals or sufficient processes in place to measure the return on our investment.?

Simpson then referred to the current serious economic crisis and the projected record federal deficits. He said: ?I can show a historically bigger problem where the ?solution? of more and more deficit spending has not worked--including the Great Depression of the 1930s and Japan in the 1990s.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 254-173. Two hundred and thirty-seven Democrats and seventeen Republicans vote ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-nine Republicans and fourteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, House approved and sent to the Senate the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 474
Jun 26, 2009
(H. R. 2996) On the Campbell of California amendment, which would have eliminated $150,000 that had been earmarked for the Historic Fort Payne Coal and Iron Building rehabilitation project in Alabama.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the Campbell (R-CA) Amendment to H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The amendment would have eliminated $150,000 in funds ?earmarked? for the Historic Fort Payne Coal and Iron Building rehabilitation project in Fort Payne, Alabama. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans had been attempting to remove earmarks from a series of spending bills that Congress had been considering.

Rep. Campbell, in his statement in support of the amendment, said that the rehabilitation of the historic Fort Payne Coal and Iron Building is the kind of project that should be paid for at the state or local level, and suggested that it is not ?one of those things which rises to the level of . . . (receiving federal) taxpayer money.? He said that ?budgets are about making choices. We cannot do it all. And when we do it all, we get into the problems that we are in today. We get into deficits that go on without end a trillion dollars or more.?   Campbell went on to argue that ?it is time that we look at these earmarks and we look at the spending and we start to make those priorities and we say this is the amount of money we've got.?

Rep. Aderholt (R-AL), who was responsible for having this earmark included in the funding bill, noted that Fort Payne is a small town in rural Alabama and that the Coal and Iron Building is included in the federal Save America's Treasures program. He also noted that the city of Fort Payne had spent $50,000 of its own money working on this project, and that the state of Alabama had committed another $135,000. Aderholt went on to say that the Coal and Iron Building ?is on the national register, and it will be a valuable asset for increasing tourism and raising awareness of the cultural heritage of northern Alabama and southern Appalachia, as it will provide educational opportunities which augment certain other activities in the region.?

Rep. Dicks (D-WA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2996, also opposed the amendment and said that the Appropriations Committee liked ?the fact that the city and the state put up money. It's a real partnership. This is the way we do things today. . . .?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 114-317. One hundred and four Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and seventy-one Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $150,000 earmarked for the Fort Payne Coal and Iron Building Rehabilitation project remained in H.R. 2996.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 473
Jun 26, 2009
(H. R. 2996) On the Campbell of California amendment, which would have eliminated $1 million that had been earmarked for a project of the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation in San Francisco, California.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the Campbell (R-CA) Amendment to H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The amendment would have eliminated one million dollars from the National Park Service's National Recreational and Preservation fund in the bill that had been ?earmarked? for a project of the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation in San Francisco, California. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans had been attempting to remove earmarks from a series of spending bills that Congress had been considering.

Rep. Campbell, in his statement in support of the amendment, noted that he is ?a fan of historic preservation.? However, referring to the project at Angel Island, he said ?I just feel we shouldn't do it with taxpayer money in this way.? Campbell referenced the fact that the project was in a California state park and that it had recently received more than two million dollars in other federal money. He then asked, rhetorically, ?what makes Angel Island Immigration Station more worthy . . . than various other State parks??

After noting the nearly $2 trillion projected federal deficit, Campbell cited statements by House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA), who represents San Francisco, that ?(I)t's just absolutely immoral for us to heap those deficits on our children? and that ?I?d just as soon do away with all earmarks, but that probably isn't realistic.? Campbell then said ?there aren't many things lately I agree with the Speaker on, but I agree with both of those two comments. We have to stop passing on debt to our children. We have to stop spending money on things that are not national priorities, are not have-to-have items. And although this is in my home State of California, I believe this is one of those items.? Campbell concluded by noting that there was an ongoing effort to raise private funds to rehabilitate the facility and said ?that is where the effort should be.?

Rep. Woolsey (D-CA), who, along with Speaker Pelosi, was responsible for having this earmark included in H.R. 2996, claimed that the Angel Island Immigration Station had great ?cultural and historic significance? and was ?very important . . . to millions of Americans.? She noted that it is ?known as the ?Ellis Island of the West? because over a 30-year period between 1910 and 1940, the Angel Island Immigration Station processed more than 1 million immigrants from around the world with the majority coming from Asia.?

She also argued that the facility ?contributes greatly to our understanding of our nation's rich and complex immigration history by hosting more than 50,000 people including 30,000 school children every single year. But because of severe deterioration, many of the historic buildings are in danger of collapsing and in desperate need of repair . . . so that it can be used, among other things, as a museum to tell the story of immigration from Asia to the United States.  Now, I doubt very much that anyone would come to this floor to strike funding for Ellis Island and argue that its preservation was ?wasteful government spending.? But . . . Angel Island is just as important to those who crossed through its gates as Ellis Island was for so many European immigrants.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 131-296. One hundred and twenty-five Republicans and six Democrats vote ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-eight Democrats and forty-eight Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the one million dollars earmarked for the Angel Island Immigration Foundation remained in H.R. 2996.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 472
Jun 26, 2009
(H. R. 2996) On the Campbell of California amendment, which would have eliminated $150,000 in funds that had been earmarked for the Tarrytown, New York Music Hall restoration project.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the Campbell (R-CA) Amendment to H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The amendment would have eliminated $150,000 in funds from the bill that had been ?earmarked? for the Tarrytown Music Hall restoration project in Tarrytown, New York. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans had been attempting to remove earmarks from a series of spending bills that Congress had been considering. This was one of those efforts.

Rep. Campbell, in his statement on behalf of his amendment, noted that major artists recently performed at the Tarrytown Music Hall with tickets costing up to $80. He asked whether taxpayers should fund the restoration of such a facility and why it cannot sustain itself with private donations. He also suggested that, if there is not sufficient interest to restore this hall with private money, why ?we should force taxpayers to pay for it.? He also noted that ?in the past year the theater itself donated over $80,000 worth of rehearsal and performance space and recently purchased land costing $2 million . . . .?

Campbell asked, rhetorically, ?given the $2 trillion deficit we have, given that the national debt will double in 5 years and triple in 10, given the proposals on the majority side of the aisle that are being discussed to raise taxes all over the place, is this a place that we should be spending more of the taxpayers' money? Isn't this the sort of charitable function that people should raise money on their own??

Rep. Lowey (D-NY), who was responsible for having this earmark included in this spending bill, said she believed ?that it's our responsibility, as elected officials, to fight for what is best in our district in accordance with the rules guiding Federal programs. During these difficult economic times, it is our responsibility to assist industries that make substantial contributions to our economy to accelerate long-term recovery and growth nationally. Tarrytown Music Hall does generate more than $1 million in economic activity in my district.? She added that the local groups that support the facility ?do not expect the federal government to shoulder the full burden of their projects. They're required to provide a dollar-for-dollar match . . . .?  Loewy also noted that the music hall?s ?cultural and educational programs serve more than 30,000 children each year.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 122-301. One hundred and twelve Republicans and ten Democrats vote ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and fifty-seven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $150,000 earmarked for the Tarrytown Music Hall restoration project remained in H.R.2996.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 471
Jun 26, 2009
(H. R. 2996) On the Campbell of California amendment, which would have eliminated $150,000 in funds that had been earmarked for the Village Park Historic Project of the Traditional Arts in Canton, New York.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the Campbell (R-CA) Amendment to H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The amendment would have eliminated $150,000 in funds in the bill that had been ?earmarked? for the Village Park Historic Project of the Traditional Arts in Canton, New York. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans had been attempting to remove earmarks from a series of spending bills that Congress had been considering. This was one of those efforts.

Rep. Campbell, in his statement in support of his amendment, first said he didn?t doubt that this is an important project to the Member who had it inserted in the bill. He also said ?I don?t doubt at all that this is an important project perhaps to the citizens of that area of New York . . . (but) the question basically is this, that we're going to have a $2 trillion deficit this year. Forty-six cents of every single dollar spent will be borrowed . . . Is this something that, in these times, with the deficits and debt that we have, is this the sort of thing that rises to the level of a national priority such that we should borrow forty-six cents on the dollar, increase the deficit further, increase the debt further, and put ourselves in these kinds of problems??

Rep. Dicks (D-WA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2996, opposed the amendment. He said that the subcommittee had ?checked on this project. We think this is a great project. We think it's worthy. We think it provides a lot of public good.?

Rep. McHugh (R-NY), who was responsible for having this earmark included in the bill, agreed that ?we have an economic challenge in this country.? He then noted that the area in which the project is located is a ?region that has long been confronted by economic challenges--closed factories, abandoned mills, failing farms, declining populations.? McHugh said ?economic development is . . . something that we take very seriously, but it has to be configured around those things that the good Lord has given to us: the great universities--four of them within 10 miles of this facility; the tourism, which is our number one industry . . . the need to bring economic development by revitalizing downtown centers (and) . . . the organization to which this money will go is a not-for-profit organization . . . in Canton, New York (that is) . . . attempting to do all of the things I listed: bring economic development through vitalizing tourism . . . .?

McHugh then dealt with the issue of earmarks and said he had ?a difference of philosophy? with Rep. Campbell - - that Campbell ?doesn't believe that it's the opportunity and the right of Members of Congress to come here and to do within the rules and regulations, within the standards established by this House . . . to provide a little bit of help--in this case, $150,000--to bring a difference where the unemployment rate is pushing over 10 percent.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 122-309. One hundred and twelve Republicans and ten Democrats vote ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and sixty-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $150,000 earmarked for the Village Park Historic Project of the Traditional Arts in Canton, New York remained in H.R. 2996.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 470
Jun 26, 2009
(H. R. 2996) On the Campbell of California amendment, which would have eliminated one million dollars from the bill that had been earmarked for a lodge at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2996 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This was a vote on amendment to the bill offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA). The amendment would have eliminated one million dollars, which had been earmarked to fund the installation of a municipal water line for the Restore Good Fellow Lodge at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in Porter, Indiana. A number of Republicans had been attempting to remove ?earmarks? from a series of spending bills that Congress had been considering. This was one of those efforts. An earmark is a legislatively mandated grant or project that is inserted into a spending bill, typically at the request of an individual Member.

Rep. Campbell, in his statement in support of his amendment, cited a 2008 Government Accountability Office finding that the Department of the Interior had a backlog of deferred maintenance projects totaling between $13.2 and $19.4 billion. Campbell then asked, rhetorically, ?(W)ith all these billions of dollars of need in parks all around the country, is this the right way to allocate $1 million . . . Or would it be better to be allocating these funds on the basis of need or on the basis of use or on the basis of someone looking at all of the potential park projects and needs around the country and determining which ones meet a threshold requirement rather than do this by a Member request.?

Rep. Visclosky (D-IN), who was responsible for having the funds included in the bill, defended the project. He said its purpose is for education as well as preservation. Visclosky noted that the lodge is located at the Indiana Dunes Learning Center, and that over 48,000 students had participated in its programs since 1998. He also said that the installation of the water line would help the center to expand its educational program and reduce operation and maintenance costs. Rep. Dicks (D-WA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2996, noted that the Park Service strongly supported the funding.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 123-305. One hundred and seventeen Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and fifty-nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the million dollars earmarked to fund the installation of a municipal water line for a lodge at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore remained in H.R. 2996.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Absent N Won
Roll Call 469
Jun 26, 2009
(H. R. 2996) On the Stearns of Florida amendment, which would have reduced fiscal year 2010 funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 38%

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2996 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This was a vote on the Stearns (R-FL) Amendment to the bill, which would have reduced 2010 funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 38%. This reduction would have maintained funding for EPA at the 2009 level. The Republicans and Democrats were engaged in a series of disagreements over the increased level of spending in H.R. 2996, especially as it related to the environmental area. The Republicans criticized the spending increases in the fiscal year 2010 funding bill as excessive, and the Democrats argued that they were primarily restoring cuts that had been made by the previous Bush Administration.

Rep. Stearns, in his statement in support of the amendment, said that ?with the economy contracting and unemployment rising, it would simply be irresponsible to increase the Environmental Protection Administration by almost 40 percent . . . during a fiscal crisis. In fact, when combined with funding approved earlier this year in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus budget bill and the stimulus bill, the EPA will receive more than $25 billion in a single calendar year, which is equal to more than three-fourths of the entire Interior Appropriations budget.?

Stearns noted that, since 1970, ?federal spending has increased 221 percent, nearly nine times faster than median income. In 2008, publicly held debt, as a percentage of the GDP was 40.8 percent, nearly five points below the historical average. Under President Obama's budget, this figure would more than double to 82.4 percent by 2019.? He concluded his remarks by claiming that the adoption of his amendment ?will send a strong message to the American people that Congress is serious about reigning in this out of control government spending. As families across America continue to tighten their belt, Congress needs to do the same.?

Rep. Dicks (D-WA), the chairman of the subcommittee that developed H.R. 2996, opposed the amendment. He noted that, ?over the last 8 years, the Interior Department was cut by 16 percent; the Environmental Protection Agency was cut by 29 percent. So this is a little bit of help to get back to an approach that can deal effectively with some of the most important and sensitive programs we have in this country. Dicks noted that the Bush Administration had ?reported a $662 billion gap between what our communities will need to spend and the funds they have to do it with. This reduction (proposed by the Stearns Amendment) would mean that the great water bodies of this country will not receive the funding to help restore and protect these special natural resources.?

Dicks argued that the 38% reduction in Environmental Protection Administration funding the amendment would make would mean ?almost 1,500 communities across this country would not receive assistance to repair and build drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.? Dicks also argued that this reduction would stop construction and force demobilization of 8 to 10 large ongoing ?Superfund? environmental cleanup projects, would prevent the emission certification of new vehicles, fuels, and engines , and would result in a loss of funding for the environmental programs of 217 Indian tribes. He concluded by claiming that it would adversely impact ?every American who wants to drink clean water and breathe clean air.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 169-259. One hundred and fifty-five Republicans and fourteen Democrats vote ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and twenty Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the 2010 fiscal year funding level for the Environmental Protection Agency was not reduced.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 468
Jun 26, 2009
(H. R. 2996) On the Jordan of Ohio amendment, which would have reduced the overall spending in the bill providing funding for the 2010 fiscal year for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies back to the fiscal year 2008 level.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the Jordan (R-OH) amendment to H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The Jordan Amendment would have reduced the overall spending in the bill by $5.75 billion, which would have put the amount at the equivalent fiscal year 2008 level.

Rep. Jordan began his remarks in support of the amendment by saying that ?we are spending so much that over the next decade . . . we are going to take the national debt, which is now $11 trillion . . . to take it to $23 trillion . . . Spending is certainly out of control.? He then said that his amendment would do ?what all kinds of taxpayers across this country are doing, what all kinds of small business owners across this country are doing: let's live on exactly what we were functioning on, what the Federal Government was functioning on just . . . 9 months ago . . . .? He noted that the 2010 funding levels in H.R. 2996 increase spending ?by 21 percent over what we were functioning on just 9 months ago? and there are unemployed Americans ?who are living on something less than what they were living on just 9 months ago. But somehow the federal government can never get by on less. It is only the families and taxpayers who have to do that.?

Jordan also argued that the way Congress is spending, it will ?never have to prioritize . . . we (will) never have to decide which programs make sense, which ones should be eliminated, which ones are redundant . . . .? Jordan also said that Congress should practice discipline, which he defined as ?doing what you don't want to do when you don't want to do it.? He referred to his amendment as ?a modest first step.?

 Rep. Dicks (D-WA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2996, characterized the amendment as a ?mindless, meat ax approach? and ?irresponsible?. He argued that it ?makes no choices based on need or the merits of the programs and ?would shortchange America's vitally needed environmental conservation and Native American programs (and) . . . would have serious consequences on health, jobs, energy programs, young people and wild places.? Dicks gave as an example the fact that it would reduce funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by $1.8 billion, which ?would seriously impair environmental protection, science programs, and hazardous area remediation.?

Dicks also said that his subcommittee ?held countless oversight hearings. We made $300 million in cuts.? He noted that the Interior Department had been reduced by 16 percent under the previous Bush Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency by 29 percent, the Forest Service by 35 percent, and that the spending levels in the bill ?will help bring back these important programs (including) . . . health care in the Indian Health Service.?

Dicks further argued: ?(M)any of the people on the other side of the aisle have no trust in the Congress, but this budget came from the administration (that) . . . looked at all these programs, and every earmark we had in this bill was vetted by the administration. So this has been carefully put together.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 169-259. One hundred and fifty-five Republicans and fourteen Democrats vote ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and twenty Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the total amount in the bill providing funding for the 2010 fiscal year for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 2010 was not reduced.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 467
Jun 26, 2009
(H. R. 2996) On the Heller of Nevada amendment, which would have prohibited funds from being used to build a major wildfire control center in a residential neighborhood in Carson City, Nevada

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2996 provided funding for the 2010 fiscal year for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This was a vote on an amendment to the bill offered by Rep. Heller (R-NV). The amendment would have prohibited any funds in the bill from being used to build a Carson Interagency Fire Facility on 15 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management located in a residential neighborhood of nearly 300 homes in Carson City, Nevada.

The Bureau of Land Management, whose funding was in H.R. 2996, had tentatively selected the site for the facility and was in the preliminary ?comment phase? of the process of making its final decision. Local residents in the area were opposed to the location, and the Carson City Board of Supervisors had passed a resolution voicing its opposition to the proposed location.

Rep. Heller, who represents Carson City, began his statement about the amendment by noting that he and his constituents ?support the construction of the interagency fire center and believe the facility will help with combating catastrophic wildfires.? He also noted that his amendment would only prohibit funds from being used to construct the facility at one particular site. Heller referenced the opposition of the local community to the tentatively selected site, and said the Bureau of Land Management ?has under consideration multiple sites for this particular facility, all of which are better suited than the chosen location.?

Heller also argued that ?at times we think here in Washington we know what is better for the local communities . . . I think there should be (another) voice in this process and the voice should come from the people; it should come from the local government and not be pushed down to them through Washington.? Rep. Simpson (R-ID), echoed Heller?s remarks and said ?local people ought to have some say in these Federal agencies' decisions of where they are going to locate facilities . . . saying this area, this location that you are looking at is inappropriate, as the Board of County Commissioners apparently has said, seems to me to be entirely appropriate, and Congress ought to look at their wishes.?

Rep. Dicks, who was leading the support for the funding bill, opposed the amendment. He said he did ?understand that citizens and the Carson City Board of Supervisors are concerned about the Interior Department plan to build an urgently needed new wildfire facility, but it is clearly premature to cut off funding for this proposal. The environmental analysis is still out for public review. We should not halt this important project before the analysis and the public input can be analyzed and considered. It is really important for the Federal agencies to move ahead with an interagency center so they can be more efficient and effective firefighters.? Dicks also pledged to work with Heller ?to be sure that his constituents' concerns are heard and fully considered.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 202-225. One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and thirty-one Democrats vote ?aye?. Two hundred and twenty-four Democrats and one Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, no prohibition was added to the Interior Department funding bill that would prevent the building of the Carson City fire facility.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 466
Jun 26, 2009
(H. Res. 587) A major energy bill containing the ?cap-and-trade? plan, which permits ccompanies emitting higher pollution levels than the law would ordinarily allow to continue those emissions by purchasing pollution ?credits? from entities emitting lower levels - -on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the rule setting the terms for debate of a major energy bill that included, among other things, a ?cap-and-trade? plan designed to reduce ??greenhouse gas emissions: Under cap-and-trade, an enforceable and declining limit, or cap is established on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that a company is allowed to emit, until the overall reduction goal is met. Companies emitting higher pollution levels than the law would allow are permitted to buy, or trade, pollution ?credits? from entities that emit much lower pollution levels. The rule restricted the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill.

Rep. Matsui (D-CA), who was leading the support for the rule, described H.R 2454 as ?an achievement for the American people?. Rep. Jackson-Lee (D-TX) said that the rule and the bill are ?for the courageous and the willing who want to see a new vision. I am well aware of the hard task that our friends on the Rules Committee had, so I am voting for the rule, and I come from the energy capital of the world.? Rep. Schiff (D-CA) said he hoped the Members ?can support . . . this rule, this bill and fulfill the promise that we have given to our constituents, that we will serve this country not only today and during this Congress, but for the long haul, that we will make not only the easy decisions, but the hard ones.?

Rep. Sessions (R-TX), who was leading the Republican opposition to the rule, referring to its limitations on the number of amendments it permitted to be offered to H.R. 2454 as a ?lockdown rule.? Sessions charged that: (A)fter limited committee hearings and only one markup on this 1,200-plus page bill, the negotiations that have brought this bill to the floor have completely excluded Republicans and ignored our good ideas on how to stop the most economically devastating and job-killing parts of this bill. For example, during the bill's brief deliberation in committee, Republicans offered three commonsense amendments . . . unfortunately, the committee's Democrats defeated them all.?

Sessions also claimed that ?for the past 2 weeks, despite numerous contrary promises to our Democrat colleagues and to the American people, Speaker Pelosi and her handpicked lieutenants on the Rules Committee have limited open debate . . . . to talk about this unprecedented bill that is before the American people.? He characterized these actions as ?simply unacceptable when it comes to legislation of such great importance to the future of American jobs and families.? Sessions further argued that ?we owe it to the American people to allow Members of this body on both sides, who have good ideas to be heard . . . .? Sessions also opposed bringing the bill up at the time because it had very recently been revised and he said Members did not have had time to review and understand it.

Rep. Barton (R-TX) opposed the rule because he said the 3 1/2 hours of debate it permitted was insufficient for what Barton called ?the most important economic bill before this House in the last 100 years . . . .? He also claimed ?there is a provision in this revised bill on derivatives that the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and the chairman of the Financial Services Committee have already said needs to be repealed.? Barton further argued that ?200 amendments were presented to the Rules Committee last night. One was made in order . . . .?

The rule setting the terms for debate of the major energy bill passed by a vote of 217-205. All 217 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Thirty other Democrats jointed with one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating on a major energy bill containing the ?cap-and-trade? plan.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 465
Jun 26, 2009
(H. Res. 587) A major energy bill containing the ?cap-and-trade? plan, which permits ccompanies emitting higher pollution levels than the law would ordinarily allow to continue those emissions by purchasing pollution ?credits? from entities emitting lower levels - -on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a procedural motion that the House move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate on a major energy bill. That bill, H.R. 2454, included, among other things, a ?cap-and-trade? plan designed to reduce ??greenhouse gas emissions: Under cap-and-trade, an enforceable and declining limit, or cap is established on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that a company is allowed to emit, until the overall reduction goal is met. Companies emitting higher pollution levels than the law would allow are permitted to buy, or trade, pollution ?credits? from entities that emit much lower pollution levels. The rule for H.R. 2454 restricted the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill..

Rep. Matsui (D-CA), who was leading the support for the rule, described H.R 2454 as ?an achievement for the American people?. Rep. Jackson-Lee (D-TX) said that the rule and the bill are ?for the courageous and the willing who want to see a new vision.? Rep. Schiff (D-CA) said he hoped the Members ?can support . . . this rule, this bill and fulfill the promise that we have given to our constituents, that we will serve this country not only today and during this Congress, but for the long haul, that we will make not only the easy decisions, but the hard ones.? Rep. Castor (D-FL) argued for an ?aye? vote on the rule because the underlying bill would ?provide a new foundation for economic recovery, new jobs, and clean-energy manufacturing. We are going to drive the development of new, clean-energy jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced.?

Rep. Sessions (R-TX), who was leading the Republican opposition to the rule, referring to its limitations on the number of amendments it permitted to be offered to H.R. 2454 as a ?lockdown rule.? Sessions charged that: (A)fter limited committee hearings and only one markup on this 1,200-plus page bill, the negotiations that have brought this bill to the floor have completely excluded Republicans and ignored our good ideas on how to stop the most economically devastating and job-killing parts of this bill.?

Sessions also claimed that ?for the past 2 weeks, despite numerous contrary promises to our Democrat colleagues and to the American people, Speaker Pelosi and her handpicked lieutenants on the Rules Committee have limited open debate . . . . to talk about this unprecedented bill that is before the American people.? He characterized these actions as ?simply unacceptable when it comes to legislation of such great importance to the future of American jobs and families.? Sessions also opposed bringing the bill up at the time because it had very recently been revised and he said Members did not have had time to review and understand it.

Rep. Barton (R-TX) opposed the rule because he said the 3 1/2 hours of debate it permitted was insufficient for what Barton called ?the most important economic bill before this House in the last 100 years . . . .? Barton further argued that ?200 amendments were presented to the Rules Committee last night. One was made in order . . . .?

Rep. Pence (R-IN) also opposed the rule. He argued that ?with an embarrassingly brief amount of debate and discussion and amendment, the Democrat majority is poised to bring to the floor of the Congress what amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change legislation.?

The motion to vote immediately on the rule for the major energy bill passed by a vote of 232-189. All 232 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Sixteen other Democrats jointed with one hundred and seventy-three Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on the rule setting the terms for debating a major energy bill containing the ?cap-and-trade? plan.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 464
Jun 26, 2009
(S.Con. Res. 31) Agreeing to the resolution providing for an adjournment of the two Houses of Congress for the July 4 Recess.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution providing for an adjournment of the two Houses of Congress for the traditional July 4 Recess. The House requires a formal resolution for it to adjourn for a recess. Approval of resolutions allowing for recesses is routinely given. The leadership of the Democratic majority proposed this resolution. The House Republican Conference, which is the policy-making body of the Republican House Members, had been taking what it described as a symbolic position to protest the manner in which the Democrats were conducting business in the House, and had opposed resolution recesses. Forcing a vote on this otherwise routine resolution was part of that protest.

This was a ?privileged resolution? and, under House rules, no debate was permitted. However, debate on a different routine resolution indicated the attitude of the Republicans on how the Democrats were conducting legislative business in the House. During that earlier debate, Rep Foxx (R-NC), who serves on The House Rules Committee, said that ?(W)e were promised 3 years ago by the (Democrats), who were then in the minority, that we were going to have a different way to do things once they took over. But it seems like it's business as usual. Things are being done secretly. Bills are being crafted behind the scenes without any involvement from Republicans. We're dealing with things that don't need to be dealt with on the floor because we are avoiding dealing with the things that we should be dealing with and debating them in open.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 243-180. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and eleven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House agreed to the congressional recess around the July 4 holiday.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 463
Jun 25, 2009
(H.Res. 578) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2996 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate on the bill included limitations on the number of amendments that were in order to be offered to it. This was a vote on the rule.

Rep. Dicks (D-WA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2996 said he would have preferred an ?open rule? that permitted unlimited amendments. However, he claimed that the goal of completing this and all the other spending bills in a timely manner would be threatened by the time consumed if every Member were able to offer an amendment to every spending bill. Dicks said that ?we have to remember that we've got to get these 12 (spending) bills passed. The greatest sin, in my judgment, is to not do our work; and there are some people in this House who don't want to see the work get done because then they can point the finger of failure at the majority.?

Dicks also said that the (Democratic) leadership ?talked to (Minority Leader) Boehner. They talked to (Appropriations Committee Ranking Republican) Lewis . . . And they were rebuffed . . .  So we had no choice but to go to the Rules Committee and get a structured rule . . . It takes both sides here to cooperate and to realize that we have to limit the number of amendments, either by an agreement or by a structured rule.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition for the Republicans to the rule. She argued that, because of its restrictive terms, ?both sides of the aisle are being denied the ability to offer amendments.? Foxx also argued that H.R. 2996 ?is filled with wasteful spending? and suggested that Members should be permitted to offer amendments to reduce its funding levels. She gave as an example the ?astounding 38 percent increase in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency.? Foxx added that the total amount in the bill ?is a 17 percent overall increase in funding from last year's bill, and most programs are increased not only above the 2009 levels, but also above the levels the President requested.?

Foxx also noted that the bill ?contains also several hundred earmarks.? An earmark is a legislatively mandated grant or project inserted at the request of an individual Member in a funding bill. She said: ?(T)he earmark system is flawed. And we know that even some of the earmarks in this bill have had questions raised about them. This legislation contains several giveaways for and preferential treatment to green companies in order to promote the green climate. This bill applies Davis-Bacon, (requiring the payment of prevailing wages on federal projects), which will create wasteful spending that we do not need to have.? She concluded by asking Members ?to vote against this rule in order to allow this body to appropriately and adequately offer their ideas and engage in the debate that our constituents deserve.?

Rep. Polis (D-CO), who was leading the support for the rule, responded by noting that the rule ?makes in order 12 Republican amendments and indeed only . . . two Democratic amendments. I think it is fair to both parties. Included in the allowed amendments are five earmark amendments.? Rep. Foxx answered by arguing ?there are only 60 members on the Appropriations Committee, which means that only 60 out of 435 Members in this body had the opportunity to amend the bill that's under consideration here (during the sessions at which the committee developed the bill). If we had an open rule, every Member would have had that opportunity . . . (Rep. Polis) said only (two) Democrat amendments (were) accepted and 12 Republican amendments. But that reinforces the point that even Members of his own party were turned away from offering amendments, and that isn't right.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 238-184. Two hundred and thirty-seven Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-two Republicans and twelve Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move to debate the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 462
Jun 25, 2009
(H.Res. 578) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies - - on whether the House should move immediately to a vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2996 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate on the bill included limitations on the number of amendments that were in order to be offered to it. This was a vote on a procedural motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule.

Rep. Dicks (D-WA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2996 said he would have preferred an ?open rule? that permitted unlimited amendments. However, he claimed that the goal of completing this and all the other spending bills in a timely manner would be threatened by the time consumed if every Member were able to offer an amendment to every spending bill. Dicks said ?we have to remember that we've got to get these 12 (spending) bills passed. The greatest sin, in my judgment, is to not do our work; and there are some people in this House who don't want to see the work get done because then they can point the finger of failure at the majority.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition for the Republicans to the rule. She argued that, because of its restrictive terms, ?both sides of the aisle are being denied the ability to offer amendments.? Foxx also argued that H.R. 2996 ?is filled with wasteful spending? and suggested that Members should be permitted to offer amendments to reduce its funding levels.

Foxx also noted that the bill ?contains also several hundred earmarks.? An earmark is a legislatively mandated grant or project inserted at the request of an individual Member in a funding bill. She said: ?(T)he earmark system is flawed. And we know that even some of the earmarks in this bill have had questions raised about them. This legislation contains several giveaways for and preferential treatment to green companies in order to promote the green climate. This bill applies Davis-Bacon, (requiring the payment of prevailing wages on federal projects), which will create wasteful spending that we do not need to have.? She concluded by asking Members ?to vote against this rule in order to allow this body to appropriately and adequately offer their ideas and engage in the debate that our constituents deserve.?

Rep. Simpson (R-ID) also opposed the rule. He first acknowledged that Republicans had placed restrictions on the number of amendments that could be offered when they were in the majority in the House, and that both parties ?can point fingers at one another ad nauseam . . .? He went on to say: ?It's time to restore this House to the time-honored traditions of open debate, which we inherited from those who came before us, when Members had the right and the ability to represent their constituents.?

Rep. Polis (D-CO), who was leading the support for the rule, responded by noting that the rule ?makes in order 12 Republican amendments and indeed only . . . two Democratic amendments. I think it is fair to both parties. Included in the allowed amendments are five earmark amendments.? Rep. Foxx answered by arguing: ?If we had an open rule, every Member would have had (the) opportunity (to offer an amendment) . . . .?

The motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule passed on a vote of 241-182. All 241 ?yea? votes were cast by Democrats. Eight other Democrats joined 174 Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the fiscal year 2010Interior Department funding bill.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 461
Jun 25, 2009
(H.R. 2647) A resolution requiring that an unlimited number of amendments could be offered on all spending bills - - on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling that the resolution was not in order

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Republican minority had been objecting to what it said was an ongoing practice by the Democratic majority of limiting the number of amendments that could be offered to legislation, especially to spending bills. In support of their objections, the Republicans had offered a resolution that would have allowed an unlimited number of amendments to be offered to all spending bills. The resolution also contained language saying that the actions of the Democratic majority in limiting the number of amendments ?disenfranchised every single Member of this House, limiting their ability to effectively represent their constituents. These actions by the Democrats in charge . . . have violated the integrity of our proceedings . . . .? The Republicans argued that, under House rules, the resolution should be voted on immediately.

A ruling had been made that the resolution was not in order to be offered. This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of that ruling. The ruling was that the resolution was out of order because it violated a House prohibition against requiring the Rules Committee to impose certain types of conditions under which the House may consider a bill.

The vote on the motion to kill the appeal of the ruling was 245-174 along almost straight party lines. All 245 ?yea? votes were cast by Democrats. Three other Democrats joined 174 Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the ruling prevailed and the House did not vote on the resolution that would have required that an unlimited number of amendments could be offered on all spending bills.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 459
Jun 25, 2009
(H.R. 2647) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department of Defense - - on sending the bill back to committee with instructions to add language that would have increased funding for military equipment by $5 billion and reduced funding for environmental clean up by an equal amount

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Forbes (R-VA) to recommit (send back to committee) H.R. 2647, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. The motion would have required that the committee add language to the bill increasing funding for military equipment by $5 billion, and reducing, by and equal amount, the funding for the cleanup of militarily-related environmental problems. A large portion of the increased funding would have been for the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, Blackhawk helicopters, and unmanned drones for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another significant portion of the funds would have been added to the existing missile defense program.

Forbes said in his statement on behalf of the motion that much of the additional equipment had been ?requested by our men and women in combat? and would fulfill ?the wartime needs of our troops . . . .? He also claimed that the category of environmental cleanup, which his motion would reduce by $5 billion, had already received more than $5 billion in economic stimulus money, that ?cleanup funds do not expire, that the billions of dollars of stimulus funds provided for this effort won't expire for 5 years, and that the environmental projects were ?lower priority?. Forbes added that it ?is more than reasonable to expect that the Secretary of Energy can responsibly reallocate the resources he receives across the environmental management portfolio.?

Rep. Skelton (D-MO), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, opposed the amendment. He claimed that the reductions the proposed language would have made would ?cut the cleanup for radioactive waste and special materials in half.? Rep. Tauscher (D-CA), a member of the Armed Services Committee who resigned shortly after this bill was considered to become Under Secretary of Defense for Arms Control and International Security, also opposed the amendment. Referring to the environmental problems that the cleanup program dealt with, Tauscher said this ?isn?t just a little slush in tanks that we are trying to clean up . . . (it) is the 50-year residue of the Cold War; dangerous, dangerous proliferation risks, dangerous health and safety risks, (and) states have agreements, usually because they have sued the federal government, to have this money be spent for this clean up.?

Tauscher had opposed a previous effort to add funds to the bill for the missile program defense by arguing that the $9.3 billion for the program in the bill ?supports our efforts to build a robust defense against threats from rogue nations . . . and increases funding for proven missile defense systems . . . by $900 million over the budget level of last year.?

Rep. Abercrombie (D-HI), another member of the Armed Services Committee, also opposed the amendment. He argued that committee chairman Skelton had seen to it ?that readiness is first, foremost and fundamental in our deliberations.? Abercrombie said that the amendment should be rejected because the committee ?did its work the way it should do its work. We set a standard for bipartisanship, in fact nonpartisanship, when it comes to determining what is in the interests of the fighting men and women of the United States of America.?

The motion was defeated by a vote of 170-244. One hundred and fifty-seven Republicans and thirteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twenty-eight Democrats and sixteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the proposed funding increase for military equipment and decrease in the environmental cleanup program were not made, and the House moved to a vote on passage of the 2010 fiscal year Department of Defense funding bill.


ENVIRONMENT Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites
N N Won
Roll Call 457
Jun 25, 2009
(H.R. 2647) On the Holt of New Jersey amendment, which required the videotaping of the interrogations of all detainees being held by the Department of Defense or taking place in a Department facility, including the Guantanamo Naval Base

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Holt (D-NJ). The amendment required the videotaping, or other electronic recording, of all detainees being held by the Department of Defense or taking place in a Department facility, including the Guantanamo Naval Base. It also required the Defense Secretary to develop uniform guidelines for such videotaping. Excluded was any ?tactical questioning? by troops who are in contact with enemy fighters. The amendment also required that the recordings be properly classified and maintained securely. It was offered to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department.

Holt claimed that the effect of his amendment will be to ?improve the intelligence operations of our Armed Forces . . . .? He also claimed that ?multiple studies have documented the benefits of video recording or electronically recording interrogations. Law enforcement organizations across the United States routinely use the practice both to protect the person being interrogated and the officer conducting the interrogations. It is the standard of best practice.? Holt noted: ?(S)ome U.S. attorneys are on record as favoring this requirement for the FBI. And the Customs and Border Patrol does routinely videotape or electronically record key interactions and interrogations with those in their custody. Video recording is the standard within the United States for interrogations of all types in all agencies and for prosecutors.?

Holt cited the report of a task force convened by Secretary of Defense Gates to review detainee policy that said: ?We endorse the use of video recording in all camps and for all interrogations. The use of video recording to confirm humane treatment could be an important enabler for detainee operations. Just as internal controls provide standardization, the use of video recordings provides the capability to monitor performance and to maintain accountability.?'

Rep. Skelton, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, supported the amendment. He claimed its effect will be twofold, in that ?it protects our men and women in uniform who are conducting interrogations of detainees from frivolous claims of alleged abuse or coercion. Second, the videotapes will act as a deterrent for private contractors or other agencies who are conducting interrogations of the Department of Defense detainees from straying from those requirements of the Army field manual in the treatment of detainees. It is a way to ensure that it is done right.?

Rep. McKeon (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the amendment. He said: ?(A)ccording to the Department of Defense, the provision would cause three main problems: it would severely restrict the collection of intelligence through interrogations. It would undercut the Department's ability to recruit sources. And it would impose an unreasonable administrative and logistical burden on the war fighter. A provision like this would create a public record that would go straight into terrorists' counter-resistance training programs.?

The vote was 224-193. Two hundred fourteen Democrats and ten Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-two Republicans and thirty-one Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to the 2010 fiscal year Defense Department funding bill requiring the videotaping of the interrogations of all detainees being held by the Department of Defense or taking place in a Department facility.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
Y Y Won
Roll Call 456
Jun 25, 2009
(H.R. 2647) On the Akin of Missouri amendment, which would have required the Defense Secretary to submit to Congress a report on any non-disclosure agreements signed by Defense Department employees regarding their official duties

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Akin (R-MO) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. The amendment would have required the Defense Secretary to submit to Congress a report on any non-disclosure agreements signed by Defense Department employees regarding their official duties. The report would have described topics covered by the agreements, the number of employees required to sign such agreements, the duration of the agreements, the types of persons covered, and the reasons for requiring such agreements. Matters relating to security clearances would have been excluded.

The reason Rep. Akin offered the amendment was his concern that the Obama Administration was using the non-disclosure agreements to prevent Congress from receiving sensitive defense information. Akin, a member of the Armed Services Committee, said that there had always been good relationships ?between the legislative branch and the Pentagon. Unfortunately, these nondisclosure statements (may be) . . . muzzling our admirals and generals and preventing them from giving us data that we need to be able to do our job.?

 Rep. Forbes (R-VA), who co-sponsored the amendment, noted that the first executive order of the Obama Administration ?said democracy requires accountability and accountability requires transparency. And the first things they do, when it comes to national defense, they issue gag orders to hundreds of people in the Pentagon . . . They classified the inspections on our vessels so we can't know the difficulty we have with maintenance requirements. They refused to certify that the budget would meet our shipbuilding plan as required by law. They refused to even send over a shipbuilding plan. They refused to certify an aviation plan that the budget would meet, that is required by law. They refused to even send over an aviation plan, and they refused to give us the out year projections on what the budget dollars would actually be.? Forbes said the purpose of the amendment is to ?try to rein in some of these gag orders . . . .?

Rep. McKeon (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, supported the amendment. He said it was about transparency. McKeon argued that ?Congress cannot sit back and let the Department of Defense stiff-arm us. Congress has a constitutional duty to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, to make rules for the government, regulation of the land and naval forces. We can't allow the Department of Defense to prevent us from exercising our constitutional duty.?

Rep. Skelton (D-MO), the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, opposed the amendment, although it he said it had ?a worthy goal?. Skelton argued that its language would effectively ?overwhelm the Pentagon and harm critical Department of Defense efforts. They won't have time to do much more than comply with this amendment. It is drafted in such a way that it just couldn't be done.? Skelton noted that the Department of Defense ?routinely enters into such agreements to protect the privacy of service members and, of course, to protect sensitive information. As a result, the amendment would require several reports on thousands of non-disclosed agreements.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 186-226. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and seventeen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twenty-three Democrats and three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, language was not added to the 2010 fiscal year Defense Department funding bill requiring the Defense Secretary to submit to Congress a report on any non-disclosure agreements.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Won
Roll Call 455
Jun 25, 2009
(H.R. 2647) On the Franks of Arizona amendment, which would have increased funding for the Missile Defense Agency by $1.2 billion, with offsetting reductions coming from environmental defense cleanup programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment, offered by Rep. Franks (R-AZ) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. The amendment would have increased funding for the Missile Defense Agency by $1.2 billion, with offsetting reductions coming from environmental defense cleanup programs.

Franks first said that nuclear weapons connected to intercontinental ballistic missiles represent the greatest current danger, that the threat is increasing and claimed: ?(T)he enemies of the United States are defiantly developing delivery systems for those devastating weapons.? He went on to say: ?(D)espite the threat increase, this bill slashes by 35 percent the only system that we have that is tested and proven to protect the homeland against Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles.? He argued that ?while that threat is increasing, our budget in Congress to effect (sic) missile defense is decreasing.?

Franks also said that the Obama Administration, which proposed the reduction, and ?those who support these cuts have created a false choice between (international) defense and homeland defense. If this Congress can find $787 billion for a so-called stimulus economic package, then we have no excuse but to also fund both (international) defense and the national defense of the American people.?

 Rep. Tauscher (D-CA), a member of the Armed Services Committee who resigned shortly after this bill was debated to become Under Secretary of Defense for Arms Control and International Security, opposed the amendment. She described herself as a strong supporter of missile defense and noted that the bill already provided $9.3 billion for that purpose. Tauscher also said this amount ?supports our efforts to build a robust defense against threats from rogue nations . . . and increases funding for proven missile defense systems . . . by $900 million over the budget level of last year.?

Tauscher also argued that an increase in this area would be ?wasteful, unnecessary spending? and said Defense Secretary Gates had testified that ?the efficacy of the missile defense system (is) not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs that in terms of their operational concept are fatally flawed or research programs that are essentially sinkholes for taxpayer dollars.? She went on to say that advocates of the missile defense program mistakenly just want to spend money on it. Tauscher noted that $120 billion had been spent on missile defense over the last 10 years, ?but unless you have oversight and unless you have an operationally effective system to protect against the existing threats and deploy those systems to protect our forward-deployed troops, the American people and our allies, it is just spending money after money after money.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 171-244. One hundred and fifty-nine Republicans and twelve Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-one Democrats and thirteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the amount provided for the Missile Defense Agency was not increased beyond the figure that was in the 2010 fiscal year Defense Department funding bill.


WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
N N Won
Roll Call 454
Jun 25, 2009
(H.R. 2647) On the McGovern of Massachusetts amendment requiring public disclosure of the names of students and instructors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation - - there were claims that such disclosure would make these students and instructors targets of terrorist attacks

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. McGovern (D-MA), to a bill providing funding for the Defense Department 2010 fiscal year. The amendment required the public disclosure of the names of students and instructors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. located at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Rep. Bishop (D-GA), in whose district the Institute is located, was a co-author of the amendment. He first said he supported the Institute and called it one of the greatest tools for democracy in the hemisphere. He then said ?(B)ut we want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding . . . The all-encompassing question is whether or not the Institute or its predecessor trained terrorists and murderers who did harm. That's an issue. But to create transparency, we want to make sure that this amendment passes so that people on both sides of the issue can get the facts and transparency and know who goes to the school, who teaches at the school, what the curriculum is.?

Rep. McGovern argued that ?for over 40 years, the names of students and instructors at the former U.S. Army School of the Americas and now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation were available to the public . . . Suddenly in August 2006, the names became classified. The only reason cited by the Defense Department for denying the names was that the list includes personal information, but nothing about the request had changed. No one had asked for new information and certainly none of a personal nature . . .  In over four decades of public access, not once has there ever been a whisper that the military officers attending the Institute were targets.?

Rep. Hunter (R-CA) argued against the amendment, saying that ?if you release the names of these foreign special operators that are at the Institute, you are literally encouraging their murder.? Rep. McKeon (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, also opposed the amendment. He noted that Congress already receives the information.

Rep. Gingrey (R-GA) suggested that the real intent of the amendment ?has less to do with transparency and more to do with the efforts to shut the Institute down.? He argued that publication of the names ?could serve as a disincentive to Central and South American, and Mexican . . . students who otherwise want to attend the Institute and could discourage nations from sending their students to the school. It would undercut the effectiveness of the Institute as a tool for building hemispheric security cooperation and communicating the democratic values and respect for human rights we espouse.?

Rep. Skelton (D-MO), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who supported the amendment, responded by arguing that ?a policy of public disclosure of student names and instructors will remove one of the lingering doubts about this school . . . I am very proud of what it does . . . (and) revealing the names does not discourage attendance.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 224-190. Two hundred and eighteen Democrats and six Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-four Republicans and twenty-six Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to H.R. 2647 to require public disclosure of the names of students and instructors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
Y Y Won
Roll Call 453
Jun 25, 2009
(H.R. 2647) On the McGovern of Massachusetts amendment, which would have called for a report from the Defense Secretary on an exit strategy for US troops in Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. McGovern (D-MA) to the bill providing funding for the 2010 fiscal year for the Defense Department. The amendment would have required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress, by December 31, 2009, describing an exit strategy for military forces in Afghanistan. Rep. McGovern began his statement in support of the amendment by noting that its language ?does not demand a timeline for withdrawal or a halt to the deployment of the 21,000 additional troops called for by the President. It simply asks the administration to present its plan for (the) beginning, middle, and end of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.?

McGovern said he supported the congressional commitment ?to provide the necessary resources to help the Afghan people take charge of their own future. But as Congress authorizes and appropriates billions and billions of dollars for a new strategy in Afghanistan, is it too much to ask how we will know when our troops can finally come home to their families? Certainly, we need to hold the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan accountable for governing their own nations. But it is incumbent upon us in Congress to hold ourselves accountable--and before we can even do that, the administration must clearly articulate and outline how it envisions completing its military operations in Afghanistan.  Eleven months into (President Obama?s) term is not too soon for that outline to be provided. We are asking the Congress be a proper check and balance. We are asking for Congress to do its job.?

Rep. Lee (D-CA), who co-sponsored the amendment, argued that ?there is no military solution to the quagmire in Afghanistan. I remain convinced that the United States must develop an exit strategy in Afghanistan before further committing the United States' limited resources and military personnel deeper into Afghanistan in pursuit of an objective that may be unattainable, unrealistic, or too costly.? She noted that she originally opposed using force in Afghanistan because she feared ?that given a blank check to wage war. . . this would be for an unspecified period of time, really for an unspecified mission. This blank check continues today.?

Rep. Jones (R-NC), who also co-sponsored the amendment, said: ?(I)n my years in Congress, I have had many opportunities to speak to military leaders. Time after time, I heard this: To have a successful war strategy, you must have an end point. An end point is an understanding of what has to be achieved. General Petraeus, (the head of the U.S. Central Command, which includes Afghanistan) recently said, Afghanistan has been known over the years as the graveyard of empires. We cannot take that history lightly.?

Rep. Berman (D-CA), the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, opposed the amendment. He argued that ?we don't have a choice but to keep the troops on the ground in Afghanistan for some period of time. The only way we can succeed in Afghanistan is to create an environment conducive to development and good governance. Our U.S. military is an essential component of that. Requiring President Obama to develop an ?exit strategy?--only a few months after he increased the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and launched a new strategy--would raise questions about our commitment to the Afghan people and complicate our efforts to help them create a stable and secure nation in a way that would supersede whatever benefits we could get from the passage of this amendment.?

Rep. McKeon (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, who said he was speaking for Armed Services Committee Chairman Skelton (D-MO) as well, also opposed the amendment. McKeon said it ?sends the wrong signal at the wrong time for the government and people of Afghanistan, our military men and women deployed and deploying to Afghanistan, our NATO and non-NATO allies, and the enemy.?  

McKeon noted that the Defense Department was opposed to the amendment. He also cited General Petraeus, and argued that Petraeus had ?consistently stated it will take sustained, substantial resources to implement our counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan and give our troops and the government of Afghanistan the opportunity to succeed.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 138-278. One hundred and thirty-one Democrats, including an overwhelming majority of the most progressive Members, and seven Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-four Republicans and one hundred and fourteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was not added to H.R. 2647 requiring the Defense Secretary to submit an Afghanistan exit strategy report.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 452
Jun 24, 2009
(H.Res. 572) ) Legislation providing funding for the 2010 fiscal year for the Defense Department - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule?, which set the terms for debating H.R. 2647, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. The rule limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME) was leading the support for the rule for the Defense Department funding bill. She focused on the merits of that bill, rather than on any terms in the rule for it. Pingree said that ?we must take steps to keep our country safe and keep our military prepared. We must work to eliminate wasteful spending and restore fiscal discipline, and we must provide our troops and their families with the care that they need and the quality of life that is worthy of their sacrifice. H.R. 2647 makes significant progress on all these fronts.

Rep. Diaz-Balart said that, ?as supportive as I am of the underlying legislation, I must oppose the rule brought forth by the majority.? His opposition, which echoed the arguments Republicans had been making against a number of rules on other appropriation bills, was that the Democratic majority was unfairly restricting the number of amendments Members could offer. Diaz-Balart noted that: ?(M)embers from both sides of the aisle submitted 129 amendments . . . The vast majority of amendments, 79, were introduced by members of the majority party. Last night, the majority on the Rules Committee decided to make in order for discussion on this floor two-thirds of the majority amendments and one-third of the minority amendments.?

Diaz-Balart also noted that he had ?deep reservations about the (Democratic) majority's decision to block full restoration of missile defense funding . . . ( in the bill because) North Korea's demented despot continues to mock global condemnation of his nuclear program and threatens the United States and our friends and our allies with mass destruction.

The resolution setting the terms for debating H.R. 2647 passed by a vote of 222-208. Two hundred and twenty-one Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and eighty-one Republicans and twenty-seven Democrats joined voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the bill providing funding for the 2010 fiscal year for the Defense Department.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
Y Y Won
Roll Call 451
Jun 24, 2009
(H.Res. 572) Legislation providing funding for the 2010 fiscal year for the Defense Department - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the ?rule? or resolution setting the terms for debating the H.R. 2647, the bill providing funding for the 2010 fiscal year for the Defense Department. The rule limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill.

Rep. Diaz-Balart said that, ?as supportive as I am of the underlying legislation, I must oppose the rule brought forth by the majority.? His opposition, which echoed the arguments Republicans had been making against a number of the rules on other appropriation bills, was based on his assertion that the Democratic majority was unfairly restricting the number of amendments that Members could offer. Diaz-Balart noted that: ?(M)embers from both sides of the aisle submitted 129 amendments . . . The vast majority of amendments, 79, were introduced by members of the majority party. Last night, the majority on the Rules Committee decided to make in order for discussion on this floor two-thirds of the majority amendments and one-third of the minority amendments.?

Diaz-Balart went on to note that the Democratic majority had ?claimed the (Republican) minority were using dilatory tactics and shut down the ability of Members to offer amendments. This week, when the majority party offered a large number of amendments, the majority rewarded them for doing their jobs and representing their constituents by allowing 51 of their amendments for debate by the House.  At the same time, minority party members who were also representing the interests of their constituents were once again punished by the majority for doing their jobs and were only allowed 11 amendments.  In the end, the majority gets about five times the number of amendments made in order as the minority, and I think that's unfair. ?

The motion to have an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating H.R. 2647 was approved by a vote of 245-181. All 245 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Six other Democrats joined all 175 Republicans and noted voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N Y Won
Roll Call 449
Jun 24, 2009
(H.R.2892) Legislation providing 2010 fiscal year funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security - - on the motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions to add $50 million for the Internet-based system that determines whether a newly hired employee is an illegal immigrant

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit (send back to committee) H.R. 2892 with instructions to add $50 million for the Internet-based system that determines whether a newly hired employee is an illegal immigrant. H.R. 2892 provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The amendment also reduced funding for the department?s Office of Undersecretary for Management by$50 million.

The motion was made by Rep. Rogers (R-KY), the Ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. Rogers described this employee identification system as ?a tool to prevent illegitimate workers from working in secure areas . . . .? He claimed that the Obama Administration and the Democratic majority in the House ?have delayed, diminished and ultimately dismissed (this) government-run employee verification system under the guise that the system is inaccurate, costly, and susceptible to error and identity theft.?

Rogers further argued that Congress should provide ?sufficient funds to ensure even greater accuracy, capacity and oversight to prevent the risk of identity theft . . . and ensure that our government and U.S. businesses are employing legitimate American workers.?

Rep. Price (D-NC), the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, was leading the support for H.R. 2892. He acknowledged that the employee verification system had some operational problems. However, Price claimed that there was already ?ample money in this bill to work on those problems.? Price then focused on the portion of the amendment that would reduce funding for the Homeland Security Office of Undersecretary for Management by $50 million. He noted that the House had already cut $70 million from the administration's request for the Office of the Undersecretary for Management, and claimed that further reductions would be ?decimating to the top ranks of the Department of Homeland Security.?

The motion passed by a vote of 234-193. One hundred and seventy-three Republicans and sixty-one Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and ninety Democrats, including an overwhelming majority of the most progressive Members, and three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result the bill was sent back to the House Appropriations Committee with instructions to add $50 million for the Internet-based system that determines whether a newly hired employee is an illegal immigrant and to reduce funding for the Homeland Security Department?s Office of Undersecretary for Management by an equal amount.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
N N Lost
Roll Call 448
Jun 24, 2009
(H.R.2892) On the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have prohibited any funds in the fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill from being awarded to the organization that electronically tracks and manages criminal information and statistics

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R.2892, which provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Homeland Security. The amendment would have prohibited any funds in the bill going to the organization that electronically tracks and manages criminal information and statistics. Rep. Flake had consistently opposed the insertion of ?earmarks?, such as this one, in funding bills. Earmarks are legislative mandates to a federal department or agency to make a grant or award to a specific city, company, institution or other entity.

This amendment was aimed at removing language in the bill that ordered the Department of Homeland Security to fund a project that would provide training, certification and outreach programs to state, regional and local coordinators in the first responder community. Flake said that ?this sounds strikingly familiar to a program (that already exists) within the Department of Homeland Security . . . .? He then asked, rhetorically, ?why should federal funds be earmarked for a private organization that seems to duplicate an effort already undertaken by the agency for which we are appropriating now? If the Department of Homeland Security requires services that only (this private organization) could provide, the administration could request funds for it.?

Flake also reiterated an argument he had made in opposing a number of earmarks, claiming that they disproportionately favored districts represented by members of the Appropriation Committee and of the House leadership. He noted that 71% percent of the dollar value of earmarks in H.R. 2892 went to 25 percent of all congressional districts and argued: ?(T)hat's not an equal distribution. (It is) a ?spoils system?.

Rep. Price (D-NC), the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, who was leading the support for H.R. 2892, opposed the amendment. He said ?this request underwent rigorous scrutiny, (and) meets the test of being aligned with supporting the missions of the Department of Homeland Security . . . .?

Rep. Rothman (D-NJ) also opposed the amendment. He represents the district across the Hudson River from the World Trade Center and said his constituents ?know firsthand the difficulties that arose in that terrible tragedy because of the inoperability, the lack of communication technologies working together amongst police, fire, and other emergency services.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 112-320. One hundred and eight Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and sixty-eight Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result the funds earmarked for the organization that electronically tracks and manages criminal information and statistics remained in the fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Assisting Crime Impacted Communities
N N Won
Roll Call 447
Jun 24, 2009
(H.R.2892) On the Flake of Arizona amendment that would have prohibited any funds in the fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill from being awarded to a particular company in Arizona for solar battery systems.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R.2892, which would have prohibited any funds in the bill to ?be available for award to Global Solar, Arizona, for the portable solar charging rechargeable battery systems?. H.R. 2892 provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The amendment would also have removed $800,000 from the bill, which had been ?earmarked? for that purpose.

Rep. Flake had consistently opposed the insertion of earmarks in funding bills. Earmarks are legislative mandates to a federal department or agency to make a grant or award to a specific city, company, institution or other entity. An earmark is typically inserted in a funding bill at the request of an individual Member. Flake first said that his amendment was prompted not by his concern with ?the technology nor with the needs of the Border Patrol (which would used the systems), nor with this company in particular.? He went on to say his ?concern lies with why a specific for-profit entity was designated to receive this earmark funding.?

Rep. Flake noted that the Global Solar corporate web site describes it as ?a ?privately held company that was incorporated in 1996 that has evolved into a major producer of solar cells.''  He then referenced a recent statement by President Obama that earmarks for for-profit entities are the most corrupting element of the practice of earmarking, and Flake concluded ?we simply shouldn't be earmarking funds for private companies in this legislation.?

Rep. Price (D-NC), the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, who was leading the support for H.R.2892, opposed the amendment. He said ?its language had been vetted down at the Department of Homeland Security. It has been certified to be consistent with the agency's mission; otherwise, (the company) simply isn't eligible.? Price also noted that ?(T)his earmark, (to which Flake was objecting), is for $800,000 for procurement of portable solar-charging, rechargeable battery systems to be awarded under full and open competition . . . . This item is required by law to be subject to a competitive procurement process. And, indeed, any items now in appropriations bills involving for-profit entities are subject to the same requirement.? Price did not mention that there was language in the committee report accompanying H.R. 2892, referencing Global Solar Corporation, and that the Appropriations Committee had issued a policy statement that such references in the report should carry the force of law.

The vote was 110-318. One hundred and two Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-five Democrats and seventy-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result the $800,000 earmark for procurement of battery systems from the Global Solar Corporation remained in the bill providing 2010 fiscal year funding to the Department of Homeland Security.


ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
N N Won
Roll Call 446
Jun 24, 2009
(H.R.2892) On the Flake of Arizona amendment that would have removed $10 million in funding for the National Institute for Homeland Security

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2892 provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. It included $42.6 billion for the department, which represented an increase of $2.6 billion over the corresponding figures for fiscal year 2009. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that would have removed $10 million in funding in the bill for the National Institute for Homeland Security in Somerset, Kentucky. Rep. Flake, who had consistently opposed ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated grants or projects in funding bills, characterized the provision awarding money to the Institute as ?one of the largest earmarks we have in the Homeland Security (bill) . . . .?

Rep. Flake noted that the Institute web site describes it as ?an independent, nonprofit corporation designed to allow universities in Kentucky to ?more effectively compete for research funds and projects aimed at improving homeland security.?? He characterized it as ?an institute that seems to beget other earmarks?, and claimed that, since its creation in 2005, it had ?received $74 million in taxpayer funding.? Flake argued that: ?(W)e have funded this institute enough, and it will have to compete on its own for other grants.?

Flake also noted the projected $2 trillion federal deficit, and said: ?we are funding a nonprofit organization, which again, according to its own Web site, apparently would not exist without the assistance of Congress.  I simply don't think that we can continue to do this.?

Rep. Rogers, a Republican who represents a district in Kentucky where the National Institute for Homeland Security is located and is the Ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, defended the $10 million in funding. He said that the Consortium of Kentucky Colleges and Universities had been asked by the Department of Homeland Security to take on certain research projects that the department needed and that ?the institute receives specified research task orders from the science and technology directorate at Department of Homeland Security. The task orders are then farmed out to the consortium of colleges and universities throughout the State of Kentucky and other public and private entities across the country for their input on that particular problem.?

Rogers added that ?these are research projects that are producing results that the department needs and asks this consortium to do, and is engaging the intellectual firepower of these universities and colleges in Kentucky and their counterparts throughout the country. It is one of the best things the department has ever done.?

Rep. Price (D-NC), the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, who was leading the support for H.R.2892, also opposed the amendment.

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 114-317. Ninety-seven Republicans and seventeen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and seventy-eight Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result the earmark providing $10 million for the National Institute for Homeland Security remained in the bill providing 2010 fiscal year funding to the Department of Homeland Security.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Won
Roll Call 444
Jun 24, 2009
(H.R.2892) On agreeing to the Flake of Arizona amendment, which would have returned $600,000 designated for Emeryville, California to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 2892, the bill providing funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The Flake Amendment would have returned $600,000 designated in the bill for Emeryville, California back to the general FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation account.

Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively designated projects, such as this one for Emeryville, that are inserted into spending bills at the request of individual Members. He acknowledged that ?California is no stranger to floods . . . But there are many other areas of the country that also suffer from flooding . . . (that don?t receive a single earmark in this year's Pre-Disaster Mitigation fund).? He said the reason some cities receive earmarked funding and other do not is ?a spoils system. And I would submit that what we have with the Pre-Disaster Mitigation fund is a classic spoils system.?

Rep Flake claimed that grants from the Pre-Disaster Mitigation account ?used to be awarded solely on the basis of merit. When we established the Department of Homeland Security, we were told (Congress would not) . . . earmark any funding in this legislation . . . Now there are well over 100 earmarks in the bill.? Flake also argued that, of the $150 million provided for pre-disaster grant program in H.R. 2893, more than $24 million was earmarked, with nearly 40% of the funds designated for districts represented by members of the House Appropriations Committee. He then said ?unless Mother Nature knows which districts are represented by appropriators, we've got a problem here (since) 13 percent of this legislative body . . . will take home 40 percent of Pre-Disaster Mitigation spoils.?

Rep. Price (D-NC), the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, who was leading the support for H.R. 2892, opposed the amendment. He claimed that ?FEMA has reviewed every mitigation project in this bill. Each project was deemed eligible based on (Homeland Security) requirements . . . and will be used to protect lives and reduce property damages in some of the most hazard-prone areas of the country. There should be no question that this request underwent rigorous scrutiny and meets the test of being aligned with and supporting the missions of the Department of Homeland Security.? Price also argued that ?if this amendment were to be adopted . . . Emeryville would not receive funding, nor would the locality even be able to compete for a Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant through FEMA because the amendment would strike any Pre-Disaster Mitigation funding for that locality for the fiscal year 2010.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 110-322. One hundred and seven Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-three Democrats and sixty-nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result the designation of Emeryville as a recipient of pre-disaster mitigation funds remained in the bill funding the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 443
Jun 24, 2009
(H.R.2892) On the Neugebauer of Texas amendment, which would have made a $2.76 billion reduction in the overall spending in the bill that funded the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Neugebauer (R-TX) to H.R. 2892, the bill providing funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The bill included $42.6 billion for the department, which represented an increase of $2.6 billion over the corresponding figures for fiscal year 2009. The Neugebauer Amendment would have reduced the overall spending in H.R. 2892 by $2.76 billion through reductions in the amounts for a number of the programs funded by the bill. The $2.76 billion reduction was arrived at by adding all sums that Department of Homeland Security programs received in the previously-enacted economic stimulus measure. That previous measure had been enacted in response to the financial crisis of 2008-2009.

The largest proposed reductions were $1 billion for the aviation safety function of the Transportation Security Administration; $420 million for the Customs and Border Protection agency facilities management; $300 million for FEMA's state and local grant and assistance programs and $210 million for its Firefighter Assistance Grant program; and $200 million for the Homeland Security Department Office of Under Secretary for Management.

Rep. Neugebauer began his statement in support of the amendment by noting the current serious economic conditions and the record-setting deficits that the government was projected to run, and said ?people back home are having to tighten their belts . . . (and) we're going to have to tighten our belts.? He argued that, by only reducing categories in the amounts of stimulus funding they received, the amendment ?preserves the many programs that are already important . . . but it doesn't let (the government) continue to spend this $2.7 billion that, quite honestly, we didn't have to begin with.?

Rep. Price (D-NC), the chairman of the Homeland Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, who was managing H.R. 2892, opposed the amendment. He characterized it as ?destructive? and ?indiscriminate?, and argued that the impact would be ?very different from the effect of simply rescinding Recovery Act (stimulus) funds. Rather than erasing the effect of stimulus moneys provided through this title in the current year, it guts the ability (of the department) . . . to function in the coming year. It would nearly eliminate the budgets for hiring personnel, managing equipment purchases, departmental security, and Department of Homeland Security facilities.

Price claimed that, if the amendment were made to the funding bill, the Customs and Border Protection agency ?couldn't pay rent for their existing facilities. Modernization of airport screening for explosives and advancements permitting passengers to safely carry larger containers of liquids onto planes would grind to a halt. I think that's probably enough to illustrate just how destructive this amendment would be and how indiscriminate it would be.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 113-318. One hundred and nine Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty Democrats and sixty-eight Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result the proposed reductions to Department of Homeland Department 2010 fiscal year funding were not made.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Won
Roll Call 442
Jun 24, 2009
(H.R.2892) On the King of Iowa amendment explicitly prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security from hiring illegal immigrants

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. King (R-IA) to H.R. 2892, the bill providing funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The King Amendment contained language that would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from hiring any illegal immigrants.

King noted that it was already a federal crime to knowingly hire or employ an illegal immigrant. He then said: ?(D)espite the law, over 8 million illegal immigrants currently have jobs in the United States, and some of those are no doubt employed by and with Department of Homeland Security funds under Federal contracts.? King cited a 2006 report that he said ?indicates that the U.S. Government was the Nation's most egregious employer of illegal aliens . . . and (that) 3 percent of government workers had no immigration status whatsoever.?

King argued: ?(T)hese numbers are alarming. The report raises a national security issue. The report states, ?Noncitizens who work without Department of Homeland Security authorization could affect homeland security because they may obtain employment in sensitive areas.?? King also said that the national unemployment rate ?for lower-skilled American workers today is at over 15 percent. Congress should do anything possible to end the hiring of illegal immigrants and save those jobs for American workers.?

Rep. Lofgren (D-CA), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee Immigration Subcommittee, took the floor to point out that the Immigration and Nationality Act already prohibited any employer from hiring an illegal immigrant. She said the language of the amendment is just ?a restatement of existing law (and) . . . is not necessary?. King responded that the language of his amendment ?reinforces and reiterates a policy?. A number of Democratic Members saw the amendment as suggesting an anti-immigration view, since it dealt with illegal immigration and was offered although it made no changes in existing law.

The amendment passed by a vote of 349-84. All one hundred and seventy-seven Republicans were joined by one hundred and seventy-two Democrats in voting ?aye?. All eighty-four ?nay? votes were case by Democrats, including the majority of the most progressive Members. As a result of the vote, language specifically prohibiting the hiring of illegal aliens by the Department of Homeland Security was added to the bill funding the department for fiscal year 2010.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Immigration Law Reform
N N Lost
Roll Call 441
Jun 24, 2009
(H.R.2892) On the Poe of Texas amendment, which would have increased funding for the National Predisaster Mitigation Fund by $32 million

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Poe (R-TX) to H.R. 2892, the bill providing funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The Poe Amendment would have increased funding for the National Predisaster Mitigation Fund by $32 million and reduced the amount allocated for FEMA Management and Administration by an equal amount.

Rep. Poe represents a district along the Texas Gulf Coast. He began his statement in support of the amendment by referring to a 2005 study that said, for every dollar spent on predisaster mitigation, three to four dollars are saved. He also referenced a Congressional Budget Office report that ?confirmed the savings derived from this program. According to these studies, this amendment that I'm offering could save anywhere from $96 million to $128 million in future disaster costs.? Poe argued that ?predisaster mitigation is essential in weathering future devastating hurricanes . . . (and) in helping to reduce the cost towards recovery . . . .? He gave as examples of this type of mitigation the retrofitting of buildings against wind and water damage, especially those used as centers for emergency management services, and the moving of properties out of flood plains.

Rep. Price (D-NC), the chairman of the Homeland Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, who was managing H.R. 2892, opposed the amendment. Price based his opposition primarily on the fact that the Congress had been rebuilding FEMA's management and operations capabilities ever since Hurricane Katrina, and the reductions in FEMA management and administration that Poe proposed to pay for the additional mitigation ?could send us backwards.? Price noted that he is from a state, North Carolina, in which ?predisaster and postdisaster mitigation have been very important and often successful programs.? However, he said that he felt ?the funding levels recommended by our committee in recent years have reflected this favorable evaluation.?

Price further argued that the reductions would cut critical FEMA programs, such as the National Hurricane Program, the National Dam Safety Program, national continuity programs, disaster operations and disaster mitigation, and referenced a letter from the International Association of Emergency Managers to support his claim. He also noted that the proposed fiscal year 2010 figure for pre-disaster mitigation was $10 million over the equivalent fiscal year 2009 figure, and that the program had not yet spent $143 million that was previously provided to it. He claimed ?there is a good deal of money (for predisaster mitigation) in the pipeline.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 202-230. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and thirty-three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twenty-three Democrats and seven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no additional fiscal year 2010 money was added to the National Predisaster Mitigation Fund, and no 2010 money was taken from FEMA.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Won
Roll Call 440
Jun 24, 2009
(H.R.2892) On the Duncan of Tennessee amendment, which would have reduced by $41 million the amount provided in fiscal year 2010 for federal air marshals

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Duncan (R-TN) to H.R. 2892, the bill providing funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The Duncan Amendment would have reduced the amount in the bill for federal air marshals by $41 million, back to its fiscal year 2009 level of $819 million. Duncan cited a statement by a former senior member of the House Appropriations Committee that ?we had done all we needed to do on airplane security when we secured the cockpit doors.? He also cited a Wall Street Journal editorial that read:?(A)ny bill with the word ?security? should get double the public scrutiny . . . lest all kinds of bad legislation become law under the phony guise of fighting terrorism.''

Duncan also noted that: ?(A)ir marshals arrest an average of a little over four people each year. Even after my amendment, they would still be getting about $200 million per arrest.? Duncan called the Federal Air Marshall Service ?a needless, useless agency? and argued that ?what the Transportation Security Administration is doing at the airports, what all the other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies are doing, what private companies are doing on security and all the many other things that are done on this bill on aviation security are more than enough.? He concluded by describing his amendment as ?very minimal fiscal conservatism?, and by noting that ?even if my amendment were to pass, (the Federal Air Marshall Service) would be getting an almost 60 percent increase since 2003, more than double the rate of inflation since that time . . . And if we can't do that, then really we can't do anything that is truly fiscally conservative in this Congress.?

Rep. Price (D-NC), the chairman of the Homeland Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, who was managing H.R. 2892, opposed the amendment. However, he said that his subcommittee was addressing some of the concerns that Duncan raised and is doing a long-term assessment of air marshal staffing needs. Price added that: ?(T)his is not something we should go on funding indefinitely without assessment or analysis?, but that he did not agree that Congress should ?simply flat-fund? the Air Marshall Service at its current level. Price expressed concern that the reduction proposed in the amendment would create the possibility ?that air marshals may not be on all flights during some high-consequence events, such as the 2010 Olympics or national special security events.? Price also argued that the proposed reduction ?would limit the air marshals' ability to rapidly respond to unanticipated events as they did in the past, such as the U.K. liquid explosives threat, evacuation of U.S. citizens from Lebanon, or in response to hurricanes like Ike and Katrina.?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 134-294. One hundred and twenty-four Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-two Democrats and fifty-two Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the amount provided for air marshals in H.R. 2892 for the 20210 fiscal year remained at $860 million.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Won
Roll Call 439
Jun 24, 2009
(H.R.2892) On the King of Iowa amendment that was intended to have Congress express its view that the Department of Homeland Security should remove lookout sites on the U.S.-Mexican border that were being used by drug smugglers

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. King (R-IA) to H.R. 2892, which provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The intent of the King Amendment was to have the Department of Homeland Security remove lookout sites on the U.S.-Mexican border that were being used by drug smugglers. House rules would not permit language to be included in a funding bill such as H.R. 2892, ordering the Department of Homeland Security to take a specific action such as removing the lookout sites. Rep. King therefore offered an amendment with allowable but inconsequential language, with the stated purpose of sending a message about the view of Congress regarding the lookout sites.

King made clear in his remarks in support of the amendment that adding this language to the bill was just a procedural device that he used to give the Congress an opportunity to express its support for having the sites removed. He said he had walked the border area in Arizona with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, who told him that they felt ?Congress should have a voice? on whether the federal government should act to remove the lookout sites.

Rep. Price (D-NC), the chairman of the Homeland Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, who was managing H.R. 2892, opposed the amendment. He noted that its language has ?no statutory direction.? He disagreed with Rep. King that the amendment would have the effect of having the Homeland Security Department take some particular action. Price emphasized that the amendment ?is meaningless, having no effect, and establishing no legislative mandate . . . On that basis alone, and to discourage the use of this kind of parliamentary tactic to stretch out the time for general debate, I urge colleagues to defeat this amendment.?  

Rep. King responded that he ?would have been happy to work with some language that would have perhaps been made in order,? but, for Congress to have a voice on these lookouts, he offered this formal amendment with his explanation of its intent. King added that ?how this Congress speaks to this amendment is how Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the balance of the law enforcement personnel on the border will react.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 240-187. One hundred and seventy-five Republicans and sixty-five Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and eighty-five Democrats, including an overwhelming majority of the most progressive Members, and two Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the language intended to send the message to the Department of Homeland Security that Congress wanted to have the lookout sites removed was added to the bill.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL War on Drugs
N N Lost
Roll Call 437
Jun 24, 2009
(H.R.2892) On agreeing to the King of New York amendment to add $50 million to the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. King (R-NY) to H.R. 2892, which provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. The amendment added $50 million to the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $40 million of which would go to the Securing the Cities initiative and $10 million of which would go to the procurement of radiation portal monitors. The additions proposed in the amendment would be offset by a combined reduction of $50 million in the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Secretary and Executive Management and the Office of the Under Secretary for Management.

Rep King, the Ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, based most of his argument for his amendment on the wording of a letter supporting the Securing the Cities program from every law enforcement first responder head in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Most Republicans supported his argument.

The letter referenced by King said that ?(S)ecuring the Cities is a vital, federally funded effort to protect New York City from the threat of an improvised nuclear device or a radiological dispersal device (a ?dirty bomb?). The program involves equipping many different agencies in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut with state-of-the-art mobile radiation-detection equipment, training them in its proper use, and leveraging existing technology and infrastructure to deploy a permanent defensive radiation-detection ring around New York City.

?The Securing the Cities program is the only federal initiative designed specifically to protect a U.S. city from a radiological or nuclear terrorist attack, which President Obama has called, ?the most immediate and extreme threat to global security.? We never saw the program as a ?pilot,? as some have suggested, but as an operational model, developed to protect the city that suffered the most on September 11, 2001, and that continues to be at the top of the terrorist threat list . . . Zeroing this program out, as the President's FY2010 Budget has mistakenly proposed, would do great harm to the security of New York as well as the quality of our agencies' partnership with the Department of Homeland Security.?

King concluded by arguing that ?this successful program is an operational model which can be replicated in cities and suburbs throughout the country.? A number of Democrats, including those from New York City, as well as some from the Los Angeles area and some more politically moderate Members, supported King?s arguments. However, the majority of Democrats, including those from other urban areas, did not support the amendment. Rep. Price (D-NC), the chairman of the Homeland Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, also opposed the amendment.

Price first said he ?couldn't agree more that Securing the Cities is a valuable pilot program demonstrating how State and local Governments could develop, with Federal agencies, architecture to prevent a nuclear or radiological attack on New York. But I must emphasize that Securing the Cities is a 3-year pilot project, and this period is over. DHS requested no 2010 program because it is already positioned to accomplish its goals as a pilot program. So what we have here today is, in effect, an earmark for New York.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 282-148. One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and one hundred and fourteen Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and thirty-nine Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, $50 million was added to the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, while an equal amount was taken from Department of Homeland Security Office of the Secretary and Executive Management and the Office of the Under Secretary for Management.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y N Lost
Roll Call 436
Jun 24, 2009
(H.R.2892) On agreeing to the Lewis of California amendment, which increased the amount provided for the Customs and Border Protection agency and funded 200 additional Border Patrol agents

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2892 provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. This was a vote on an amendment to the bill offered by Rep. Lewis(R-CA). The amendment increased the amount in H.R. 2892 for the Customs and Border Protection agency by$34 million, and funded 200 additional Border Patrol agents. It compensated for this spending increase by reducing the amount provided for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management of the department by $6 million, for the Under Secretary for Management of the department by $14 million, for the Chief Financial Officer of the department by $3 million, and for the Chief Information Officer of the department by $18 million

Rep. Lewis, the Ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, said the amendment was an effort ?to restore some balance to what otherwise is a thoughtful and very constructive bill.?  He went on to say that the changes made by the amendment would take ?a small fraction of funding . . . for administrative expenses, and add 200 new Border Patrol agents . . . (who) will serve on the front lines of the bloody drug war raging in Mexico and produce increased security across our borders from entry by way of smugglers and people who are coming here for other sorts of contraband activities. My amendment seeks to increase the resources for those who are charged to keep our nation safe and secure as well as ensnare money and illegal weapons flowing southbound . . . .?

Lewis also argued that the U.S. could not ?risk a reduction in the size of the Border Patrol when our border security needs are so great and the agent attrition rate is now creeping up to about 11 percent.? Lewis justified the decreases he proposed in what he described as ?administrative, policy, and bureaucratic functions? by claiming that ?a higher priority ought to be given to border security . . .?, and that the bill already provided for a 14.8% increase in funding for the administrative offices of the department.

Rep. Price (D-NC), the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, who was managing H.R. 2892, opposed the amendment. He began by saying ?this is an amendment that the Department of Homeland Security did not request and does not support .? Price then noted that the Customs and Border Protection agency already had more than 20,000 agents, which was double the number it had in 2003. Price argued that the Customs and Border Protection agency ?can't absorb this unplanned increase. They are right this minute pulling out all the stops to hire before October another 760 Border Patrol agents as well as 250 mission support staff to ensure that agents are out patrolling and not sitting behind desks. This is not the time to burden the recruitment system with unrequested new agents, not to mention to impose unfunded costs for their vehicles and facilities and ID support.?

Rep. Price also criticized the reductions that Lewis proposed in his amendment. Price noted that the bill already contained a figure for management support that was more than 10% below that requested by the Obama Administration's. He then argued that further reductions ?would undermine key efforts to improve information security and reduce risks at the Department's data centers. So cutting more funds now means less core support for Department operations, less oversight, more waste, and an even longer road to getting the Department of Homeland Security the American taxpayers deserve.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 375-55. One hundred and ninety-eight Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-seven Republicans and voted ?aye?. Fifty-five other Democrats, a majority of whom are among the most progressive Members of the House, voted ?nay?. As a result, $34 million was added to H.R. 2892 for the Customs and Border Protection agency and for 200 additional Border Patrol agents, and reductions were made in a number of departmental management and administrative support positions.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y N Lost
Roll Call 431
Jun 24, 2009
(H.Res.573) On a roll call vote forced by the Republican minority as a delaying tactic; the vote was a protest against the limitations the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments Members could offer to spending bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was one of a series of votes generated by procedural moves of the Republican minority to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to a series of spending bills the House was debating. Among those spending bills were one for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and another for the Department of Homeland Security.

Rep. Rogers (R-KY) articulated the position of the Republicans. He said: ?Our constituents are entitled to have us speak for them. That is the reason that they selected us. And yet now we are being denied the opportunity to register the thoughts and opinions of (our) constituents . . . This is a muzzle of the minority. You are muzzling the people that we represent.

The Democratic majority was taking the position that the time for debating the fiscal year 2010 spending bills needed to be limited to insure that the bills were all signed into law before September 30, 2009, the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year. In recent years, most spending bills had not been signed into law before the beginning of the fiscal years they covered.

Technically, this was a procedural vote on a motion to reconsider its previous decision to agree to the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill providing funds for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year.

It is routine practice in the House, after any vote, for the Speaker to declare, ?without objection, the motion to reconsider (the vote) is laid upon the table? (or killed). According to the House Floor Procedural Manual, if no objection is raised to killing the motion to reconsider the previous vote, this eliminates the possibility that another vote can take place on the same matter. The Manual also notes that objection to reconsider the previous vote is often raised, and a motion is made to reconsider the previous vote, ?when Members (usually minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.? That is what occurred here.

The motion was defeated by a vote of 169-251. One hundred sixty-five Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and eight Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the previous vote was not reconsidered, and the House was able to begin debating the bill providing funds for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. An indirect result was that the legislative process was delayed for a few minutes.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 430
Jun 24, 2009
(H.Res.573) Legislation providing funds for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2892 provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2892. The rule limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill, and permitted roll call votes on it to be completed within two minutes, rather than the customary 5-minute minimum.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO) was leading the support for the rule. He described the underlying legislation, for which the rule set the terms of debate, as a ?strong bill which invests in robust border security, attentive and agile emergency management capabilities, helpful to state and local partners, and secures our transportation system.? He argued that ?(L)ooking beyond the funding levels of this bill, we must also recognize that the Department of Homeland Security is a department, which relies heavily on a well-trained workforce. This bill provides the resources the Department of Homeland Security personnel, as well as our State and local partners, need to meet their objectives.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the Rules Committee, was leading the opposition to the rule and to ordering the previous question on it. He acknowledged that, during the period the Republicans had controlled the House, they ?limited (Democrats?) voices in amendment and debate.? However, Dreier said, there had historically been an exception to this debate limitation when it came to spending bills because ?the Constitution places the responsibility to spend the people's money in our hands as Members of Congress. We've always taken this responsibility very seriously in a bipartisan way. And we've always--under both Democrats and Republicans--allowed Democrats and Republicans to engage in a free-flowing and rigorous debate.?

He further argued that what he called ?the new normal? of limiting amendments on appropriation bills has resulted over the last 2 years in an 85 percent increase in nondefense spending . . . and now we're denied any opportunity to bring about the kinds of reductions that we need . . . .? He then cited the argument the Democrats had made to support their amendment limitation: The Democrats claimed that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule of passing all spending bills in a timely manner. Dreier said ?(W)e understand the exigencies of that schedule . . . (but not of) casting aside democracy and debate because we have to maintain our schedules.?

Dreier went on to criticize the rule because it permitted the imposition of a requirement that roll call votes be completed within two minutes, rather than the customary 5-minute minimum. He cited a congressional committee report, which found that employing the 2-minute requirement on roll call votes had caused serious problems.

Rep. Perlmutter responded to Dreier?s claim that the numerous suggested amendments should all be debated by arguing that ?the people of this country are demanding that we act, that we not completely just shut down and . . . it is time to act both on appropriations bills as well as other bills.?

The resolution governing debate on the Homeland Security spending bill passed by a vote of 239-184. Two hundred and thirty-eight Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-four Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the bill providing funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 429
Jun 24, 2009
(H.Res.573) On a roll call vote forced by the Republican minority as a delaying tactic; the vote was a protest against the limitations the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments Members could offer to spending bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was one of a series of votes generated by procedural moves of the Republican minority to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to a series of spending bills the House was debating. Among those spending bills were one for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and another for the Department of Homeland Security.

Technically, this was a procedural vote on a motion to reconsider a previous decision of the House to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill that funded the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year.

It is routine practice in the House, after any vote, for the Speaker to declare, ?without objection, the motion to reconsider (the vote) is laid upon the table? (or killed). According to the House Floor Procedural Manual, if no objection is raised to killing the motion to reconsider the previous vote, this eliminates the possibility that another vote can take place on the same matter. The Manual also notes that objection to reconsider the previous vote is often raised, and a motion is made to reconsider the previous vote, ?when Members (usually minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.? That is what occurred here.

The motion was defeated by a vote of 172-238 along almost straight party lines. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-four Democrats and four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the previous vote was not reconsidered and the House moved immediately to vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill providing funds for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. An indirect result was that the legislative process was delayed for a few minutes.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y N Won
Roll Call 428
Jun 24, 2009
(H.Res. 573) Legislation funding the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year - - on a procedural motion to move immediately to a vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R.2892 provided $42.6 billion for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year. This was on a motion to vote immediately on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. The rule for H.R. 2892 limited the number of amendments that could be offered and permitted roll call votes to be completed within two minutes, rather than the customary 5-minute minimum.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO), who was leading the support for the rule, described the underlying legislation as a ?strong bill which invests in robust border security, attentive and agile emergency management capabilities, helpful to state and local partners, and secures our transportation system.? He argued that ?(L)ooking beyond the funding levels of this bill, we must also recognize that the Department of Homeland Security is a department which relies heavily on a well-trained workforce. This bill provides the resources that Department of Homeland Security personnel, as well as our State and local partners, need to meet their objectives.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the Rules Committee, was leading the opposition to the rule and to ordering the previous question on it. He acknowledged that, during the period the Republicans had controlled the House, they ?limited (Democrats?) voices in amendment and debate.? However, Dreier said, there had historically been an exception to this debate limitation when it came to spending bills because ?the Constitution places the responsibility to spend the people's money in our hands as Members of Congress. We've always taken this responsibility very seriously in a bipartisan way. And we've always--under both Democrats and Republicans--allowed Democrats and Republicans to engage in a free-flowing and rigorous debate.?

He further argued that what he called ?the new normal? of limiting amendments on appropriation bills has resulted over the last 2 years in an 85 percent increase in nondefense spending . . . and now we're denied any opportunity to bring about the kinds of reductions that we need . . . .? He then cited the argument the Democrats had made to support their amendment limitation: The Democrats claimed that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule of passing all spending bills in a timely manner. Dreier said ?(W)e understand the exigencies of that schedule . . . (but not of) casting aside democracy and debate because we have to maintain our schedules.?

Dreier went on to criticize the rule because it permitted the imposition of a requirement that roll call votes be completed within two minutes, rather than the customary 5-minute minimum. He cited a congressional committee report, which found that employing the 2-minute requirement on roll call votes had caused serious problems.

Rep. Perlmutter responded to Dreier?s claim that the numerous suggested amendments should all be debated by arguing that ?the people of this country are demanding that we act, that we not completely just shut down and . . . it is time to act both on appropriations bills as well as other bills.?

The motion passed on a vote of 238-174, along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and thirty-seven Democrats and one Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and three Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on the rule setting the terms for debate of the bill funding the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 413
Jun 19, 2009
(H.R.2918) On passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for congressional operations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of the bill providing $3.7 billion for the operations of Congress. Rep. Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), who was leading the support for the bill, said that Members of Congress ?have responsibility not just for the institution, but for the staff that works for this institution, and to preserve the facilities that help support this institution. We have endeavored to do that responsibly, and I believe we have accomplished that goal.? She summarized the purpose of a large part of the funding in the bill as making sure the staff ?can do the work they need to do in order for us to be able to serve our constituents in the most effective way possible.?

Wasserman-Schultz, who was leading the support for the measure, claimed that the Appropriations Committee had ?tried to provide the right balance of funding in a prudent way for each existing office, agency, and program so that we can support the day-to-day operations of the Congress.? She concluded by saying: ?(W)e have been able to provide for all mandatory cost increases and a limited number of program enhancements as well. In spite of the fact that we were able to do that, there were a number of things that we were unable to do because our focus during the markup of this bill was to fund the ?gotta haves,? not the ?nice to haves.??

Rep. Alderholt (R-AL), who was managing the bill for the Republicans, also supported its passage. In his floor statement, however, he referred back to the opposition the Republicans had raised to the fact that the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill prohibited all but one amendment from being offered to H.R. 2918. Alderholt said ?it is unfortunate that the bipartisan approach taken by our (appropriations) committee stopped at the doors of the Rules Committee . . . Traditionally, while not all amendments filed with the Rules Committee have been made in order, a much more balanced approach has been taken than what we are seeing today. Twenty amendments were filed with the Rules Committee and only one was made in order . . . Members should be permitted to debate the issues of concern to them. Members have once again been denied the right to offer amendments to an appropriation bill, a trend that's happening more often than not.?

Rep. Scalise (R-LA) echoed the concerns of Rep. Alderholt regarding the restriction on amendments and said he was opposing passage of the bill on those grounds. Scalise argued that ?it's a sad day when someone attempts to cut spending in a bill that grows government by the size of 7 percent, in this case, and it is ruled out of order . . . some people in this leadership in Congress just don't get the fact that people want us to cut spending here in Washington, not spend at record levels.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 232-178. Two hundred and fourteen Democrats and eighteen Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-one Republicans and twenty-seven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for congressional operations.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 412
Jun 19, 2009

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2918 Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch FY 2010
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y N Lost
Roll Call 410
Jun 19, 2009
(H.Res.559) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the operations of Congress - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on approving the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2918. That bill provided fiscal year 2010 funding for all congressional operations. The rule for the bill permitted only one amendment to be offered during its consideration. The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to this type of limitation on amendments to funding bills.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL), arguing on behalf of the rule and of the underlying bill, said that H.R. 2918 ?provides a pragmatic and fiscally responsible approach to funding our legislative branch. Actually, spending is increased only by 7 percent, less than half of the 15 percent increase requested.   The funding provided in this legislation will help us do our jobs better and faster. It increases funding for the Congressional Budget Office by $1 million, making it easier for Members to obtain a ?pay as you go? analysis of their proposals?. This analysis relates to the congressional requirement that any new spending or tax change proposals have a neutral impact on the budget, be offset with identified savings derived elsewhere, or be supported by a new financing source.

Rep. Dreier (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the Rules Committee, argued against the rule because its restriction on the number of amendments that could be offered reflects the fact that ?the minority party, the group that represents almost half the American people, is being treated as if they don't exist . . . where the majority is ignoring the minority and doing what the American people do not want.? Dreier also argued that the restrictive rule is ?a perfect example of how excessive spending is managing to occur.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), another senior Republican member of the House Rules Committee, noted that twenty amendments had been proposed to be made in order by the committee, but only one was in order under the rule being considered. She also noted that, ?in 2006, the last year Republicans were in the majority, we made all seven amendments submitted to the Rules Committee in order. That's the way it should be . . . We should be debating these bills on the floor.?

Rep. Heller (R-NV) also opposed the rule, and singled out for criticism the proposed $51 million increase the bill provided for Members? Representational Allowances. He said his office could use an increased allowance ?(B)ut I am always mindful of the fact that (these) funds are simply taxpayer dollars by another name, and I have a responsibility to use those funds wisely.?  Heller noted that he wanted to offer an amendment to H.R. 2918 that would retain the Members Allowance figure for 2010 at the 2009 funding level, but was unable to do so under the proposed rule. He argued that the amendment would have shown the country ?that someone in Congress understands that these difficult times call for shared sacrifice . . . Unfortunately, my amendment was rejected by the Rules Committee.? He then urged a ?no? vote, which would ?(G)ive this Congress a chance to lead by example with commonsense fiscal responsibility.?

The resolution setting the terms for debate was approved by a vote of 226-179. All 226 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eleven other Democrats joined with one hundred and sixth-eight Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debate on final passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the operations of Congress.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 409
Jun 19, 2009
(H. Res. 559) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the operations of Congress - - on a procedural vote to determine whether the House should move to another vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2918. That bill provided $3.7 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for all congressional operations. The rule permitted only one amendment to be offered during consideration of H.R. 2918. The Republicans expressed their strong opposition to this limitation.

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), a Member of the House Rules Committee, noted that twenty amendments had been submitted. She also noted that, ?in 2006, the last year Republicans were in the majority, we made all seven amendments submitted to the Rules Committee in order. That's the way it should be.? The Republicans were using procedural tools to protest, and delay consideration of, rules they claimed were too limiting, such as this one.

One of the tools they used was first to make a motion for an immediate vote on whatever matter the House was considering, and then to demand a delaying roll call on the motion they made. In this case the matter before the House, for which a motion for an immediate vote had been called, was the rule for H.R. 2918. Although the Republicans moved for an immediate vote, they actually wanted the motion and the rule to fail. The House Rules Committee parliamentary web site suggests that the kind of motion made by the Republicans is equivalent to asking the question: ?Is the House ready to vote on the matter before it?? The web site also notes that, ?in order to amend a rule . . . the House must vote against the motion.?

The motion to order the previous question passed by a vote of 230-177. All 230 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Six other Democrats joined with one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House then moved to another vote on approving the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for Congress.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 408
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and certain other federal agencies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2847, providing $64.4 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and certain other federal agencies. The bill increased comparable funding from the 2009 fiscal year by approximately $6.75 billion. Among other things, H.R. 2847 provided $30.6 billion for science, technology, and innovation, $18.2 billion for NASA, $4.6 billion for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, $7.9 billion for the FBI, $6.2 billion for the Bureau of Prisons, $3.4 billion for state and local law enforcement activities $2 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration and $1.1 billion for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and $440 million for the Legal Services Administration. Included in these larger amounts was an increase of 30% for border security and an increase of $11 million for the Office of Violence Against Women,

Rep. Wolf (R-VA), the Ranking Republican on the House Appropriations subcommittee that developed the bill, supported the measure. He said it ?addresses a number of national needs and requirements, and . . . the (Democratic subcommittee) chairman has done a commendable job in balancing the many competing interests and has put together a solid bill in a fair and evenhanded way.? Wolf did also say that he had ?concerns about the overall levels of spending? and noted that: ?Since the other party took control of Congress, nondefense . . . discretionary spending has increased by 85 percent. This rate of spending does not represent a step toward restoring fiscal balance.?

Wolf pointed out that the legislation ?does not prevent the closure of Guantanamo. . . (but it) prohibits the release of any detainees into the United States. It also prohibits transfer to the U.S. for prosecution as well as transfers or release to other countries unless and until the administration presents a comprehensive report to the Congress on the proposed disposition of each individual . . . The language will ensure that detainees are not released into our communities, and it places important restrictions and conditions on future transfers and releases.?

Rep. Burton (R-IN), who opposed the measure, noted that the bill contained ?80-some pages of earmarks, of pork bill projects (while) . . . ?we've been talking about cutting spending and about controlling the budget . . . at a time when we're suffering severely economically and at a time when we're spending way, way more money than the American people can afford. . . I can't understand why we're allowing all of these earmarks, many of which have nothing to do with Commerce, Justice and Science . . . and we're spending all of this money that . . . the government doesn't have.?

Rep. Price (R-GA), who also opposed the measure, noted that the bill was being considered under a procedure that ?waives rules that are supposed to keep us fiscally responsible. So it waives . . . the ?pay as you go? rule, that (requires) things have to be paid for, that we're not going to drive the nation further into debt and deficit . . . .? Price further argued that Americans ?don't believe that Washington is being fiscally responsible. They see bailout after bailout, they see expenditure after expenditure, they see bill after bill of more money going out the door and not money coming in . . . .?

The bill passed on a vote of 259-157. Two hundred and thirty-five Democrats and twenty-four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and forty-nine Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the bill providing 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and certain other federal agencies.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 407
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote forced by the Republican minority; the vote was formally on whether the House should reconsider its previous approval of the addition of certain neutral language added by the Appropriations Committee to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote generated by one of a series of delaying procedural moves of the Republican minority. These procedural moves were designed to protest the manner in which the Democratic majority was conducting the legislative process. The Republicans were particularly objecting to the limitation that the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments that could be offered to spending bills.

The House had approved a motion to recommit H.R. 2847 to the Appropriations Committee, and to add certain neutral language, as a result of a previous procedural move by the Republicans. The bill was formally sent back to the committee and immediately brought back to the House floor with the neutral language added. The House then voted to approve the added language. It is common practice in the House, after any vote, for the Speaker to declare, ?without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table?. According to the House Floor Procedural Manual: ?If no objection is raised, this has the parliamentary effect of ending any possibility that another vote . . . can take place.? The Manual also notes that objection is often raised, and a motion is made to reconsider the previous vote, ?when Members (usually minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.? That is what occurred here.

The motion was defeated by a vote of 149-267. One hundred and forty-three Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty Democrats and twenty-seven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the motion to reconsider the vote approving the addition of the neutral language to H.R. 2847 was defeated, and the language was added to the bill. An indirect result was that the legislative process was delayed for a few minutes.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 405
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote, resulting from a delaying procedure initiated by the Republican minority to protest the limitation that the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments that could be offered to spending bills

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was one of a series of votes resulting from delaying procedural moves of the Republican minority. The Republicans forced these votes as a means of protesting the manner in which the Democratic majority was conducting the legislative process. The Republicans were particularly objecting to the limitation that the Democratic majority was placing on the number of amendments that could be offered to spending bills.

It is routine practice in the House, after any vote, for the Speaker to declare, ?without objection, the motion to reconsider (the vote) is laid upon the table? (or killed). According to the House Floor Procedural Manual, if no objection is raised to killing the motion to reconsider the previous vote, this eliminates the possibility that another vote can take place on the same matter. The Manual also notes that objection to reconsider the previous vote is often raised, and a motion is made to reconsider the previous vote, ?when Members (usually minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.? That is what occurred here.

The motion was defeated by a vote was 139-266. One hundred and thirty-four Republicans and five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and sixty-six Democrats and thirty-two Republicans voted ?nay?. As a formal result, the previous vote was not reconsidered. An indirect result was that the legislative process was delayed for a few minutes.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 404
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R. 2847) On a motion made as a method to gain control of the House floor and argue against the administration decision to advise interrogated enemy combatants of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was formally on a motion to send the pending bill, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Justice, back to committee with instructions to add some neutral language. The motion was actually made as a procedural technique by the Republican minority to gain control of the House floor for debate purposes. The Republicans wanted to gain control of the floor to allow them to argue against the decision of the Obama Administration to advise interrogated enemy combatants of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. The administration had announced that it was going to advise enemy combatants of these rights during interrogation in order to maintain the ability to prosecute the combatants in the future.

During the debate on this formal motion, Rep. Rogers (R-MI) argued that the proposed administration policy was ?dangerous?, would conflict with the interrogation efforts of the CIA, and would jeopardize ?the safety of the men and women in our United States military and of the people right here at home.? He said: ?Don't give them the rights of a United States citizen. Give them the rights of an enemy combatant and all that comes with it.?

Rep. Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, first noted that the proposed instructions ?don't do nothing. All (they do) is give one of our friends on that side of the aisle a chance to talk about an issue . . . there is no way it can be interpreted by the implementing agency to have anything whatsoever to do with the issue that (Rep. Rogers) talked about, because the (motion) has no effect on it . . . I am going to accept this (motion) because, as I said, it don't do nothing to nobody or for nobody.? A number of other Members, all but one of whom were Democrats, opposed the motion because it was made in an effort to express dissatisfaction with the decision to advise enemy combatants of their rights. These Members supported that decision.

The motion was approved on a vote of 312-103. One hundred and seventy-two Republicans and one hundred and forty Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and two Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members and one Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, the bill was formally recommitted to the Appropriations Committee, but no language relating to the granting of rights to enemy combatants was added before the bill was brought back to the House for final passage.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
Y N Lost
Roll Call 403
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority. The vote was on whether the House should reconsider its decision to table (kill) a motion to reverse a ruling; the ruling had prevented consideration of an effort to add language to an appropriation bill prohibiting any funds from being used to provide ?Miranda rights? to detainees in Afghanistan.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was one of a series of votes generated by procedural moves of the Republican minority to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.

The House had previously voted to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling that a motion  to recommit H.R. 2487, with instructions to add language to an appropriation bill prohibiting any funds from being used to provide ?Miranda rights? to detainees in Afghanistan, was out of order. It is common practice in the House, after any vote, for the Speaker to declare, ?without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table?. According to the House Floor Procedural Manual: ?(I)f no objection is raised, this has the parliamentary effect of ending any possibility that another vote . . . can take place.?  The Manual also notes that objection is often raised, and a motion is made to reconsider the previous vote ?when Members (usually minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.? That is what occurred here.

The vote on whether to reconsider the killing of a motion to reverse the ruling was 168-243. One hundred and sixty-two Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-four Democrats and nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House did not reconsider its decision not to vote on whether to reverse a ruling that stopped the effort to prohibit the giving of ?Miranda rights? to detainees in Afghanistan. Another result was that the legislative process was delayed for a few minutes.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 402
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the motion to table (kill) the vote on whether to reverse a ruling relating to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice; the ruling sought to be reversed was that a motion to recommit the appropriations bill and add language prohibiting any funds in H.R. 2847 from being used to provide ?Miranda rights? to detainees in Afghanistan was not in order.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to ?table? (kill) an appeal of a ruling that a motion made by Rep. Lewis (R-CA) to recommit H.R. 2847 to the Appropriations Committee with instructions was not in order. The instructions that Rep. Lewis had proposed adding to the bill that were ruled out of order would have prohibited the Justice Department from using any funds in the bill ?to provide (Miranda) rights . . . to detainees in the custody of the armed forces of the United States in Afghanistan.'' Miranda rights are those given by arresting officers to criminal suspects before they can be questioned, including the right to have a lawyer.

The chair had based its ruling that the instructions proposed by Rep. Lewis were out of order on its determination that the instructions would create ?limitations not specifically contained or authorized in existing law?. House rules prohibit such limitations from being added to an appropriations bill. The language in the instructions was based on an amendment Rep. Rogers (R-MI) had planned to offer to H.R. 2487. During the debate on the appeal of the ruling of the chair, Rogers first claimed that the ?highly restrictive? rule imposed by the Democratic majority on the number of amendments that could be offered during consideration of H.R. 2487 ?prohibited me from offering my (Miranda rights) amendment . . . .? Rogers then argued that the language of the amendment ?did not constitute legislating on an appropriations bill? and should therefore be in order as instructions on a motion to recommit.

The vote on whether to kill a motion to reverse the ruling was 246-171 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-six Republicans and five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, there was not a vote on whether to reverse the ruling that stopped the effort to prohibit the giving of ?Miranda rights? to detainees in Afghanistan.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 401
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its previous approval of the Hodes of New Hampshire amendment, which added a requirement all federal departments and agencies receiving funds under the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice track and report the amount of previously appropriated funds that had not been disbursed.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves of the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.

The Hodes (D-NH) Amendment, which had passed the House, required the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to have all federal departments and agencies receiving funds under H.R. 2487 track and report the amount of previously appropriated funds that had not been disbursed. It is common practice in the House, after any vote, for the Speaker to declare, ?without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table?. According to the House Floor Procedural Manual: ?(I)f no objection is raised, this has the parliamentary effect of ending any possibility that another vote . . . can take place.?  The Manual also notes that objection is often raised, and a motion is made to reconsider the previous vote ?when Members (usually minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.? That is what occurred here.

The vote was 165-247. One hundred and sixty-one Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-six Democrats and eleven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the motion to reconsider the previous vote approving the Hodes Amendment was defeated, the language of the amendment requiring federal departments and agencies receiving funds under H.R. 2847 to report amounts of previously appropriated, but not yet disbursed, funds was retained in the bill, and the legislative process was delayed for a few minutes.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 399
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote, resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority;, the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its previous approval of the Cuellar of Texas amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which prohibited funds in the bill from being used to purchase light bulbs that do not have an "Energy Star" or "Federal Energy Management Program" designation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves of the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.

The Cuellar (D-TX) Amendment, which had passed the House, prohibited funds in the bill from being used to purchase light bulbs that do not have an "Energy Star" or "Federal Energy Management Program" designation. It is common practice in the House, after any vote, for the Speaker to declare, ?without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table?. According to the House Floor Procedural Manual: ?(I)f no objection is raised, this has the parliamentary effect of ending any possibility that another vote . . . can take place.?  The Manual also notes that objection is often raised, and a motion is made to reconsider the previous vote, ?when Members (usually minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.? That is what occurred here.

The vote was 165-245. One hundred and sixty Republicans and five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-six Democrats and nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the motion to reconsider the previous vote approving the Cuellar Amendment was defeated, the language prohibiting funds in H.R. 2847 from being used to purchase light bulbs that do not have an "Energy Star" or "Federal Energy Management Program" designation stayed in the bill, and the legislative process was delayed for a few minutes.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Won
Roll Call 397
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its previous approval of the Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which was designed to insure that $32 million of the funds in the bill for National Science Foundation education activities would be used for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities undergraduate program.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves of the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.

The Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) Amendment, which had passed the House, insured that $32 million of the funds in the bill for National Science Foundation education activities would be used for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities undergraduate program. It is common practice in the House, after any vote, for the Speaker to declare, ?without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table?. According to the House Floor Procedural Manual: ?(I)f no objection is raised, this has the parliamentary effect of ending any possibility that another vote . . . can take place.?  The Manual also notes that objection is often raised, and a motion is made to reconsider the previous vote, ?when Members (usually minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.? This is what occurred here.

The vote was 166-250. One hundred and sixty-two Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and eleven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the motion to reconsider the vote approving the Eddie Bernice Johnson Amendment was defeated, the language to insure that $32 million be used for Historically Black Colleges and Universities stayed intact, and the legislative process was delayed for a few minutes.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 395
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote, resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its previous approval of the Nadler of New York amendment, which moved $5,000,000 in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice to the Community Oriented Policing Services DNA program.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves of the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.

The Nadler (D-NY) Amendment, which had passed the House, moved $5,000,000 to the Community Oriented Policing Services DNA program and reduced the amount for Justice Department salaries and expenses by an equal amount. It is common practice in the House, after any vote, for the Speaker to declare, ?without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table?. According to the House Floor Procedural Manual: ?(I)f no objection is raised, this has the parliamentary effect of ending any possibility that another vote . . . can take place.?  The Manual also notes that objection is often raised, and a motion is made to reconsider the previous vote ?when Members (usually minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.? That is what occurred here.

The vote was 163-246. One hundred and sixty Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-seven Democrats and nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the motion to reconsider the previous vote approving the Nadler Amendment was defeated, the increased funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services DNA program remained intact, and the legislative process was delayed for a few minutes.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Assisting Crime Impacted Communities
N N Won
Roll Call 393
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote, resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should to reconsider a its previous approval of the Boswell of Iowa amendment, which transferred $2.5 million in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice to the National Criminal History Improvement program.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves of the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.

The Boswell (D-IA) Amendment, which added $2.5 million for the National Criminal History Improvement program and reduced Department of Justice salaries and expenses by an equal amount, had been passed overwhelmingly. It is common practice in the House, after any vote, for the Speaker to declare, ?without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table?. According to the House Floor Procedural Manual: ?(I)f no objection is raised, this has the parliamentary effect of ending any possibility that another vote . . . can take place.?  The Manual also notes that objection is often raised to reconsider the previous vote ?when Members (usually minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.? That is what occurred here.

The vote was 125-295. One hundred and twenty-two Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-two Democrats and fifty-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the motion to reconsider the previous vote approving the Boswell Amendment was defeated, the increased funding for the National Criminal History Improvement program remained intact, and the legislative process was delayed for a few minutes.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Absent N Won
Roll Call 391
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote, resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its previous approval of the Moore of Wisconsin amendment, which moved $4,000,000 in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice to the Violence Against Women and Prevention Prosecution Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves of the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.

The Moore (D-WI) Amendment, which had passed overwhelmingly, moved $4,000,000 to the Violence Against Women and Prevention Prosecution Programs and reduced the amount allocated for Commerce Department salaries and expenses by an equal amount. It is common practice in the House, after any vote, for the Speaker to declare, ?without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table?. According to the House Floor Procedural Manual: ?(I)f no objection is raised, this has the parliamentary effect of ending any possibility that another vote . . . can take place.?  The Manual also notes that objection is often raised, and a motion is made to reconsider the previous vote, ?when Members (usually minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.? That is what occurred here.

The vote was 170-248. One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and two Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-two Democrats and six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the motion to reconsider the previous vote approving the Moore Amendment was defeated, the increased funding for the Violence Against Women and Prevention Prosecution Programs remained intact, and the legislative process was delayed for a few minutes.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Women?s Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 389
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote, resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its approval of the Bordallo of Guam amendment, which was designed to insure that at least $500,000 in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice would be awarded for Western Pacific fishery projects.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves by the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.

The Bordallo (D-Guam) Amendment, which had passed overwhelmingly, was intended to insure at least $500,000 would be awarded for Western Pacific fishery projects. It is common practice in the House, after any vote, for the Speaker to declare, ?without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table?. According to the House Floor Procedural Manual: ?(I)f no objection is raised, this has the parliamentary effect of ending any possibility that another vote . . . can take place.?  The Manual also notes that objection is often raised, and a motion is made to reconsider the previous vote, ?when Members (usually minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.? That is what occurred here.

The vote was 172-239 on an almost straight party line vote. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-six Democrats and three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the motion to reconsider the vote approving the Bordallo Amendment was defeated, the language to insure that $500,000 would be awarded for Western Pacific Fisheries projects was retained in the bill, and the legislative process was delayed for a few minutes.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 387
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote, resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its previous rejection of the Schock of Illinois amendment, which proposed transferring $500,000 in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice from the Census Bureau to the International Trade Administration.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote generated by one of a series of procedural moves by the Republican minority, which were designed to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.

The vote followed the defeat of the Schock (R-IL) Amendment, which had attempted to move $500,000 from the Census Bureau to the International Trade Administration. It is common practice in the House, after any vote, for the Speaker to declare, ?without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table?. According to the House Floor Procedural Manual: ?(I)f no objection is raised, this has the parliamentary effect of ending any possibility that another vote . . . can take place.?  The Manual also notes that objection is often raised, and a motion is made to reconsider the previous vote, ?when Members (usually minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.? That is what occurred here.

The vote was 177-241. One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and two Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the motion to reconsider the previous vote rejecting the Schock Amendment was defeated, no funds in the bill were transferred from the Census Bureau to the International Trade Administration, and the legislative process was delayed for a few minutes.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Fair Elections
N N Won
Roll Call 386
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Schock of Illinois amendment, which proposed transferring $500,000 from the Bureau of the Census to the International Trade Administration in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was one of a series of votes generated by procedural moves of the Republican minority to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the multi-billion dollar Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. Formally, this was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Schock (R-IL) to transfer $500,000 from the Bureau of the Census to the International Trade Administration for a study on the economic benefits of the U.S.-Columbia Free Trade Act.

The amendment had previously been approved during consideration of H.R. 2487 by the ?Committee of the Whole?. This committee is technically an entity separate from the full House of Representatives, although its membership is the same as that of the House. Using the device of the Committee of the Whole facilitates consideration of legislation. Under House procedures, bills and amendments are typically debated and amended after the House has resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole. There can be a revote on amendments that are adopted by that committee after it formally resolves itself back into the full House of Representatives. That is not a typical procedure, especially for amendments, such as this one, that are non-controversial and have been approved by a voice vote in the Committee of the Whole. It was requested in this instance by the Republicans.

When this amendment was considered in the Committee of the Whole, Rep. Schock, had noted that the decision to approve the U.S.-Columbia Free Trade Act, which he said ?will result in more good-paying manufacturing jobs for all Americans?, had been pending for a year. Schock said that he wanted ?to know the price of this neglect.?  He acknowledged that ?there are those who believe that the Colombian Free Trade Agreement will, in essence, result in the loss of American jobs. And to these Members, I would say vote for my amendment. If you are right, my amendment will prove that and the study subsequently will prove that. Please have the confidence in your convictions that I have in mine and vote for this amendment, and we'll see which of the two sides is correct.?

Rep. Mollohan, (D-WV), who was managing H.R. 2847 for the Democrats, had said during the debate that the Democratic majority was willing to accept the amendment. It had been approved in the Committee of the Whole on a voice vote. However, the vote ?in the House? on the Schock Amendment was 179-236. One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and eleven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-three Democrats and three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, although the amendment had been adopted on a voice vote in the Committee of the Whole, it was rejected in the House; and the proposed transfer of $500,000 in H.R. 2847 from the Census Bureau to the International Trade Administration was not approved.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Fair Elections
N N Won
Roll Call 385
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On a roll call vote resulting from a delaying procedure by the Republican minority; the vote was on whether the House should reconsider its previous approval of the Mollohan of West Virginia amendment, which moved $100 million in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice to the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was one of a series of votes generated by procedural moves of the Republican minority to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.

The Mollohan (D-WV) Amendment, which increased funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program to $100 million by taking amounts from other Justice Department Programs, had been approved. It is common practice in the House, after any vote, for the Speaker to declare, ?without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.? According to the House Floor Procedural Manual: ?(I)f no objection is raised, this has the parliamentary effect of ending any possibility that another vote . . . can take place.?  The Manual also notes that objection is often raised, and a motion is made to reconsider the previous vote, ?when Members (usually minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.? That is what occurred here.

The vote was 172-245 along almost straight party lines. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-one Democrats and four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the motion to reconsider the previous vote approving the Mollohan Amendment was defeated, the increased funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program remained intact, and the legislative process was delayed for a few minutes.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Assisting Crime Impacted Communities
N N Won
Roll Call 383
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Burton of Indiana amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used to relocate census personnel to the Office of the President.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Burton (R-IN) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. The amendment would prohibit the use of funds to relocate the Office of the Census or employees from the Department of Commerce to the jurisdiction of the Executive Office of the President. There had been significant concern expressed, especially by Republicans, that the Obama Administration was intending to move control of the 2010 census from the Department of Commerce to the White House. This was reportedly one of the reasons that Sen. Gregg (R-NH) had decided not to join the Obama Administration as Secretary of Commerce. Subsequent to Gregg?s decision, the administration announced that control of the census would remain within the Commerce Department.

The amendment had previously been approved after the House had resolved itself into the ?Committee of the Whole? to consider H.R. 2847. Under House procedures, bills are typically debated and amended in the ?Committee of the Whole? to facilitate their consideration. The membership of that committee, which is technically an entity separate from the full House of Representatives, is the same as that of the House. After the completion of debate, bills are formally reported back by the ?Committee? to the House. This separate vote was requested by the Republicans as a delaying tactic, and was part of an effort by the Republicans to protest the decision of the Democratic majority to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R, 2847.

During the debate on the first vote on this amendment in the Committee of the Whole, Rep. Burton had noted that ?(T)he Constitution stipulates that Congress shall direct how the census is to be conducted and Congress delegated this responsibility to the Bureau of the Census (in the Commerce Department), not the Office of the White House Chief of Staff.? He also argued that the census ?should remain independent of politics. It should not be directed by political operatives working out of the White House . . . The Census Bureau is staffed by experienced and talented professionals who are leaders in the field of statistics. In order to produce a fair, accurate and trustworthy count during the 2010 census, the Census Bureau needs to remain an agency free from political or partisan interference.?

Burton then acknowledged that the administration has said that the census will be controlled by the Commerce Department, but ?my concern is that there could be a change of attitude by some in the White House (and) . . . unless we pass this amendment, there is nothing to prevent the White House from reversing itself once more, and that concerns me.? Burton said he was particularly troubled by reports that the organization known as ACORN, which had received substantial criticism from some elements of the press and which Burton described as being ?responsible for multiple instances of vote fraud in the 2008 presidential election?, would be used in conducting the census.

Rep. Mollohan (D-WV), who was managing H.R. 2847 for the Democrats, had said that, although he was ?sympathetic? to (Burton?s) interest?, Mollohan did not ?share his concern?. Mollohan acknowledged that: ?(T)here was some talk earlier this year about the White House . . . taking a leadership role in the census.? He then added: ?(W)e have had public assurances and private assurances that indeed the White House has no such intention.? Mollohan then assured Burton ?we are on top of this . . . .? Mollohan had previously stated that he was certain ?there is no inappropriate involvement by the White House. I absolutely embrace (Burton?s) notion that the Congress should be fashioning it, and I think we are doing that with quite a bit of oversight.?

Mollohan said he knew ?there is a lot of concern (about the ACORN organization). I hear it on radio, I see it on television, certain talk radios are obsessing with regard to ACORN, and I think, personally, in many ways demonizing a whole organization for the conduct of a few.? He acknowledged that ?ACORN could be a part of the 30,000 partnerships that the Census Bureau will embrace to reach out to communities, many of them hard-to-identify communities.?

This second vote on the amendment was 251-168. One hundred and seventy-three Republicans and seventy-eight Democrats voted ?aye?. All one hundred and sixty-eight ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including the most progressive Democratic Members. As a result, the amendment was again approved and language was added to the appropriations bill prohibiting any funds from being used to relocate census personnel to the President?s Office.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Fair Elections
N N Lost
Roll Call 382
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Flake of Arizona amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit funds under the bill from being used for the Institute for Seafood Studies project at Nichols State University in Louisiana.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would eliminate $325,000 provided in the bill for the Institute for Seafood Studies project at Nichols State University in Louisiana. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose.

Rep. Flake noted in his statement in support of the amendment that this was ?only one of a thousand earmarks in this bill?, but that ?we never seem to be offsetting this spending anywhere else . . . .? He went on to say ?we are going to approve an earmark . . . to create an institute to study seafood. And I would venture a guess that we'll be back here next year with another earmark for that same program because now that we have an institute created by the Federal Government through an earmark, then who is going to sustain it but the Federal Government with another earmark and earmarks in perpetuity?? He argued ?when you look at the earmarks funded in this legislation, you see the same spoils system that we see elsewhere.? Rep. Flake went on to reiterate a point he had been making throughout the consideration of H.R. 2847 that the House leadership and Appropriations Committee senior members were getting a disproportionate share of the funds in the earmarks.

Rep. Melancon (D-LA) opposed the amendment. He began his statement in opposition by characterizing himself as a ?Blue Dog Democrat?, who appreciates ?the importance of fiscal responsibility; and getting our fiscal house in order is the best way to come out of this recession quickly . . . .? Melancon went on to say: ?(P)art of fiscal responsibility is the need for legislators to prioritize spending on projects that improve our constituents' safety, health and their livelihood. This institute will be working toward developing standards and guidelines for seafood safety as well as methods to advance sustainable fishing practices. In fact, this project dovetails nicely with the work being done . . . regarding the food safety bill and the issues that confront us. The rash of food-related illnesses and the deaths in the past few years highlight the vulnerability of our country and what we face from unsafe food sources and imports.?

Melancon also defended the funding of the Institute on the basis that: ?(T)he seafood industry . . . in many parts of the country, not just Louisiana is a conglomerate of many small, single-owner businesses.? Rep. Flake responded to that point by arguing ?that it's important that we think of the little guys here. The last time I checked, we have an $11 trillion debt. That amounts to about $36,000 per American, per person; for a family of four, obviously it's much bigger than that. It's time we start looking out for them.? Flake concluded by asking rhetorically ?if we can't stop creating new institutes to study seafood or anything else, then where are we going to cut? Where is the fiscal responsibility that we keep hearing about that's being employed? I just can't see it here.?

The vote was 124-303. One hundred and sixteen Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and fifty-nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the amendment and the funding for the Institute for Seafood Studies at Nichols State University was preserved in the appropriation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 381
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Flake of Arizona amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit funds under the bill from being used for the JASON Science Education Project in Ashburn, Virginia.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would have eliminated $4,000,000 provided in the bill for the JASON Science Education Project in Ashburn, Virginia. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose.

Rep. Flake began his statement in support of the amendment by acknowledging that ?science is important for any child's education, and if local schools wish to supplement their science curriculum with the services provided by the JASON Project, I believe they certainly should have that choice.? However, he then noted that ?this earmark is going to the JASON Project organization, not to the schools who wish to purchase its products (and) . . . JASON (is) a subsidiary of National Geographic, one of the world?s largest nonprofit science and educational organizations. In addition to the (other federal) funding it receives . . . The Motorola Foundation, Shell Oil Company, and Microsoft also provide funding for JASON. Why, with so many resources, does the JASON Project still receive earmarks year after year after year? . . .  If the JASON Project can't continue its operations without Federal funds after 18 years, I think you have to question its effectiveness. We have to stop funding projects like this year after year after year.?

Rep. Mollohan (D-WV), who was managing H.R. 2847 for the Democrats, opposed the amendment. He noted that his appropriations subcommittee, which drafted the bill, held hearings that emphasized ?the critical need for science education programs, such as the JASON Project, to attract America's youth to science disciplines and to better equip our teachers through professional development. ? Mollohan also argued that the work of the JASON Project is the kind of private-public partnerships that he said Rep. Flake has often praised.

Rep. Langevin (D-RI), who also opposed the amendment, said we need to give ?our future generation the tools that they need to succeed . . . how are we going to get out of our deficit and ensure that we are creating wealth for the future, that we are creating prosperity for our country if we don't invest in our young people, if we don't invest in our future? That's what the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs in particular do . . . We're investing in our young people . . . Since 1989 the JASON curriculum, which is a free curriculum, has been distributed to over 7 million students and teachers.?

The vote was 119-306. One hundred and fifteen Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and fifty-nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the amendment and the funding for the JASON Science Education Project in Ashburn, Virginia was preserved in the appropriation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 380
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Flake of Arizona amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit funds under the bill from being used for the Drew University Environmental Science Initiative in New Jersey.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would have eliminated one million dollars provided in the bill for the Drew University Environmental Science Initiative in New Jersey. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose.

Rep. Flake began his statement in support of the amendment by saying that, although he had ?nothing against environmental science . . . I do have a problem with handing out these kinds of earmarks to private universities.? He then noted that Drew University is not only private, but ?it also has a reported endowment of more than $268 million. In addition, the university was recently awarded a (foundation) grant of $950,000 . . . for the establishment of the new Environmental Studies and Sustainability major at the school.? He then said ?it's curious, in light of this grant that Drew University should receive a $1 million earmark for what the (amendment) sponsor said is the development of new environmental studies courses for the construction and improvement of science laboratories.?

Rep. Flake went on to argue that such grants should not be given ?to private universities that have demonstrated their ability to secure generous grants from prestigious foundations? and asked rhetorically ?(W)hy do the Federal taxpayers have to provide funding as well?? He went on to say that, in this case, it was because ?Drew University has the benefit of relationships with influential Members of Congress . . . (through) a bit of a spoil system . . . .? Flake also claimed: ?(P)owerful Members of Congress, appropriators, leadership, and committee chairs and ranking members are taking home . . . 45 percent of the total dollars earmarked. Yet I would remind my colleagues again that this subset of Members comprises only 25 percent of this legislative body.?

Rep. Frelinghuysen, a Republican Member from New Jersey who had promoted the funding, opposed the amendment. He first said that he believed ?we do need to rein in excessive government spending and promote fiscal discipline, and I've been heavily involved in that.? He went on to say the Drew University Environmental Science Initiative ?fits perfectly in line with (the) goal of advancing science education? and that: ?(O)ne of the ways you meet the challenges of China and India with regard to their educational systems is to make sure that there are colleges and universities that are doing what they can to graduate students who are heavily involved in math and science studies.? Frelinghuysen concluded by saying ?I think the investments we're making in science, math, technology, and engineering in New Jersey and colleges and universities across the country is money well spent.?

Rep. Flake responded: ?(I)f we can't say that we are not going to give a million dollar grant to a private university that just received a million dollar grant . . . for an almost identical purpose . . . while we have a public debt of about $11 trillion and a deficit this year of $2 trillion, if we can't decide that we are not going to give a million dollar earmark in this manner, where are we going to cut? When are we going to say enough is enough? We're spending too much.?

The vote was 100-318. Ninety-two Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-eight Democrats and eighty Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the amendment and the funding for the Drew University Environmental Science Initiative was preserved in the appropriation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 379
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Flake of Arizona amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit funds under the bill from being used for the Innovative Science Learning Center in Florence, South Carolina.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would eliminate $500,000 provided in the bill for the Innovative Science Learning Center of Science South in Florence, South Carolina. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose.

Rep. Flake began his statement in support of the amendment by noting that, ?(A)ccording to its Web site, ScienceSouth is a nonprofit institution established in 2000 by educators and business leaders and seeks to advance scientific understanding and increase the competitiveness of future generations. ScienceSouth offers programming for schools and families, as well as summer camp sessions, and currently offers hands-on science workshops.?  He then said he agreed that the facility ?appears to offer a valuable service to the community.? Flake then noted that it receives funding from private corporations and from the state, and said he had to ?question how essential it is that ScienceSouth receive Federal funding.?

Flake went on to say:? We're often told that we're trying to wean them off Federal funding. Yet, that weaning never seems to be accomplished.? He then argued that Congress has ?a pretty powerful spoils system. It favors powerful Members of Congress over just about everyone else. With more than 1,000 earmarks in this bill . . . Members of the House leadership, appropriators, committee chairmen and ranking members are taking home more than 45 percent of the earmarked dollars in that account.  I wish I could say this was the exception to the rule. Unfortunately, it's not.?

Rep. Clyburn (D-SC), the House Majority Whip, who was instrumental in getting the earmark added to the bill, responded to Rep. Flake. Clyburn claimed that the center is ?very critical to the education of our young people . . . and to expand the partnerships that all of us are trying to develop with the business community in trying to educate our . . . children who live in disadvantaged or what we call at-risk conditions.? He further argued that ?(T)his is not about seeking largesse for the district I represent. This is about educating the children of this great Nation and of my home State.?

Rep. Flake answered by referencing the fact that the federal deficit was $2 trillion and that Members of Congress need ?to make some choices at some time. I think all of us would love to have money for every worthy project that's out there . . . At what point do we say, ?Enough is enough?? At what point do we say, ?Yes, it is time to wean this program off of Federal dollars??  . . . We all know that we have to borrow any money that we spend on any of these programs . . . I would simply submit that we have got to make some cuts somewhere, and we don't seem to be willing to do it anywhere.? Rep. Clyburn replied that he has ?worked very hard on this side of the aisle to make spending cuts . . . but I think it is foolhardy to cut from the education of our children . . . This is an investment in the future of our children and of this great country.?

The vote was 107-320. One hundred and four Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and sixty-eight Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the amendment and the funding for the Innovative Science Learning Center in Florence, South Carolina was preserved in the appropriation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 378
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Flake of Arizona amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit funds under the bill from being used for the National Drug Intelligence Center.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would eliminate forty-four million dollars provided in the bill for the National Drug Intelligence Center. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose.

Rep. Flake began his statement in support of the amendment by noting that the previous (George W. Bush) administration described the Center ?as duplicative and ineffective? and that a recent Office of Management and Budget study concurred. He then noted that the Center ?has been the recipient of more than 350 million taxpayer dollars in the 15 years it has been in existence? and that the Obama Administration had said it wanted to make the Center permanent. He added that ??permanent? is a troubling word, particularly when it regards the National Drug Intelligence Center.? Flake concluded by arguing ?we have unfunded liabilities that should make us all shudder (and) . . .  part of the role of Congress, one that we have not done well, is to police the administration and to look at what they are allocating and earmarking for.?

Rep. Mollohan (D-WV), who was managing H.R. 2847 for the Democrats, opposed the amendment. He first noted that this amount for the Center was in the budget requested by President Obama. He then argued: ?(T)he National Drug Intelligence Center provides strategic drug-related intelligence, document and computer exploitation support, and training assistance to the drug control, public health and law enforcement and intelligence communities in order to reduce the adverse effects of drug trafficking, drug abuse and other drug related criminal activities.? Rep. Flake responded by reiterating that part of the oversight role of Congress ?is to ensure that money is not wasted (and)  . . . Here's a perfect example of where we can make a difference, where we can save money . . . . ?

The vote was 130-295. One hundred and twenty-four Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-five Democrats and fifty Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the amendment and the funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center was preserved in the appropriation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 377
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Campbell of California amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used for the Summer Flounder and Black Sea Initiative project of the Partnership for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries in New Jersey.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would prohibit the expenditure of $600,000, which was in the bill for the Summer Flounder and Black Sea Initiative project of the Partnership for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries in New Jersey. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose.

Campbell began his remarks in support of his amendment by noting that ?we are spending more money than we are taking in here in the Federal Government by about nearly 2 trillion . . . Part of that includes a $407.6 billion appropriation bill already passed just this year in this Congress which contained close to 9,000 earmarks. . . .This $2 trillion deficit is the largest deficit as a percent of our economy of any year since World War II.?

He went on to say: ?(W)e're spending too much money on waste. We're spending too much money on duplicative and ineffective programs, and we're spending too much money on earmarks . . . like the one that is before us . . . for . . . $600,000 more spending, on top of the $4 trillion we're already spending, on top of creating $600,000 more deficit, and this is just one of what I'm sure will be thousands of earmarks in all of these appropriations bills for summer flounder and other fish. Can the flounders get along without this $600,000? I think they can . . . .?

Rep. Bishop (D-NY) opposed the amendment. He said that he was one of the Members who requested these funds ?along with my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats from New Jersey and New York, because the research to be conducted will help stimulate an industry that is critically important to my region--precisely what our economy is calling for and precisely the opposite of what has been suggested by (Rep. Campbell). . . on Long Island, the fishing industry is a source of $2 billion to the local economy and sustains more than 10,000 full and part-time jobs.?

Bishop also argued: ?(T)his request is not a typical earmark. It does not serve only a single district. It was not requested by one member or one party. It is not a crutch for a fading industry . . .  the Partnership will serve critical needs in the region known as the Mid-Atlantic Bight, where the recreational and commercial fishing industries--and the jobs and families that support them--depend on summer flounder and black sea bass for their livelihood. Providing data based on the best possible science--as this research funding provides--is vital to the health of our fisheries and the economic well-being of our fishermen. If you support a down-payment on job creation and a prudent investment of taxpayer dollars in the future of this economy, vote against this misguided amendment . . . .? Rep. Pallone (D-NJ) echoed the remarks of Rep. Bishop and claimed that ?(T)he Partnership for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Science is incredibly important to the commercial and recreational fishing industry on the east coast . . . The Partnership for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Science . . . is a multi-state multi-institutional partnership that will (help) . . . to create healthy sustainable fisheries and protect the fishing industry.?

The vote was 102-317. Ninety-five Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-one Democrats and seventy-six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the amendment and the funding for the Mid-Atlantic Summer Flounder and Black Sea Initiative project was preserved in the appropriation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 376
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Campbell of California amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used for the Minority Business Development Agency at the Jamaica, New York Export Center.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would have prohibited the expenditure of $100,000, which was in the bill, for the Minority Business Development Agency at the Jamaica, New York Export Center. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose.

Campbell began his remarks in support of his amendment by noting that non-defense discretionary spending for the 2010 fiscal year was rising in the appropriations bills that Congress was considering by 12.8%, or $57 billion, over the equivalent 2009 figures. He also noted that the Gross Domestic Product had been falling by 4% to 6%, which he claimed meant that the incomes of Americans are falling by 4 to 6 percent. He then asked, rhetorically, ?in this period when the incomes of Americans are falling 4 to 6 percent, should the government be increasing its bureaucratic spending by almost 13 percent? And if it does, where is that going to come from??  He characterized this as ?an unsustainable process.?

Campbell added that ?many of the agencies of government saw their budgets double over the previous year at a time when regular Americans at home are cutting back (and this additional money) . . . has to be borrowed or it has to be taxed, and right now we are borrowing it, and someday the people on the majority side will probably want to tax it.?  Campbell added that it's ?another $100,000 to be spent, another $100,000 to be borrowed, another $100,000 we don't have, Americans don't have--that is going to have to be borrowed or taxed to be spent for the Chamber of Commerce in Jamaica, New York, to set up an export center. Campbell concluded that spending this money ?just doesn't seem to me as a critical need at this time . . . .?

Rep. Meeks (D-NY), responding for the Democrats, noted that Republican Members often refer to small businesses as ?the backbone of America?. Meeks then said ?we are losing small businesses by the thousands (and) . . . without them, the average everyday American is in trouble.? He then referred to the Jamaica, New York Export Center, which, he argued ?supports the needs of small and midsized freight-forwarding businesses--small business--that surround John F. Kennedy Airport and that aims to provide economic and industrial relief to New York City communities that are grappling with an exodus of export and freight-forwarding jobs and businesses . . .? Meeks noted that thousands of jobs had been lost at JFK Airport and ?freight-forwarding firms in Queens County employ approximately 41,000 people.?

Meeks further argued that the export center encourages minority and female entrepreneurs and advises them on methods for operating freight-forwarding businesses. He noted that ?the funds would be administered by the Minority Business Development Agency under the Department of Commerce, whose goal is specifically . . . to foster the establishment and growth of minority-owned businesses in America . . . The Jamaica Chamber of Commerce Export Center . . .  supports the goals specifically that the program within the Department of Commerce is charged to do. So there is a perfect match here to create jobs, to get people to become small business owners, to maintain low overhead. I think that that's what the American people want.?

Campbell answered by noting that ?(T)he Chamber of Commerce in Jamaica, New York, is a private entity funded by private businesses. So we are using $100,000 of taxpayer money to subsidize private businesses here at a time when we don't have the money. And if we're going to do it for the Chamber of Commerce in Jamaica, why not do it for . . . the thousands of Chambers of Commerce that exist all over the country.?

The vote was 129-295. One hundred and twenty-one Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and forty-eight Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the amendment and the funding for the Jamaica, New York Minority Business Development Agency was preserved in the appropriation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 375
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Campbell of California amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used for a project at San Jose State University, called Training the Next Generation of Weather Forecasters.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would prohibit the expenditure of $180,000, which was in the bill for a project at San Jose State University called Training the Next Generation of Weather Forecasters. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose.

Rep. Campbell began his statement in support of the amendment by acknowledging that ?weather forecasting is a fine profession, and I'm sure San Jose State does a fine job teaching weather forecasters . . . .? Campbell then went on to say: ?(T)he question is, do we want to borrow  . . . another $180,000 for this purpose? Do we want to subsidize the training at this university and not subsidize it anywhere else it is done? Is this $180,000 so critical--because we really shouldn't be spending anything right now and borrowing more money unless it's really critical to our needs in the future . . . .?

Campbell also echoed statements that had been made by several other Republican Members during consideration of H.R. 2847 when he said ?this Nation right now is awash in debt. The Federal deficit is around $11 trillion, I think, at last count, but I think it's going up so fast, about $2 trillion a year (and) . . . 46 cents of every dollar spent by the Federal Government, spent by this Congress on the budget this year will be borrowed . . . We have to stop spending and borrowing so much money.?

Rep. Honda, (D-CA), who is a member of the House Appropriations Committee, led the opposition to the amendment. He first argued that global warming ?may well be the most important problem facing our world today . . . (and) this important project (will) help us deal with it.? He added that many Republican Members ?may wish to keep their heads in the sand about global warming, but I believe we need to prepare to deal with the problem today.?  Honda went on to say: (O)ne of the keys to dealing with these changes is going to be adaptation, developing ways to protect people and places by reducing their vulnerability to climate changes.  To properly adapt to more extreme climate events, we need to have more data, accurate weather forecasting, (and) weather forecasters trained to predict the extreme events expected with climate change can give the American people the advanced warning needed to deal with--or even escape from, if necessary--these dangers and avoid tragedies such as Hurricane Katrina.?

Rep. Honda also noted that this funding is ?a one time shot? and that San Jose State ?will seek other funding sources in order to offer the class after it has been geared up. But to get the program started, I think it is perfectly appropriate for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration to make a small investment in the development of a field experience course that will help to better train the next generation of weather forecasters to predict the extreme weather events that are expected to accompany climate change.? Honda concluded by quoting the mission of the Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, which would administer these funds, as being ?dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related events. The curriculum that the funding in this bill will complete will help (it) achieve this mission.?

The vote was 123-303. One hundred and seventeen Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and fifty-seven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the amendment and the funding for the weather forecaster training project at San Jose State University was preserved in the appropriation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 374
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used for the Maine Lobster Research and Inshore Trawling Survey.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment sought to eliminate the funds in the bill that specifically provided $200,000 for the Maine Lobster Research and Inshore Trawling Survey. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose.

Rep. Hensarling began the statement in support of his amendment by noting that there were approximately 1,100 earmarks in this appropriation bill. He said that, while ?all earmarks are not bad . . .  I'm not a fan of earmarks, be they congressional or administration. Too often in the earmark process, what we observe, what the American people observe is a triumph of special interest or local interest over the national interest or the public interest. Too often we see the triumph of secrecy over transparency, and all too often for this body the American people believe they see money coming in on one end of Capitol Hill and earmarks coming out of the other. The system is broken. The system must be reformed.?

Hensarling acknowledged that while, ?relative to the Federal budget, (this earmark) may be a small portion of the total spending, it is a huge portion of the culture of spending.? He said he had ?no doubt that this Maine Lobster Research and Inshore Trawl Survey is very important to the State of Maine (but) . . . I wonder if it is truly a Federal priority . . .  And if it's not a national priority, if it's important for the State of Maine, why didn't the State of Maine pay for it? If it's important to these local communities, why don't the local communities pay for it? Why didn't the Chamber of Commerce pay for it? Why don't commercial companies pay for it??

Hensarling concluded by asking, rhetorically, whether the earmark justifies ?borrowing money from the Chinese, sending the bill to our children and grandchildren, and maybe being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living? It's not fair. It's not smart. It's not right.?

Rep. Pingree (D-ME) responded by first noting that the area covered by the Maine lobster industry is very tightly controlled and restricted, that it is a vital industry in Maine and that these funds are part of a ?subsidy that the Federal Government--as well as our State government--gives to help make sure that this stays a healthy resource.? She noted that lobster fishermen are small, individual businessmen and that $200,000 ?isn't very much to ask for a lot of hardworking people who contribute to our economy.?

Rep. Michaud, another Democrat from Maine arguing against the amendment, claimed that the Survey was a ?worthwhile project that helps sustain a vital industry . . . vital to maintaining the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of people. In order to maintain an important part of our economy, we must continue to monitor the resource, in part so that we do not overfish.? He concluded by noting that the lobster industry ?contributes an indispensable $1 billion a year to the Maine economy . . . These programs monitor the health and sustainability of the lobster resources and are the foundation of the industry management program. Their continuation is not only essential to the successful preservation of the lobster population, but the preservation of tens of thousands of jobs in the State of Maine.?

Hensarling responded by saying that he was sure that the motives of the Member who inserted the earmark ?are good and pure,? but that the earmark ?takes $200,000 away from taxpayers in my congressional district in order to benefit people in her congressional district.? He then suggested that the sponsor may not ?understand borrowing 46 cents on the dollar, borrowing it from the Chinese in order to send the bill to our children and grandchildren . . . .?

The vote was 115-311. One hundred and eight Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and sixty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the amendment and the funding for the Maine Lobster Research Inshore Trawling Survey was preserved in the appropriation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 373
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would prohibit funds under the bill from being used by the Art Center of the Grand Prairie, Stuttgart, AR, for the Grand Prairie Arts Initiative.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) to H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. H.R. 2847 was a multi-billion measure that, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for improved scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The amendment would eliminate the funds in the bill that specifically provided $155,000 to fund an after-school and summer arts program at the Arts Center of the Grand Prairie in Stuttgart, Arkansas. Republican Members offered a series of amendments, of which this was one, to remove small ?earmarked? projects from H.R. 2847. An earmark is the provision of funds in a major appropriation bill for a specific project or purpose.

Rep. Hensarling began the statement in support of his amendment by saying ?not all earmarks are bad?; but he then went on to say: ?(W)e are in severe economic stress in our Nation today. And as I look at what has happened in the United States Congress, what I have observed is that in the history of Congress never have so few voted so fast to indebt so many.  Already on top of a staggering national debt, we have seen a $700 billion bailout program that continues today, a $1.13 trillion government stimulus bill that does nothing to help our economy, (and) a $400 billion omnibus bill chock full of even more earmarks. All of this is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to hardworking American families.? He then suggested: ?(M)aybe Members of Congress could quit proposing all of the earmark spending . . . The Federal deficit has gone up tenfold in just 2 years. We're borrowing 46 cents to spend $1 here. We're borrowing money from the Chinese, and we're sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren, which causes me to question, is this the best expenditure for $155,000 of the taxpayer money??

Hensarling concluded by asking: ?(I)s there any time that we decide, maybe something isn't a national priority? And as good as the work that they do at the Art Center of the Grand Prairie in Stuttgart, Arkansas, I would suggest to you that there are alternative uses for this money that would help families in America, and it is not a priority, and we must start this spending discipline somewhere.?

Rep. Berry (D-AR), who is a member of the House Appropriations Committee from Arkansas, responded to Hensarling?s remarks by saying ?I make no apologies for our attempt to invest in the children of the Grand Prairie in Stuttgart, Arkansas . . . The Art Center is a nonprofit organization that provides after-school and summer programs for troubled youth.? Berry went on to say that the program at issue engaged at-risk youth and is intended to prevent crime. He argued: ?(T)hat is the benefit the Federal Government and society as a whole will derive from this project. It is a worthwhile investment in our children.?

Berry then noted that the Republicans ?took over this country in January of 2001 with a balanced budget, a $5 trillion surplus and the votes to pass anything they wanted to pass, and they did  . . . Their idea of how to grow an economy is, give as much money as you can to the rich people. Don't regulate them at all. Let them do anything they want to, and hope Wall Street takes care of you. Well, we all see what happened. This year we find ourselves in the worst economic circumstance that anyone can imagine.? Hensarling answered by saying ?when the Republicans were in control and we had a $300 billion deficit, the now Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called that fiscal child abuse. Now we have a $1.8 trillion deficit. This earmark makes it $155,000 worse.?

The vote was 134-294. One hundred and twenty-eight Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-eight Democrats and forty-six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the amendment and the funding for the Grand Prairie Arts institute was preserved in the appropriation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 372
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Broun of Georgia amendment which would have prohibited funds to be used to establish or implement a National Climate Service.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Broun (R-GA) that would have prohibited any of the funds in the H.R. 2847 to be used to establish or implement a National Climate Service. H.R. 2847 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.

Rep. Broun began his statement in support of the amendment by saying: ?At best, this new Federal agency is duplicative. At worst, this is an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars for an endeavor which is not even based on sound science.? Climate Science Watch, a web site that describes its role as ?promoting integrity in the use of climate science in government?, referred to Rep. Broun as one of the Members of Congress ?who deny the science (of climate change) and . . . who act as if a sober response to global climate disruption were a partisan issue.? 

Rep. Broun argued that ?there is no consensus among policymakers, academics, researchers or bureaucrats about how a National Climate Service should even be structured . . . In order to implement any entity of this nature, we must first be sure that the infrastructure for monitoring our weather and climate patterns is already in place, but that infrastructure is currently not there. What we know for sure is that this new, unnecessary agency will grant broad-sweeping authority to the executive branch with little congressional input. That's it. The details are being left up to some Federal bureaucrat.

?Additionally, there is an absolute dearth of information regarding the costs and benefits of setting up such an entity . . .We have no assurances that this National Climate Service will turn out to be anything more than a new regulatory agency for the proposed tax-and-cap scheme . . . .? The ?cap and trade? program to which he referred was being supported by Democrats as a method for controlling global warming. Under the program, companies emitting higher pollution levels than the law would ordinarily allow could purchase ?credits?, which would enable them to continue to emit the higher levels, from companies that emit much lower pollution levels.

Rep. Mollohan (D-WV), who was managing H.R. 2847 for the Democrats, opposed the amendment. He first did so, based on procedural grounds, by noting that a National Climate Service had not yet been created. He suggested that Rep. Broun?s efforts would be more effective if he went before the House committee that would decide whether this Service would even be created. Mollohan acknowledged that ?there had been considerable discussion about establishing such an agency and that there was some money in the bill for weather research and satellites that is in anticipation of an authorization of a National Climate Service (but) that money is also needed by the Weather Service.?  He then said he also opposed the substance of the amendment because it would go against ?the necessity for this nation and for the world to better understand what is happening to the world's climate and how global climate change is going to adversely impact our lives . . . .? 

Broun responded by saying: ?We are throwing money at something that has not been established, and you're funding something that's not needed--a whole new agency. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has no clue of how to deal with this new National Climate Service. Nobody knows how to operate this thing. Nobody knows what it's going to do. If, indeed, this is funded, it is going to totally remove from Congress any oversight . . . We've got to stop this egregious spending of money that we don't have.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 161-262. One hundred and fifty-four Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred forty-three Democrats and nineteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no provision prohibiting the establishment or implementation of a National Climate Service was added to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Commerce.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Won
Roll Call 370
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Jordan of Ohio amendment, which would have made a $12,511,000,000 across-the board reduction to the amount in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Jordan (R-OH) that would have made a $12,511,000,000 across-the board reduction to the total funding in H.R. 2847. That bill provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. the bill. The reduction proposed by the amendment would have put the spending levels in the bill back to the corresponding levels they were at in the previous fiscal year.

Rep. Jordan referenced the stimulus package Congress had passed in an effort to overcome the current severe economic conditions, the efforts that had been made to help the banking and auto industries, the fact that the annual federal deficit was approaching $2 trillion, and the national debt of more than $11 trillion, and said that Americans were ?tired of this blank check, this bailout mentality that has got a hold of Washington. They're sick of the bailouts. They're sick of the deficits. They're sick of the debt that we keep piling up.?  

Jordan further argued that the Congress was not being disciplined in its spending. He said: ?The easy thing to do is to spend taxpayer money. The disciplined thing, the tough thing to do is say . . . We're going to limit overall spending, and we're going to have some priorities and make some tough decisions . . . .?

Rep. Mollohan (D-WV), who was managing H.R. 2847 for the Democrats, opposed the amendment. Mollohan had opposed a number of similar amendments on the ground that the figures in the appropriation bill had been worked out carefully over a long period, and that a wholesale dollar reduction would undermine the effectiveness of the programs funded by H.R. 2847. His previous statements opposing similar amendments had noted that across-the-board reductions such as those proposed in this amendment would eliminate contingency funding for the 2010 census, which he claimed would significantly increase ?the risk of unforeseen events impacting field operations with regard to the census . . . .? Mollohan had also claimed this type of broad cut would eliminate the Minority Business Development Agency, reduce the development of all new NASA missions, and result in a ?drop? in government support for research and development.

Mollohan claimed that the Jordan amendment would actually result in a 19.4 percent reduction in the funding of the bill because the total dollar amount in the fiscal year 2010 appropriation made by the bill was already five billion dollars below the comparable 2009 funding level.

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 147-275. One hundred and forty Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred forty-two Democrats and thirty-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no across-the board reduction was made to the amount in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 369
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Price of Georgia amendment, which would have reduced the total in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice by 1% or $644,150,000.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Price (R-GA) that would have reduced the total amount in H.R. 2847 by 1% or $644,150,000. H.R. 2847 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.

Rep. Price began his statement in support of the amendment by noting that the bill, as written, made an 11.6 percent increase in comparable spending over the previous year and said that his amendment would change it ?from an 11.6 percent increase to a 10.6 percent increase.? He also noted that the current public debt was $11.4 trillion and that federal tax revenues dropped 34 percent in April 2009 compared with April of 2008.

Price said: ?(A) penny out of every dollar, that is all we are asking.? He also pointed out that his amendment would not make an across-the-board reduction, but would allow ?the department itself to figure out how to save a penny out of every dollar that it spends.?He concluded by claiming that not making a 1% spending reduction in the bill would be ?irresponsible?.

Rep. Mollohan (D-WV), who was managing H.R. 2847 for the Democrats, opposed the amendment. He first noted that the Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee ?worked months and months in drafting this legislation.? He then enumerated a number of the programs that the bill would fund, such as those related to law enforcement and said: ?(T)he bill is carefully drafted to provide adequate funding to the Bureau of Prisons to ensure safety and security for inmates and corrections officers in Federal prisons. A 1 percent cut would be $71 million . . . A 1 percent cut would (also) eliminate $345 million in new funds to safeguard the Southwest border.? Mollohan concluded by arguing that a one percent cut would ?undermine? the programs funded by H.R. 2847.

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 188-236. One hundred and fifty-nine Republicans and twenty-nine Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred twenty-four Democrats and twelve Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no reduction was made in the fiscal year 2010 funding levels for the Departments of Commerce and Justice provided by H.R. 2847.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 368
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Burton of Indiana amendment which prohibited any funds in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce to be used to relocate census personnel to the Office of the President.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Burton (R-IN) to H.R. 2847, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce. The amendment prohibited any funds in the bill from being used to relocate the Office of the Census or employees from the Department of Commerce to the jurisdiction of the Executive Office of the President.

There had been significant concern expressed, especially by Republicans, that the Obama Administration was intending to move control of the 2010 census from the Department of Commerce to the White House. In response, the administration formally announced that the control of the census would remain in the Commerce Department.

Rep. Burton, arguing in support of his amendment, first noted that ?(T)he Constitution stipulates that Congress shall direct how the census is to be conducted and Congress delegated this responsibility to the Bureau of the Census (in the Commerce Department), not the Office of the White House Chief of Staff.? He argued that the census ?should remain independent of politics. It should not be directed by political operatives working out of the White House . . . The Census Bureau is staffed by experienced and talented professionals who are leaders in the field of statistics. In order to produce a fair, accurate and trustworthy count during the 2010 census, the Census Bureau needs to remain an agency free from political or partisan interference.?

Burton acknowledged that the administration has said that the census will be controlled by the Commerce Department, but ?my concern is that there could be a change of attitude by some in the White House (and) . . . unless we pass this amendment, there is nothing to prevent the White House from reversing itself once more, and that concerns me.?

Rep. Mollohan (D-WV), who was managing H.R. 2847 for the Democrats, first said he was ?sympathetic? to Burton?s concerns, but that he did not share them. Mollohan opposed the amendment, but also said his remarks in opposition were ?more in the way of assuring (Rep. Burton) that we are on top of this, and we are looking at it.?

Mollohan did not support the amendment because he did not want to acknowledge, as he said, that there had been any ?inappropriate involvement by the White House? in the development of census procedures. However, a significant number of Democrats did support the amendment, since they approved of its stated purpose of insuring that there would not be any outside interference in the conduct of the census.

The amendment passed by a vote of 262-162. One hundred and seventy-three Republicans and eighty-nine Democrats voted ?aye?. All one hundred and sixty-two ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. As a result, language was added to the 2010 Department of Commerce funding bill prohibiting any funds in it to be used to relocate census personnel to the President?s Office.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 367
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Blackburn of Tennessee amendment, which would have decreased by 5% all spending in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice that were not legally required to be spent

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment to H.R. 2847 offered by Rep. Blackburn (R-TN), which would have decreased by 5% all spending in the legislation not otherwise required to be spent by some other law. H.R. 2847 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.

Rep. Blackburn began her statement in support of the amendment by saying ?spending is out of control here in Washington, D.C. The American people know that this government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.? She then noted that many states, including her own, have made across-the-board spending reductions ?because they had to get in there and address the out-of-control growth.?

Blackburn said ?throughout our nation's history, we have had times when this body and our Commanders in Chief have sought to also do across-the-board spending cuts. At the onset of World War II, President Roosevelt came in and made a 20 percent across-the-board cut in nondefense spending. President Truman, with the Korean War, made a 28 percent across-the-board spending cut. And he did that because budgets and appropriations should be about priorities.   At this time in our history, when we see so many families and so many businesses struggling, when we see appropriations and spending out of control here . . .the spending binge is unacceptable.?

Rep. Mollohan (D-WV) was managing H.R. 2847 for the Democrats and opposed the amendment. He first argued that an across-the-board cut is indiscriminate and that, in itself, is a reason to vote against it. He further argued that this kind of cut reflects the fact that ?someone has not done a thoughtful exercise in going through and trying to find out where there might be a few extra dollars with regard to this account or that account.? Mollohan then said ?that's exactly what this subcommittee (that drafted the bill) has done . . . and we have done it in close cooperation with the minority . . . We have looked at every single one of these accounts. We have done exactly what this amendment does not do.?

Mollohan also argued against the amendment by noting some of the programmatic reductions that would result if the amendment were adopted. These included ?the complete elimination of $370 million of census contingency funding, significantly increasing the risk of unforeseen events impacting field operations with regard to the census . . .?; the elimination of the Minority Business Development Agency; reductions ?in the development of all new NASA missions . . . for which we just heard Democrats and Republicans speak about with great concern?; and a ?drop in government support for research and development (that) . . . would stress the nation's research universities at the time that this country needs to invest in research, needs to invest in development so that we're at the cutting edge of the new economy . . . which is at the very heart of President Obama's new economic recovery plan and strategy.?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 177-248. One hundred and fifty-eight Republicans and nineteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-two Democrats and sixteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no across-the-board cut was made in the in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 366
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Nunes of California amendment which would have prevented the Marine Fisheries Service from implementing those elements of its plan for the California Central Valley and associated water projects that reduced water flow to farms in the valley

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Nunes (D-CA) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce. The amendment would have prevented the Marine Fisheries Service from implementing those elements of its plan for the California Central Valley and associated water projects that reduced water flow to farms in the valley. That plan was part of an effort to save various species of whales and fish, including the killer whale and a three inch minnow.

The mandated water reduction by the Marine Fisheries Service, combined with an ongoing drought in California, had created significant opposition to the Service?s plan and certain of the water projects. Rep. Nunes, who represents parts of California?s Central Valley, acknowledged that offering his amendment ?is the worst of all options?, but that he ?had no other choice?.

Nunes said he was offering the amendment because these projects have ?caused water shortages to spread not only in the (Central) Valley but now to Los Angeles and even to San Diego.? He said the Democratic majority was responsible for the water shortage since ?(T)hey have refused to allow debate on this issue or even a vote on a bill that would end this crisis for good (and) . . . this Congress has failed its constitutional duties to provide for the general welfare of its citizens.?

Two Democrat Members who also represent parts of California?s Central Valley, Rep. Cardoza and Rep. Costa, co-sponsored the amendment. Rep Costa argued that the reasoning behind the projects was ?flawed? and that valid alternative assessments and opinions ?were not taken into account . . . .? Costa also claimed: (T)his is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. It's an issue that we must solve, and we must do it now.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who was leading the opposition to the amendment, first said he recognized ?the frustration of my friends who live in the Valley and are undergoing very serious economic times.? He then went on to argue that preventing the implementation of these projects ?makes nothing better.? Miller cited the work, research, congressional action and court cases that had gone on, and argued ?this amendment will collapse it all back again, we'll start all over again, and we'll just waste a lot of time. And the problems in the Central Valley will get worse for agriculture; they will get worse for the economy; they'll get worse in Southern California; they'll get worse in the delta; we'll have more endangered species lawsuits; and we'll have more complications. And we'll accomplish nothing.  It's bold in its approach. It's destructive in its results.?

Miller also claimed ?we're here in this situation because a court ruled after the last (Bush) administration trampled through the Fish and Wildlife Service . . . and altered scientific findings, studies, and opinions that we could no longer conduct the business of the Central Valley Project. I didn't see my friends on the other side of the aisle raise one objection at the time that those actions were taking place, at the time that criminal behavior was taking place.?

Rep. Miller was supported by Rep. Thompson, another California Democrat. Thompson argued that the amendment ?take(s) science off the table again, which led us, in part, to this problem and put the courts in control of these rivers, but it also limits our opportunities to address the overall problem. Without the Federal agencies at the table . . . we're limited, and it's not going to bring any answers forward.?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 208-212. One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and thirty-seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and nine Democrats and three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, language was not added to the Departments of Commerce fiscal year 2010 funding bill that prevented the implementation of the Central Valley and California State water projects.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
N N Won
Roll Call 364
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Price of Georgia which would have removed $100 million from the amount of fiscal year 2010 funds provided to the Department of Justice.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Price (R-GA) that would have removed $100 million from the funds provided in H.R. 2847 for the Department of Justice. This was the amount that President Obama had asked each cabinet officer to find in savings from his or her department. H.R. 2847 provided fiscal year 2010 funds to the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.

Rep. Price began his statement in support of his amendment by referencing the request that President Obama had made to his cabinet. He then noted that $100 million is the average amount the federal government spends every 13 minutes. Price argued that ?it just makes sense, while the American people are struggling, while the American people are tightening their belts, while they're clamoring for us to be fiscally responsible and not spend any more of their money, to save $100 million . . . .? He said that it would be the ?equivalent of a family that earns $40,000 cutting a dollar out of their budget.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who was one of those leading the effort to pass H.R. 2847, opposed the amendment. He enumerated many of the programs in the Department of Justice and claimed: ?(T)hese investments are absolutely necessary . . . what we are doing is reinvesting in the law enforcement infrastructure of this country on the border, in our cities, and in the issues of white-collar crime.? He then argued that the figures in the funding bill for the Justice Department were ?carefully crafted as we consulted with people across the various jurisdictions within these institutions to make sure that we could, in fact, provide them to be secure and to serve the needs of this nation.?

The amendment defeated by a vote of 165-257. One hundred and fifty-three Republicans and twelve Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-six Democrats and twenty-one Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no funds were removed from the amount in the bill that provided fiscal year 2010 funds for the Department of Justice.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 362
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Tiahrt of Kansas amendment that would have deleted $250 million from the fiscal year 2010 Department of Commerce spending bill and replaced it with the same amount from the previously-passed economic stimulus legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS). The amendment would have deleted $250 million from H.R. 2847, the fiscal year 2010 Departments of Commerce spending bill, and replaced it with the same amount from the previously-passed economic stimulus legislation. That deletion and replacement would have been made in the funding for the Economic Development Administration, which is part of the Department of Commerce. Congress had previously passed economic stimulus legislation designed to deal with the financial crisis the country was experiencing, and the Economic Development Administration received funding from that stimulus legislation.

Rep. Tiahrt began his remarks in support of his amendment by saying that a significant time had passed since the economic stimulus bill was enacted ?and our economic woes haven't changed . . . Our government is borrowing money it does not have. It is inflating programs and projects we do not need. Recently, it was reported that over 100 wasteful projects were funded through this stimulus bill.?

Rep. Tiahrt went on to say: ?(M)y amendment . . . would keep a quarter of $1 billion from our deficit by taking the stimulus dollars to pay for this legislation . . . at a time when Americans are pulling back on their spending and are saving more, our government should do the same.? Tiahrt went on to argue that: ?(I)n the 1930s, we tried a similar philosophy. We borrowed money from other countries and we started programs that had never before been tried, and throughout the 1930s, we had double-digit unemployment . . . In the 1990s, Japan tried the same thing. They had a recession. They borrowed money. They started government programs, and it didn't work there either.?

Rep. Mollohan (D-WV), who was managing H.R. 2847 for the Democrats and opposed the amendment, said that the impact of the amendment would be ?to jerk the rug out from under the Recovery Act at a time when the Recovery Act is beginning to stimulate and to help the recovery of our economy . . . .? Mollohan argued: ?(I)f there is one agency in the Federal Government that is focused on fomenting economic development, it is the Economic Development Administration. This agency is charged with stimulating economic development in areas that are most needy head on and the amendment is trying to undermine its ability to do its mission.?

The amendment defeated on a vote of 161-270. One hundred and fifty-six Republicans and five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-one Democrats and nineteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no 2010 fiscal year funds for the Economic Development Administration were deleted and then replaced with an equal amount from the economic stimulus legislation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 361
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Lewis of California amendment that would have prohibited any money in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice from being used to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Lewis (R-CA) to H.R. 2847, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs. The amendment would have prohibited any funds in the bill from being used to implement the executive order issued by President Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility where a large number of suspected terrorists were being held.

The House had just defeated the same amendment by an extremely narrow margin. The votes of those Members representing the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories and possessions such as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, determined the outcome. Under House procedure, there was an automatic revote on the amendment in which those Members representing the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories and possessions were excluded.

Lewis had begun his statement in support of the amendment by noting that the president signed the order to close the facility more than four months previously and ?there is still no evidence of a plan to carry out this order and no consultation with the Congress.? Lewis also noted that: ?(T)he Guantanamo detainees include the perpetrators of some of the most horrific terrorist acts against Americans . . . .? including 9/11, the USS Cole bombing, and the Embassy bombings in Africa?, and that a number of them had been secretly released to other countries ?without an assessment of the risks to the American people at home and abroad or without an assessment of the risk to our U.S. forces . . . .? Lewis then cited the recent testimony of FBI Director Mueller ?that bringing detainees to U.S. soil poses risks to national security, including providing financing, radicalizing others and undertaking attacks in the United States.? He added that ?the Department of Defense has reported that at least 14 percent of former Guantanamo detainees have returned to terrorist activity in the region.?

Lewis concluded his remarks by claiming: ?(T)his administration is ignoring or is disregarding those risks, and it is stonewalling the Congress. We need to stop this administration from rushing to transfer or to resettle any more detainees at the expense of an increased risk to Americans.?

Rep. Mollohan (D-WV) was managing H.R. 2847 for the Democrats and opposed the amendment. He said that the Guantanamo Bay facility had been ?an embarrassment to the country. It's a symbol that has really fomented a lot of opposition to the United States around the world. The continued existence of Gitmo is a basic assault on our values, and it undermines the success in our counterterrorism programs.? He then noted: ?(P)resident Obama and I aren't the only ones who believe this . . . both President Bush's Secretaries of State and a variety of other bipartisan political officials agree that it should be closed.?

Mollohan also argued that H.R. 2847 ?includes provisions to ensure that the Congress will have sufficient opportunity to weigh in on that plan (to close the facility), when it is submitted, and to preclude most activities prior to that . . . We have established a good process for the consideration of this issue, and it should be allowed to play out before we start prejudicing a plan that we don't even have before us.?

This legislation before us tonight does not permit the release of Gitmo detainees into the United States during fiscal year 2010. It does not permit the transfer of detainees to the U.S. for detention or prosecution purposes until 2 months after we've received the plan. It does not permit the transfer of detainees to foreign countries without notification and certifications to the Congress, and it does not provide any funds for activities relating to the Gitmo closure. This will ensure that we have additional opportunities to debate this issue . . . .?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 212-213. One hundred and seventy-three Republicans and thirty-nine Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and eleven Democrats and two Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, language was not added to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would have prohibited any money in the bill to be used to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Won
Roll Call 360
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Lewis of California amendment that would have prohibited any money in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice to be used to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Lewis (R-CA) to H.R. 2847, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice. The amendment would have prohibited any funds in the bill from being used to implement the executive order that had been issued by President Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility where a large number of suspected terrorists were being held.

Lewis began his statement in support of the amendment by noting that the president signed the order to close the facility more than four months previously and ?there is still no evidence of a plan to carry out this order and no consultation with the Congress.? Lewis also noted that: ?The Guantanamo detainees include the perpetrators of some of the most horrific terrorist acts against Americans, including 9/11, the USS Cole bombing, and the Embassy bombings in Africa?, and that a number of them had been secretly released to other countries ?without an assessment of the risks to the American people at home and abroad or without an assessment of the risk to our U.S. forces . . . .? Lewis then cited the recent testimony of FBI Director Mueller ?that bringing detainees to U.S. soil poses risks to national security, including providing financing, radicalizing others and undertaking attacks in the United States.? He added that ?the Department of Defense has reported that at least 14 percent of former Guantanamo detainees have returned to terrorist activity in the region.?

Lewis concluded his remarks by claiming: ?(T)his administration is ignoring or is disregarding those risks, and it is stonewalling the Congress. We need to stop this administration from rushing to transfer or to resettle any more detainees at the expense of an increased risk to Americans.?

Rep. Mollohan (D-WV), who was managing H.R. 2847 for the Democrats and opposed the amendment, said that the Guantanamo Bay facility had been ?an embarrassment to the country. It's a symbol that has really fomented a lot of opposition to the United States around the world. The continued existence of Gitmo is a basic assault on our values, and it undermines the success in our counterterrorism programs.? He then noted: ?(P)resident Obama and I aren't the only ones who believe this. (Defense) Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen (the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and the Nation's top civilian and military defense officials agree that it should be closed. Also, both President Bush's Secretaries of State and a variety of other bipartisan political officials agree that it should be closed. So this is a bipartisan position.?

Mollohan also argued that H.R. 2847 ?includes provisions to ensure that the Congress will have sufficient opportunity to weigh in on that plan (to close the facility), when it is submitted, and to preclude most activities prior to that. This legislation before us tonight does not permit the release of Gitmo detainees into the United States during fiscal year 2010. It does not permit the transfer of detainees to the U.S. for detention or prosecution purposes until 2 months after we've received the plan. It does not permit the transfer of detainees to foreign countries without notification and certifications to the Congress, and it does not provide any funds for activities relating to the Gitmo closure. This will ensure that we have additional opportunities to debate this issue . . . .?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 212-216. One hundred and seventy-two Republicans and forty Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirteen Democrats and three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, language was not added to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, which would have prohibited any money in the bill to be used to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Won
Roll Call 359
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Hensarling of Texas amendment which would have ended funding for the Legal Services Corporation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX), which would have ended federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation by eliminating the $440 million allocated to it in H.R. 2847. The Corporation provides free non-criminal legal assistance to individuals who cannot afford an attorney. H.R. 2847 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Justice and Commerce and for federal science and other programs.

Hensarling began his argument in favor of the amendment by claiming that: ?The Democrats are in a program to spend more money than we have seen in the history of this institution . . . .? He then went on to cite President Obama?s recent statement: ?Without significant change to steer away from an ever-expanding deficit and debt, we are on an unsustainable course?, as providing support for his amendment. Hensarling added, ?when we're looking at a federal government that consists of roughly 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 agencies, at a time when American families are suffering . . . maybe we ought to take a look at a few and see if we can't sunset them so we can provide sunshine and morning to the budgets of the American family. I believe the Legal Services Corporation is one such program.?

He claimed that the Corporation ?has a history of waste, of fraud, (and) abuse?, and cited a recent General Accountability Office report that said there was insufficient documentation to support the expenditures of the Corporation. Hensarling concluded that: ?We can use $440 million to save our children from this explosion of national debt . . . (or) we could subsidize people so they could turn around and (use the Legal Services Corporation to) sue their neighbors.?

 Rep. Mollohan (D-WV), who was managing H.R. 2847 for the Democrats and opposed the amendment, said ?we all have a concern about the national debt (but) . . . This amendment would attempt to effect . . . a reduction of it on the backs of those who are the absolutely least able to afford it . . . .? He argued that the current difficult economic conditions require the activities of the Legal Services Corporation ?more than ever?. Mollohan also noted that, after the recent economic downturn, fifty-one million Americans were eligible for free legal assistance. He added: ?At the same time, non-Federal funding sources for legal aid are declining as state budget deficits and pressures on private charitable organizations have reduced legal aid contributions by outside entities.?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 105-323. One hundred and four Republicans and one Democrat voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and seventy-one Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the money for the Legal Services Corporation remained in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
N N Won
Roll Call 356
Jun 18, 2009
(H.R.2847) On the Roe of Tennessee amendment, which would have reduced funding for the Bureau of Prisons

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Roe (R-TN), which would have reduced the funds appropriated in H.R. 2847 to the federal Bureau of Prisons by $97.4 million. This was the figure by which the amount provided in H.R. 2847 for the Bureau of Prisons exceeded the amount President Obama had requested. H.R. 2847 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Justice and Commerce and for federal science and other programs.

Rep. Roe argued that ?the (overall) level of spending in this bill is irresponsible in light of our deficits . . . (and) passing this level of debt on to our next generation is immoral. So far, there has been not one iota of interest in setting priorities from the majority. Instead, they've chosen to fund everything generously and call that priority setting. That's their prerogative. They won the election, and they are entitled to run our nation's credit card well past its limit to never-before-seen levels. . . When it comes to spending in budgets, it is clear from debates that there is no interest in adopting Republican ideas by my friends on the other side of the aisle, so I went to a source you might not think a Republican would look at: President Obama's budget.?

Roe also claimed that the impact of the reduction proposed in his amendment ?will not be huge, but it sends a message, however small, that this Congress is not completely tone deaf to the concerns about the deficit of runaway spending . . . We should show some fiscal restraint here in the House as an example to the people around this country, families and cities and municipalities and States, that are working hard to balance their budget.?

Rep. Mollohan (D-WV), who was managing H.R. 2847 for the Democrats, argued that the reduction would have ?a huge impact on the Bureau of Prisons. He argued that: ?There is not an agency in this bill that is in greater need of additional salaries and expenses . . .  The amount of the increase was not pulled out of thin air. It was precisely calculated based on an in-depth analysis by the Appropriation Committee's surveys and investigations staff to be the minimum amount necessary to restore the Bureau of Prison's base budget, which has been progressively hollowed out in recent years by inadequate budget requests.  Without this $97.4 million, the Bureau of Prisons will be unable to hire additional correctional officers, which it desperately needs, and will likely be unable to activate two newly constructed prisons . . . the Bureau of Prisons prisoner population is currently 37 percent above the rated capacity . . . and the prisoner-to-staff ratio is appalling . . . .?

Mollohan argued further than ?( N)ot only does inadequate investment in Federal prisons result in unsafe working conditions for prison staff, as we have seen from attacks and even fatalities in our prison system, it also makes it impossible to do the kind of reentry programming necessary to reduce recidivism. The result is more crime in our communities and a higher long-term cost to the taxpayer of future incarceration.?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 140-283. One hundred and twenty-five Republicans and fifteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-four Democrats and forty-nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the fiscal year 2010 funding in H.R. 2847 for the Bureau of Prisons was not reduced.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 352
Jun 17, 2009
(H.Res.552 ) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice - - on the resolution allowing further debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2847. That bill provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for science and other federal programs. The rule permitted only a limited number of amendments to be offered..

Rep. Slaughter (D-NY), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, said that the reason for the limitation in the rule on amendments that could be offered was Democratic concern ?that we were unlikely to get an agreement from the (Republican) minority for a set and reasonable schedule to consider these spending bills. Without such an agreement, there was a very real fear on our side that the process could have degenerated into a drawn-out battle, jeopardizing our party's commitment to getting each of the 12 appropriations bills completed on time this year.?  She added that ?it's sometimes tempting for the party in the minority to blow up the process (and) . . . we have in recent years detected a trend where more and more amendments are given to us each year on appropriations bills, often for no other reason than political gamesmanship or stunts.?  

Slaughter said that one of the reasons for the restriction in the rule on the number of amendments that could be offered to H.R. 2847 was that ?it became clear this week that the minority was not ready to agree to a clear and firm schedule for finishing the work on the appropriations bills . . . .?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was leading the opposition to the rule for the Republicans, said the terms of the rule broke House precedent. He argued that ?the (Democratic) majority is now bringing forth this (revised) rule that will block consideration of most of the amendments that were made in order under the (rule that was in place when H.R. 2847 was previously debated) . . . .? He claimed that, as a result, Members who adhered to the terms of the previous rule could not offer any amendments. Diaz-Balart concluded by saying that this was ?unjust? because it prevented Members from representing the interests of their constituents. 

The Democrats had argued that, if the House were forced to consider the large number of amendments the Republicans wanted to offer, it would unduly delay the process of passing funding bills for all government departments in a timely manner. Not all Democrats agreed with this justification for the limitation on amendments. However, no Democrat criticized the rule during the debate on it.

Rep. McCaul (R-TX) supported the argument that Diaz-Balart had made. McCaul quoted from an article written by House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) in which she said ?bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives. McCaul then added: ?(T)his right has been denied.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 221-201. All 221 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-seven other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to continue its deliberations of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Departments of Commerce and Justice.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 351
Jun 17, 2009
(H. Res. 552) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice - - on whether to move immediately to a vote on the resolution allowing further debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion to move immediately to a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2847. That bill provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for science and other federal programs. The resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for further debate of the bill permitted only a limited number of amendments to be offered.

Rep. Slaughter (D-NY), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule and the motion to move to an immediate vote on it, said that the reason for the limitation in the rule on amendments that could be offered was Democratic concern ?that we were unlikely to get an agreement from the (Republican) minority for a set and reasonable schedule to consider these spending bills. Without such an agreement, there was a very real fear on our side that the process could have degenerated into a drawn-out battle, jeopardizing our party's commitment to getting each of the 12 appropriations bills completed on time this year.?  She added that ?it's sometimes tempting for the party in the minority to blow up the process (and) . . . we have in recent years detected a trend where more and more amendments are given to us each year on appropriations bills, often for no other reason than political gamesmanship or stunts.?  

Slaughter went on to note: (T)here was not a single amendment to this bill in fiscal year 2003, but this year we had 127 amendments filed on the bill as of the Tuesday deadline. That suggested to us that we were in for what potentially could have been a repetitive chain of deleterious and ill-considered amendments, none of which would have allowed us to get any closer to our goal of getting these bills completed and signed into law by the President. When it became clear this week that the minority was not ready to agree to a clear and firm schedule for finishing the work on the appropriations bills, we decided we had no alternative but to go ahead with a clear and concise plan.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was leading the opposition to the rule for the Republicans, said the terms of the rule broke House precedent. He argued that, in response to the first Republican amendment that was offered during debate of this funding bill under a previously-passed rule, ?the (Democratic) majority is now bringing forth this (revised) rule that will block consideration of most of the amendments that were made in order under the previous rule . . . So all those Members who followed the rule previously passed and filed their amendments by the deadline (it gave) will be left without the chance to represent the interests of their constituents. I think this rule is unjust.?

The Democrats had argued that if the House had to consider the large number of amendments the Republicans wanted to offer it would unduly delay the process of passing funding bills for all government departments in a timely manner. Diaz-Balart responded to that argument by saying he understood their concern: ?(B)ut the reason, precisely, for the high number of amendments that were filed . . . was because the majority had abandoned the use of the traditional open appropriations rule, and they had . . . forced Members to submit all of the amendments that they conceivably thought they might wish to introduce . . . even if they eventually did not plan to offer them.? He added ?(M)embers have an obligation to their constituents to represent them on appropriations bills and to represent the interests of their communities.?

Diaz-Balart also suggested that the Democrats should have just allowed consideration of the amendments to go on into the night, rather than use a ?heavy hand? and proposed a new rule ?to close down the deliberative process.? Rep. McCaul (R-TX), supporting Diaz-Balart?s remarks, quoted from an article previously written by House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) in which she said ?bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right offer its alternatives. McCaul then added: ?(T)his right has been denied.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 239-183. All 239 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eleven other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy-two Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule that would allow it to continue debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Departments of Commerce and Justice.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 350
Jun 16, 2009
(H. Res. 544) On a procedural vote resulting from the efforts of the Republican minority to express its opposition to the manner in which the Democratic majority was conducting legislative business

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a roll call vote forced by the Republican minority on what is normally a routine procedure whereby the House of Representatives is formally reconstituted.

This procedural motion was that the ?Committee of the Whole House?, which is technically an entity separate from the formal House of Representatives although it has the same composition, change back into the formal House of Representatives. Bills are typically debated and amended in the ?Committee of the Whole House? and then sent to the formal House of Representatives for final passage. The motion to change from one entity to another is ordinarily routine and easily approved.

The Republican minority had been calling for roll call votes on many routine motions, such as this one, to express its displeasure to the way the majority Democrats had been handling legislation. The Republicans had been expressing their particular opposition to the limitations the Democrats had been placing on the number of amendments that could be offered to funding bills. Engaging in procedural and delaying techniques such as this was one of the few formal actions the Republicans could take to demonstrate their opposition.

The motion passed by a vote of 179-124. All one hundred and seventy-nine ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One other Democrat joined one hundred and twenty-three Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House of Representatives was able to reconstitute itself.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Absent Y Won
Roll Call 348
Jun 16, 2009
(H. R. 2346) On passage of the measure providing supplemental fiscal year 2009 funds, including those to support additional military needs in Iraq and Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2346, provided supplemental fiscal year 2009 funds. Those supplemental funds, among other things, supported additional military needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure also included five billion dollars for the International Monetary, funding for the ?Cash For Clunkers program? that allowed Americans to trade in older gas guzzling care new high efficiency ones, and money to help state and local governments deal with the swine flu pandemic and to fund global efforts to track and contain its spread. This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2346.

Rep. Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, was leading the support for the bill. His entire statement in support of the bill was: ?we have a new President who has inherited a war he is trying to end. This bill tries to help him do that. We have no real alternative but to support it.? Rep. Lowey (D-NY), who also supported passage, argued that ?(T)he Obama administration's policy to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is critical to prevent the region from being a base for terrorist plots against the United States and our allies. H.R. 2346 provides $3.8 billion for economic security initiatives in the region and funds our diplomatic development personnel and their security.?

A number of Democrats did not support H.R. 2346. These Members opposed the continuation of the U.S. military presence in Iraq, and their opposition was based on the fact that H.R. 2346 contained funding that was required to continue that presence. However, none of these Members spoke against the bill.

Rep. Lewis (R-CA), who was managing the bill for the Republicans, expressed his concern that the Democratic majority was not allowing amendments to be offered. He also objected to that fact that ?(H)ouse Members were initially led to believe that this legislation would be kept at the President's original level of $84 billion to fund only the critical needs of the global war on terrorism. As presented today, however, this legislation has grown to $96.7 billion . . . .?

Lewis also focused on funds to deal with the detainees being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison, the scheduled closing of which had become a very controversial issue. Lewis argued that the absence of funding in the bill for dealing with those detainees after the prison is closed ?is the clearest indication to date that the Obama administration still has no plausible plan to deal with this complex national security issue. He said: (T)he President owes it to the American people and this Congress to provide a detailed plan for the potential relocation of detainees prior to any funds being appropriated for this purpose and prior to any detainees being transferred to our shores.  As presently written, the legislation does absolutely nothing to prevent the release of detainees from Guantanamo into the United States, into our neighborhoods and communities, after October 1 of this year.

The legislation passed by a vote of 226-202. Two hundred and twenty-one Democrats and five Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and thirty-two Democrats, including several of the most progressive Members, voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent to the Senate the measure providing supplemental fiscal year 2009 funds.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 347
Jun 16, 2009
(H. Res. 544) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2847 provided funds for the 2010 fiscal year for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and for federal science and other programs. The bill, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for expanded scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill limited the number of amendments that could be offered to it, and prevented most points of order from being raised against its provisions. This was a vote on the rule.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was leading the Republican opposition to the terms of the rule, argued that it continued the precedent the Democratic majority ?set last year when they decided to . . . use a restrictive rule . . . .? He added: ?(W)hat makes this restrictive rule more unfortunate is that the House has a long tradition of allowing open rules on appropriations bills . . . .?

Rep. Obey (D-WI), the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee that developed H.R. 2847, responded by arguing that having open rules on all appropriations bills would require far too much time given the number of amendments that would be offered. He noted that the current Congress had already taken a considerable amount of time finishing all of the 2009 fiscal year funding bills that the previous Congress did not pass. He also noted other funding bills that ?the new Congress had to pass because the previous administration had a practice of only asking for funding for (the Iraq War) . . . 6 months at a time.? Obey then said? ?(W)e are trying to bring up the first of 12 appropriation bills. And in order to stay on schedule so we can do the people's business by the end of the fiscal year, we need to deal with all 12 of those bills in the next 6 weeks. I think that means that we have a problem.?

Obey cited the fact that ?(I)n fiscal '03 there were no amendments offered to this bill. In fiscal '04 there were 10 amendments offered by Republicans and 6 by Democrats . . . and in '07 we had 38 amendments offered by Republicans and 37 offered by Democrats. Today, we have had filed on this bill 127 amendments.? He then pointed to the announced schedule ?that would allow us to finish all of these appropriation bills by the August recess, provided that we were able to stick to that schedule . . . The problem that I see here with this bill is that we already have amendments filed that will take at least 23 hours . . . Obey said he had previously asked Rep. Lewis (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee ?whether or not it would be possible to reach agreement on time and on the number of amendments offered so that we could finish this bill along the schedule that we had outlined; and at that time, the prospect did not seem too promising . . . .?

The resolution passed by a vote of 247-174 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One other Democrat and one hundred and seventy-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debate on bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and for federal science and other programs.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 346
Jun 16, 2009
(H. Res. 544) Legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice - - on whether to move immediately to a vote on the resolution allowing the House to debate the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2847 provided funds for the 2010 fiscal year for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and for federal science and other programs. The bill, among other things, expanded funding for criminal justice programs, and provided for expanded scientific research, including programs to study climate change. The resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill limited the number of amendments that could be offered to it, and prevented most points of order from being raised against its provisions. This was a vote on a procedural motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was leading the Republican opposition to the terms of the rule, argued that it continued the precedent the Democratic majority ?set last year when they decided to . . . use a restrictive rule . . . .? He added: ?(W)hat makes this restrictive rule more unfortunate is that the House has a long tradition of allowing open rules on appropriations bills . . . .? Diaz-Balart then cited a previous statement of his that ?(A) vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan.?

Rep. Obey (D-WI), the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee that developed H.R. 2847, responded by arguing that having open rules on all appropriations bills would require far too much time given the number of amendments that would be offered. He noted that the current Congress had already taken a considerable amount of time finishing all of the 2009 fiscal year funding bills that the previous Congress did not pass. He also noted other funding bills that ?the new Congress had to pass because the previous administration had a practice of only asking for funding for (the Iraq War) . . . 6 months at a time.? Obey then said? ?(W)e are trying to bring up the first of 12 appropriation bills. And in order to stay on schedule so we can do the people's business by the end of the fiscal year, we need to deal with all 12 of those bills in the next 6 weeks. I think that means that we have a problem.?

Obey cited the fact that ?(I)n fiscal '03 there were no amendments offered to this bill. In fiscal '04 there were 10 amendments offered by Republicans and 6 by Democrats . . . and in '07 we had 38 amendments offered by Republicans and 37 offered by Democrats. Today, we have had filed on this bill 127 amendments.? He then pointed to the announced schedule ?that would allow us to finish all of these appropriation bills by the August recess, provided that we were able to stick to that schedule . . . The problem that I see here with this bill is that we already have amendments filed that will take at least 23 hours . . . Obey said he had previously asked Rep. Lewis (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee ?whether or not it would be possible to reach agreement on time and on the number of amendments offered so that we could finish this bill along the schedule that we had outlined; and at that time, the prospect did not seem too promising . . . .?

The motion passed by a vote of 247-176 along almost straight party lines. All two hundred and forty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One other Democrat joined all one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on the rule setting the terms for debate on the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and other programs.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 345
Jun 16, 2009
(H.Res.545) Legislation providing supplemental fiscal year 2009 spending, including funds for the ?Cash for Clunkers? program and for supporting additional military needs in Iraq and Afghanistan - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill providing supplemental fiscal year 2009 funds for several federal programs and departments. Among the uses for the supplemental funds were the ?Cash for Clunkers? program that allowed Americans to trade in older gas guzzling cars for new high efficiency ones; additional military needs in Iraq and Afghanistan; aid to state and local governments to help deal with the swine flu pandemic; and assistance to the global efforts to track and contain the spread of the swine flu pandemic.

Rep. Arcuri (D-NY), who was leading the support for the rule, focused on the portion of the measure that ?takes a step towards that goal (of winding down military action in Iraq) by providing for the training of security forces, economic development, and diplomatic operations.? He also said it ?provides for training of Afghan security forces and counterinsurgency measures in bordering Pakistan.?

Rep. Dreier (D-CA), who was leading the effort against the rule, said he opposed it ?with extreme disappointment and sadness?. He claimed that President Obama had called for bipartisan action on the supplement funding measure, but that ?the Democratic leadership had thwarted efforts to follow the Obama directive . . . (by) considering it in an extraordinarily partisan way.?  Dreier claimed that the bill ?actually cuts troop funding in order to pay for billions of dollars of additional non-troop non-emergency spending.? He gave as an example the additional money for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) ?to provide additional global bailouts.? Dreier said ?there's nothing to ensure that United States taxpayer dollars don't go to countries like Iran or Venezuela. The question of whether to provide this new IMF funding is a controversial one . . . it's one that should be fully debated . . .?

Dreier went on to argue that ?(T)he Democratic leadership, instead, chose to cut troop funding and load this bill up with other very controversial funding that does not support our troops. Republicans made it clear that we could not support a troop funding bill that does not, in fact, fully fund our troops. So the leadership on the other (Democratic) side of the aisle . . . lost Republican support (and) . . . chose to push the contents of this bill as far to the left as they possibly could in the hopes of picking up support from the fringes of their own party.?

Rep. Arcuri responded that the bill ?provides very well for our troops because that is the most important thing that we, as Members of Congress, can do.? He went on to acknowledge that: ?(S)ome people may argue it is not enough, but we need to give them everything that we possibly can. Voting ?no? simply because you think it is not enough is not a solution . . . .?

The resolution passed by a vote of 238-183. All Two hundred and thirty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Ten other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-three Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to take up the bill providing supplemental fiscal year 2009 funding.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
Y Y Won
Roll Call 342
Jun 16, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 335
Jun 12, 2009
(H.R.1256) On passage of legislation that, for the first time, put tobacco products under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote to have the House agree to the changes the Senate made to the version of H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, that had previously passed by the House. H.R. 1256, for the first time, put tobacco products under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It required the FDA to end the marketing and sales of tobacco products to children, to prevent manufacturers from using terms such as ?light? in their description of cigarettes, and to force tobacco companies to remove ?toxic? chemicals from cigarettes. It also imposed a new user fee on the cigarette industry to pay for the additional work that would be required of the FDA by these new responsibilities. Provisions were also included in the bill to provide equitable treatment to convenience stores, tobacco growers and small manufacturers.

Rep. Waxman (D-CA), who was leading the effort on behalf of H.R. 1256, noted that the legislation had the support of more than 1,000 medical, public health, faith and community groups ranging from the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics to AARP and the Southern Baptist Convention.

H.R.1245 had significant bipartisan support. However, some Members of the Republican minority had raised a concern that the measure did not include any specific provision to protect minors from tobacco use. They had cited a statement from The American Association of Public Health Physicians noting that the bill ?in its current form would ensure current levels of tobacco-related deaths while doing nothing of significance to reduce the number of teens who would initiate tobacco use with no bill at all.? The Republicans had suggested that the states be required to use more of the funds from their previous large monetary settlement with the cigarette companies to combat underage smoking.

Rep. Buyer (R-IN), who was among the more active Republican opponents of H.R. 1256, noted that one of the results of the restrictions on cigarette manufacturers in the bill is that ?we have locked down the marketplace. . . . And when you lock down the marketplace, (you) stifle innovation and (when) we do not have competition in that marketplace, we truly don't have the ability, then, for these (cigarette) companies to . . . make investments in a harm reduction strategy . . . .?

Buyer also cautioned that ?if this bill becomes law, we've got some real challenges in front of us. One of them is how we do stand up this new mission within FDA, an agency that is already very stressed and under resourced . . . .? Buyer further claimed that, if the legislation is enacted, ?the lawyers will make a run to the Federal courts, and the Supreme Court will be back sitting in judgment over the provisions on advertising restrictions, not only potential unconstitutional provisions on the First Amendment with regard to the regulation of commercial speech, but also in the Fifth Amendment with regard to whether it's a constitutional taking or not.?

Rep. Paul (R-TX) opposed the passage of H.R. 1256 because he claimed that individual decisions by consumers ?can solve these problems a lot better than a bunch of politicians, bureaucrats and tobacco police . . . . ?

The vote was 307-97. Two hundred thirty-seven Democrats and seventy Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House accepted the Senate version of the legislation and sent it to the president for his signature to have it enacted into law.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Tobacco Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 333
Jun 11, 2009
(H.R.1886) On passage of the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act (PEACE) Act authorizing additional development and security assistance for Pakistan.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act (PEACE Act). The Act tripled U.S. assistance for democratic, economic and social development in Pakistan. It also required increased auditing, monitoring reporting and evaluation of the use of the authorized funds, and mandated that Pakistan cooperate in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and demonstrate its commitment to combating terrorism to continue to receive military assistance.

The new reporting and monitoring had been imposed because of concerns that Pakistan was not fully implementing its anti-terrorist efforts, and that it had not spent all of the previous U.S. assistance appropriately. The conditions were highly unpopular in Pakistan, which claimed that they intruded on its national sovereignty

Rep. Berman (D-CA), who was leading the effort on behalf of H.R. 1886, said the legislation strengthened the U.S. relationship with Pakistan. Berman claimed that it moved forward the strategy of the new Obama Administration ?to enhance our ability to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in its safe havens in Pakistan . . . But it also reflects our deep appreciation of the fact that it is in our national interest to create a long-term strategic partnership with Pakistan; one that speaks to the needs of the average citizens of Pakistan.? Berman concluded by saying that ?(W)e need a robust, long-term relationship with our strategic partners to prevail against those who threaten our national security. The PEACE Act will help us establish just such a relationship with Pakistan.?

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who was leading the opposition to the bill, first said that ?Congress and the administration are united in our goals toward Pakistan. We want a long-term partnership with a modern, a prosperous, a democratic Pakistan that is at peace with itself and at peace with its neighbors. And we want a Pakistan that does not provide safe haven to al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other militant extremist groups.? Ros-Lehtinen then said her primary concern with H.R. 1886 is that it ?focuses on past actions and failures attributed to the Pakistani Government, punishing the new leadership for the sins of its predecessors.? She suggested that the bill does not provide the flexibility that U.S. agencies need to respond quickly and effectively ?to rapidly unfolding developments on the ground while still retaining robust accountability and congressional oversight of these programs.?

Ros-Lehtinen also argued that the bill included conditions on the Pakistani Government regarding the availability of the funds authorized in the bill that she described as ?onerous?. She said these conditions ?might undercut our efforts to work with Pakistanis who share the interests of the United States . . . .?

The legislation passed by a vote of 224-185. Two hundred sixteen Democrats and eight Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-seven Republicans and eighteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the legislation authorizing additional development and security assistance for Pakistan, and imposing additional monitoring requirements on that funding.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Won
Roll Call 332
Jun 11, 2009
(H.R.1886) Legislation authorizing development and security assistance for Pakistan - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions that would have removed a number of the new reporting and monitoring requirements it imposed on the Pakistani Government as a condition for receipt of additional U.S. financial assistance

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Rogers (R-KY) to recommit (send back to committee) H.R. 1886, with instructions that would have removed a number of the new reporting on and monitoring requirements the bill imposed on the Pakistani Government. H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement (PEACE) Act, among other things tripled the level of U.S. assistance for democratic, economic and social development in Pakistan.

The new reporting and monitoring requirements included gaining additional information about Pakistani intelligence operations and its spending of U.S. funding. They had been imposed because of concerns that Pakistan was not fully implementing its anti-terrorist efforts, and that it had not spent all of the previous U.S. assistance appropriately. The conditions were highly unpopular in Pakistan, which claimed that they intruded on its national sovereignty.

Rep. Rogers began his remarks in support of his motion by commending the bipartisan efforts that had been made on this bill. He then described as ?arrogant? the inclusion in H.R. 1886 of reporting and other monitoring requirements on the Pakistani Government.

Rogers argued that their inclusion is effectively saying ?(W)e know better than you, Pakistan. We're going to make you set up a teachers' pay scale if you want . . . U.S. money to help us in the fight against terrorism that is ongoing today by people . . . who are trying to kill Americans today and make further unstable the Pakistani Government . . .Their government is at risk, their people are dying. This bill arrogantly says, listen, we want you to help us in terrorism, but let me tell you what's important, your teacher pay scales. . . Their government is at risk, their people are dying. This is a sovereign nation.?

Rogers also argued that including these requirements makes it look as if Pakistan is just a puppet doing the bidding of the U.S., is not in control and not an ?equal partner in the fight against terrorism.?

Rep. Berman (D-CA), who was leading the effort on behalf of H.R. 1886, opposed the motion. He had defended the legislation during the debate on the bill as a measure that strengthened the U.S. relationship with Pakistan. He had argued that ?(W)e need a robust, long-term relationship with our strategic partners . . . The PEACE Act (as written) will help us establish just such a relationship with Pakistan.?

Berman also said: ?(W)e have absolutely no conditions or restrictions or efforts to earmark or tie up any of the economic assistance in this bill . . . we have some principles, we have suggestions, we lay out things that need to be done to build democratic institutions in Pakistan . . . we suggest in this bill some guidelines and tie no one's hands.?

The motion was defeated on a vote of 164-245. One hundred sixty-two Republicans and two Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-seven Democrats and eight Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on final passage of H.R. 1886, with all the new auditing, monitoring, reporting and evaluation requirements included.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
N N Won
Roll Call 331
Jun 11, 2009
(H.R.1886) On Agreeing to the Ros-Lehtinen of Florida amendment, which would have reduced the level of U.S. monitoring of Pakistani intelligence operations and of Pakistani spending of U.S. funding that were imposed as conditions for the receipt of additional financial assistance

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) that would have reduced the level of monitoring of intelligence operations and spending of U.S. funding that were imposed on Pakistan as a condition for its receipt of additional development and security assistance. H.R. 1886 tripled U.S. assistance for democratic, economic and social development in Pakistan, and required increased auditing, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the use of the authorized funds.

The bill also required that Pakistan cooperate in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and demonstrate its commitment to combating terrorism to continue to receive military assistance. These and the other requirements that had been imposed were motivated by concerns that Pakistan had not spent all of the previous U.S. assistance appropriately, and that the country was not fully implementing anti-terrorist efforts. The conditions were highly unpopular in Pakistan, which claimed that they intruded on its national sovereignty.

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) began her statement in support of her amendment by saying: ?Congress and the administration are united in our goals toward Pakistan. We want a long-term partnership with a modern, a prosperous, a democratic Pakistan that is at peace with itself and at peace with its neighbors. And we want a Pakistan that does not provide safe haven to al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other militant extremist groups.? She then noted that her overall concern with H.R. 1886, as written, is that it ?focuses on past actions and failures attributed to the Pakistani Government, punishing the new leadership for the sins of its predecessors.?

Ros-Lehtinen described her amendment as providing ?the necessary flexibility for all U.S. agencies to respond quickly and to respond effectively to rapidly unfolding developments on the ground while still retaining robust accountability and congressional oversight of these programs.?

She added: ?(W)hile the authors of H.R. 1886 may have sought to empower our Pakistani partners to undertake the formidable task of fighting and winning against violent extremists, it does the opposite. Further, accountability measures for Afghanistan and Pakistan must be tightly linked to the new U.S. strategy for the region rather than outdated assessments of the situation in Pakistan and preconceived notions about the response from our Pakistani partners.?

Rep. Berman (D-CA), who was leading the effort on behalf of H.R. 1886, opposed the amendment. He defended the existing legislation as a measure that strengthens the U.S. relationship with Pakistan. Berman claimed that the bill as constituted moves forward the strategy of the new Obama Administration ?to enhance our ability to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in its safe havens in Pakistan . . . But it also reflects our deep appreciation of the fact that it is in our national interest to create a long-term strategic partnership with Pakistan; one that speaks to the needs of the average citizens of Pakistan.?

Rep. Jackson-Lee (D-TX) also opposed the amendment. She said there was an urgent need to move forward on the legislation because of the current fighting and the resulting refugee crisis in Pakistan?.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 173-246 along almost straight party lines. One hundred seventy-two Republicans and one Democrat voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and two Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the additional monitoring requirements on Pakistan were retained in the bill that tripled U.S. assistance to that country.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
N N Won
Roll Call 329
Jun 11, 2009
(H.R.2346) Legislation providing supplemental fiscal year 2009 spending authority for a number of federal departments and agencies - - on instructing the House Members negotiating the final version of the bill with the Senate conferees to agree both to certain lower Senate-passed spending levels, and to the Senate-passed prohibition on the release of photographs of suspected terrorists being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion by Rep Lewis (R-CA) to have the House instruct its conferees to agree to certain spending levels in the Senate version of H.R. 2346 that were lower than the numbers in the House version. The motion also instructed the House conferees to agree to language in the Senate version of H.R. 2346 prohibiting the release of photographs of suspected terrorists being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison. The release of these photographs had become a very controversial issue. Those supporting the release argued that it was consistent with the practices of an open society. Those opposed argued that it could threaten national security.

Instructions to conferees serve as an opportunity for House Members to express their preferences. However, under House procedures, these instructions are considered advisory and are not formally binding on the conferees.

H.R. 2346 provided supplemental fiscal year 2009 spending authority for a number of federal departments and agencies. The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R. 2346, and a conference with negotiators from the two bodies was to be convened to reconcile those two versions.

Rep. Lewis explained that he favored generally reduced funding levels. He noted, however, that his motion would provide that the House conferees hold the House position in the conference with the Senate conferees on House-passed funding levels for defense and military construction.

Regarding the prohibition on the release of the photos, Rep. Lungren (R-CA) supported the motion by noting that the United States never released photos of detainees in any prior military conflict. He also argued that those who support the release of the photos are ?saying somehow we are protecting our values by doing something we have never done before. We are jeopardizing the national security interests of the United States. We are putting Americans, innocent Americans, at risk . . . .?

Rep. Obey, the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee who was leading the effort to pass the supplemental appropriations bill, announced that ?I intend to vote ?no?' on the (motion), but I don't have any problem with any Member who decides that there are certain pieces of this motion that they would like to send a message to the conferees on.? He added that: ?(M)otions to instruct conferees are notorious . . . for simply being a device by which we either make political statements around here or express first preferences. I don't really have any objection to either. I think it's a legitimate thing to do in a legislative body.?

Obey did go on to say ?(T)he effect of this motion would be to substantially increase the likely amount of money approved by the conference for the Defense Department, and to substantially reduce the amount of money provided for the State Department. I have always had difficulty understanding why people are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to wage war but are resistant to spending a tiny amount in comparison in order to prevent war or to extricate ourselves from war.

?In fact, the conference report that is likely to come back will probably exceed the numbers in this motion for bringing State Department personnel more immediately into Iraq, into Afghanistan and into Pakistan. We are trying to convert that operation from, essentially, a military operation to a much more balanced operation, which includes much greater effort on the diplomatic side to extricate ourselves from that war. That requires money. It requires facilities. As many military experts have said, you cannot win this if you just deal with it militarily.?

The motion passed by a vote of 267-152. One hundred seventy-two Republicans and ninety-five Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and forty-eight Democrats, including the vast majority of the most progressive House Members, and four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House instructed its conferees on the 2009 supplemental funding bill to agree both to the lower overall Senate funding levels and to the Senate language prohibiting the release of photos of Guantanamo detainees who were suspected terrorists.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
N N Lost
Roll Call 328
Jun 10, 2009
(H.R.2410) On passage of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act providing funding for foreign diplomatic and political operations in the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on House passage of H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. H.R. 2410, among other things, authorized an Office of Global Women?s Issues in the State Department; funds for the International Atomic Energy Agency; the payment of all dues to the U.N.; a significant expansion of the Peace Corps; an increase in international broadcasting activities; a strengthening of the State Department arms control and nonproliferation bureaus; 1,000 new diplomatic positions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other strategic areas; 213 positions dedicated to improving training in Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, and Urdu; and additional arms control experts and counterterrorism specialists. It also reformed the U.S. system of export controls for military technology, improved oversight of U.S. security assistance, and required a report to Congress on actions taken by the United States to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge over its enemies in the Middle East.

Rep. Berman (D-CA), who was leading the effort to pass H.R. 2410, outlined what he termed ?the complex and dangerous? situation facing the U.S. and said the military should not shoulder the entire burden of dealing with it. He added that ?the State Department and our other civilian foreign affairs agencies have a critical role to play in protecting U.S. national security. Diplomacy, development, and defense are the three key pillars of our U.S. national security policy. By wisely investing resources to strengthen our diplomatic capabilities, we can help prevent conflicts before they start and head off conditions that lead to failed states.  For years we have failed to provide the State Department with the resources it desperately needs to pursue its core missions. With the expansion of U.S. diplomatic responsibilities in the 1990s, and the more recent demands of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Foreign Service has been strained to the breaking point.?

Berman cited the recent statement by Defense Secretary Gates that: ?(I)t has become clear that America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long.? Berman then said ?(T)he legislation before us today takes an important first step in correcting that situation.? Berman also cited a range of organizations supporting the measure, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, CARE, and the American Council on Education, a coalition of all the major public and private universities.

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who was leading the opposition to H.R 2410l said ?the fundamental problems (with) this bill are that (it) calls for exorbitant spending in the absence of true reform, and that the bill does not take the difficult but necessary step of setting priorities, either with out-of-control spending or with important international issues that are facing our country. By our best estimate, the bill before us represents an estimated 12 percent increase in planned expenditures above the levels of fiscal year 2009. It creates 20 new government entities, offices, foundations, programs and the like. . . We have to ask ourselves, where is the money coming from to support the additional funding? ?

Referring to the claim of the supporters of the measure the State Department was suffering from years of neglect, Ros- Lehtinen cited Congressional Research Service statistics that ?funding for the State Department and related agencies doubled from fiscal year 2000 through 2008. This clearly shows that growing the bureaucracy and throwing money at the Department of State are not the answer.? She also claimed that there was not good management oversight of employees and personnel needs at the State Department; and referring to the $2 billion in funds for the United Nations authorized in the measure, Ros-Lehtinen asked: ?Why should American taxpayers be asked to write a blank check to the U.N.??

The legislation passed on a vote of 235-187. Two hundred twenty-eight Democrats and seven Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and eighteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the Foreign Relations Authorization Act.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE Arms Controls Treaties
WAR & PEACE Peace Corps Funding
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Won
Roll Call 327
Jun 10, 2009
(H.R.2410) Legislation authorizing funds for foreign relations operations - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions to have it include provisions that would have imposed sanctions on Iran.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Burton (R-IN), which he described as a ?Republican motion?, to recommit (send back to committee) H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act with instructions to have it include the language of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions bill. The ?Iran Sanctions? bill mandated that the State Department immediately open an investigation into alleged violations of existing sanctions against Iran and companies that have illegally done business with Iran.

Rep. Burton, arguing on behalf of his motion, said that ?Iran can only finance its threatening activities against us and the world because of the foreign investment in its energy sector. Depriving the regime of refined petroleum and of foreign investment will severely undermine Iran's economy, and it will increase pressure on the mullahs to abandon their dangerous course.    We need to impose serious sanctions on Iran, and we need to do it now without delay.?

Rep. Berman (D-CA), who was leading the effort on behalf of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, claimed that ?what we see in the offering of this motion to recommit is a political party or the leadership of a political party that, number one, is not serious about pursuing an effective strategy to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability and, two, that is using the pretext of Iran to strike every single provision of the bill that we have presented and that has been debated on.?

Berman also said ?we should have a bipartisan approach . . . I supported that policy of the previous administration: Isolate and sanction unilaterally because we could never get effective multilateral sanctions. It didn't work. Iran kept enriching every day while we sat around, railing against them. We are trying something new because we want this policy to work. We want to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapons capability. I don't know if the diplomatic strategy will work. You guys don't know if it will work . . . This politicizes a very important bipartisan issue.?

The motion was defeated on a vote of 174-250. One hundred sixty-nine Republicans and five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-two Democrats and eight Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on passage of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act without including the provisions of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions bill .


WAR & PEACE Relations with Iran
N N Won
Roll Call 325
Jun 10, 2009
(H.R.2410) On the Royce of California Amendment which would have designated the African nation of Eritrea as a ?state sponsor of terrorism.?

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep Royce (R-CA) to H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which would have required the Secretary of State to designate the African nation of Eritrea as a ?state sponsor of terrorism.? The amendment also called on the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions against Eritrea. Rep. Royce, arguing on behalf of his amendment noted that ?U.N. report after U.N. report cites Eritrea for providing arms and military training to members of . . . an al Qaeda-linked group that has been designated by the United States as a ?foreign terrorist organization.??

Royce also argued that ?(T)he case for adding Eritrea to the state sponsor of terrorism list is compelling. It's even overwhelming. It has been so for some time. The Obama administration's Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs has noted that ?we have clear evidence that Eritrea is supporting extremists,? and that ?the government of Eritrea continues to supply weapons and munitions to extremists and terrorist elements.? The U.N. Security Council has made similar statements citing Eritrea's destructive role in the horn, and so have many neighboring countries. So it is time that Eritrea should be named a state sponsor of terrorism.?

Rep. Payne (D-NJ), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, opposed the amendment. He argued that it ?could undermine critical engagements currently going on between the U.S. and Eritrea (and) . . . would have limited effect on our effort to try to stabilize the region and build alliances with governments in a wider battle against extremism.? Payne went on to say that ?some of the assertions made in the amendment are factually wrong and dated (and) . . . the geopolitical dynamics and interstate rivalries in the Horn of Africa cannot be addressed properly without concerted diplomatic engagement. Declaring Eritrea a state sponsor of terrorism and imposing international sanctions would do nothing to further our diplomatic aims and would impose further hardship on the people who are struggling to survive on a daily basis.?

Payne went on to say that ?the proposed amendment does not recognize the diplomatic efforts currently under way by the State Department . . . (and) putting Eritrea on a sanctions list would have limited effect on our effort to try to stabilize the region and build alliances with governments in a wider battle against extremism.

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 183-245. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and fourteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the effort to have Eritrea designated as a ?state sponsor of terrorism? was not successful.


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
N N Won
Roll Call 324
Jun 10, 2009
(H.R.2410) On the Brown-Waite of Florida Amendment, which would have prevented the distribution in the U.S. of a film, titled ?A Fateful Harvest? that examined the narcotics industry in Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, included a provision that waived the historic ban against disseminating U.S. public diplomacy (propaganda) materials within the United States in order to make the film ?A Fateful Harvest'' available for U.S. viewing. The film dealt with the poppy growing, opium production, trafficking, law enforcement efforts, the harmful health effects of drugs, and the difficulties facing both the Afghan Government and U.S. governments in dealing with these matters. It was produced by the Voice of America, a government-funded service that broadcasts programs designed to develop a positive view of the HYPERLINK "http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" \o "United States" United States in other countries. These programs are broadcast in many languages and are not intended for an American audience.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Brown-Waite (R-FL) that would have prevented the domestic distribution of the film. Rep. Brown-Waite began her argument in support of her amendment by noting that ?America is facing unprecedented trillion-dollar deficits, a ballooning national debt and steady-growing entitlement obligations. Yet, each and every time the House comes together to consider spending bills, evidence abounds that very few tough choices are being made.?

She then went on to say: ?(I)n a perfect world where the United States is flush with money, very few spending ideas don't hold some merit. But simply having merit does not mean the American people have enough money to pay for it, nor do they have enough money around to fund this (and) . . . spending taxpayer dollars for the domestic distribution of a documentary film in a foreign affairs bill is not what the taxpayers need most at this time.?

Brown-Waite then pointed out that ?laws have been on the books for 60 years that prohibit the executive branch from distributing government-sponsored information campaigns domestically.? She added that, if someone in the U.S. did want to see it, the film is on the Internet ?and yet we have this in the appropriations bill.?

Rep. Scott (D-GA), who opposed the amendment noted that ?on many occasions . . . Congress has passed legislation to waive the domestic dissemination ban . . . to make a film available for public viewing in the United States. It is a simple matter with many precedents. This should be one of those occasions.?  

Rep. Klein (D-FL) opposed the amendment because, he said, it ?would disallow . . . a documentary that exposes the poppy trade that the Taliban has used to imprison the Afghan people, from broad distribution.  Klein argued that the intent of the usual prohibition on the domestic distribution of such films ?was that a U.S. Government agency should not be able to brainwash Americans or put things out there that would not be considered objective information (but) . . . This particular movie, ?Fateful Harvest?, is important for any American who's concerned about our national security. In a time when some Americans question the presence of American troops in Afghanistan, this film makes the case that American efforts help the Afghan people transition away from poppies to other agriculture helps in our fight against the Taliban.?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 178-254. One hundred and sixty-six Republicans and twelve Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and eleven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the effort to prevent the distribution in the U.S. of a film that examined the narcotics industry in Afghanistan was not successful.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
N N Won
Roll Call 321
Jun 10, 2009
(H.R. 2410) On the Ros-Lehtinen of Florida Amendment, which would have withheld $4.5 million in funds for the International Atomic Energy Agency

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) to H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The amendment would have withheld almost $4.5 million authorized by the bill for the U.S. contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency for non-nuclear proliferation efforts. She said she selected this figure because it equals the ?amount that the Agency spent on nuclear assistance to Iran, Syria, Cuba and Sudan in the year 2007, the most recent fiscal year for which figures are available.?

In arguing on behalf of her amendment, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen cited a recent Government Accountability Office report, which she characterized as ?scathing?, that described ?the State Department's near total lack of oversight regarding the nuclear assistance that the IAEA provides to member states, especially to Iran, Syria, Cuba and Sudan. The GAO report noted that from 1997 to the year 2007, the International Atomic Energy Agency's Technical Cooperation Program provided over $55 million to these state sponsors of terrorism, supposedly for ?peaceful purposes.?

Ros-Lehtinen argued that ?(W)e and our allies must use the means at our disposal to prevent these and other rogue regimes from realizing their deadly ambitions. We have an opportunity today to cut off an important source of assistance to the nuclear programs of Iran, Syria and other regimes, the help provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the very organization charged with preventing nuclear proliferation.? She said that ?the bill before us contains no language that addresses this serious problem, despite its authorization of the administration's full request for over $100 million to be given to the IAEA.?

Rep. Berman (D-CA), who was leading the effort on behalf of H.R. 2410, opposed the amendment, although, he said he shared many of concerns expressed by Rep. Ros-Lehtinen. His opposition was based on the fact that he disagreed with the assumption of Ros-Lehtinen ?that withholding assessed contributions produces the actions we want. We've had test cases of this (which demonstrated otherwise).? Berman also opposed the amendment because it would hamper the Agency's primary function, which is the inspecting and safeguarding of nuclear material in foreign countries. This is cutting off your nose to spite your face. . . We'll end up cutting the funds that would otherwise be used by the IAEA to ensure that states are not diverting nuclear material from peaceful to military purposes--pretty serious concern--inspections that are in the direct national security interest of the United States.?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 205-224. One hundred and seventy-four Republicans and thirty-one Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twenty-three Democrats and one Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, all of the U.S. contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency remained in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
WAR & PEACE Arms Controls Treaties
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Won
Roll Call 320
Jun 10, 2009
(H.R. 2410) On the Berman of California Amendment, which made a wide range of changes to the bill providing funding for foreign relations operations in the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Berman (D-CA), the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, to H.R. 2410, which provided funding for foreign relations operations in the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years. The amendment, among other things, authorized an Office of Global Women?s Issues in the State Department; the payment of all dues to the U.N.; a significant expansion of the Peace Corps, an increase in international broadcasting activities, a strengthening of the State Department arms control and nonproliferation bureaus; 1,000 new and strengthened diplomatic positions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other strategic areas; 213 positions dedicated to improving training in Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, and Urdu; and additional arms control experts and counterterrorism specialists. It also reformed the U.S. system of export controls for military technology, and required a report to Congress on actions taken by the United States to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge over its enemies in the Middle East.

The Berman Amendment also assisted in the compensation for victims of terrorism from the 1998 Nairobi bombing, increased the funding for the State Department Inspector General and the National Endowment For Democracy, and established a system to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. foreign assistance.

The amendment included language to clarify that the establishment of an Office Global Women?s Issues in H.R. 2410 would do nothing to change the current prohibition on using funds in the bill to change ?laws or policies in effect in any foreign country concerning the circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited.? He stated that ?I believe this confirms that the bill does not undermine current law (regarding foreign abortion activities) in any way.?

Rep. Smith (R-NJ) expressed serious concern about the potential family planning activities that the new Office for Global Women's Issues, which was authorized in the bill, may engage in, and urged that the Congress explicitly limit its activities so that ?it not become a war room at the Department of State for the promotion of abortion.? He argued that the Obama Administration was ?aggressively seeking to topple pro-life laws in sovereign nations? and quoted recent testimony by Secretary of State Clinton that the administration ?was entitled to advocate abortion anywhere in the world.?

Berman responded that ?(N)o matter how many times the specter is raised, this (new) office cannot do and has no intention and no plans of doing anything to promote abortions, coerce abortions, fund abortions or lobby for an abortion policy. It is an office that is focused generally on the issues of women's political empowerment: should women have the right to vote, should they be able to run for office, are they treated as equal citizens under the law. It serves as a promoter of better education for women and girls and a series of (other ) causes . . . It is dedicated to ensuring that women around the world can realize their potential by fully participating in the political, economic and cultural lives of their societies..?

The amendment passed by a vote of 257-171. Two hundred and fifty Democrats and seven Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the provisions of the Berman Amendment were added to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE Arms Controls Treaties
WAR & PEACE Peace Corps Funding
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Won
Roll Call 317
Jun 10, 2009
(H.Res. 522) Legislation that provided assistance to Pakistan, and authorized worldwide foreign assistance for the 2010 and part of the 2011 fiscal years - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debate of the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1886 provided assistance to Pakistan, and H.R. 2410 authorized worldwide foreign assistance for the 2010 and part of the 2011 fiscal years. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the two bills. , Rep. Hastings (D-FL), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, argued: ?(I)t is critical that Congress put forth the necessary funding to help rebuild our diplomatic capabilities abroad and mitigate the damage that was done under the previous administration's leadership.  H.R. 2410 . . . is the first foreign relations-related authorization bill to reflect essential democratic priorities since 1993. As such, it provides a new direction forward and vital resources to boost our diplomatic capacity, improve our relations around the world, protect our national security, and make use of America's smart power, rather than rely on the military only solutions of past Congresses and the previous administration

?H.R. 2410 and H.R. 1866 . . . together, set forth a progressive foreign affairs agenda that emphasizes diplomatic, economic and social efforts at change, not just the use of military force.? Hastings also argued: ?(F)or years the Department of State has been denied critical resources to fulfill its core diplomatic missions in furthering our global interests and protecting our national security. In neglecting diplomacy, we have missed opportunities to prevent and mitigate conflicts around the world.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was leading the Republican effort regarding the rule, first argued against it on procedural grounds. He noted that Members had requested that 85 amendments be made in order to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, but that the Democratic majority had decided to make only 27 of them in order. He said: ?I understand that the majority has a responsibility to move legislation and manage the time on the floor, but if we look at the amendments the majority made in order, they do not fully address the scope and range of issues of concern to House Members.? 

Diaz-Balart also expressed concerns about the underlying legislation which the rule covered. Regarding the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, he noted that Secretary of State Clinton had ?testified before the House Foreign Relations Committee that she had challenged the State Department to reform and innovate and save taxpayer dollars . . . Unfortunately, the majority has decided to ignore that challenge and instead today has brought forth legislation that authorizes increased spending by 35 percent without increased transparency, accountability, and efficiency.? He also expressed concern that the Foreign Relations Authorization Act would ?increase U.S. taxpayer funding authorized for the United Nations by nearly one-third without requiring the United Nations to undertake necessary reforms to improve efficiency and stop blatant corruption.?

Diaz-Balart want on to argue: ?While failing to place accountability standards in (H.R. 1886), the majority decided to include provisions in the Pakistan Assistance Act . . . that will micromanage U.S. policy toward Pakistan.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 238-183. Two hundred thirty-seven Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-two Republicans and eleven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debate on H.R 1886 and H.R. 2410.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
Y Y Won
Roll Call 314
Jun 09, 2009
(H.R. 2751) On passage of the ?Cash for Clunkers'' bill, providing cash incentives to consumers who trade in their old, energy-inefficient vehicles

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the House rules and pass H.R. 2751, which provided tax incentives or mass transit vouchers to consumers who trade in vehicles that are at least eight years old for ones getting better fuel economy, that cost less than $35,000, and that were assembled in North America. The legislation was nicknamed the ?Cash for Clunkers'' bill. The cash incentives generally ranged between $3,000 and $5,000. The bill was supported by, among others, U.S. automakers, car dealers, and the UAW. Some foreign automakers expressed opposition.

Rep. Sutton (D-OH), who was leading the effort on behalf of S.2751, said the purpose of the bill was ?to accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles.? She said she was supporting the bill ?on behalf of the environment, as we turn the corner to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve fuel economy, and to help reduce our reliance on foreign oil (and). . .on behalf of the consumers . . . who continue to struggle during this global recession. ?

Sutton noted that 2009 auto sales were down nearly 42 percent below the 2005 level and said ?this decline jeopardizes our country's largest manufacturing industry.  These are not ordinary times. These times call for bold action. Three to 5 million jobs are at risk. Auto-related jobs number in the thousands in every State in our Nation, and . . . this bill is far more than about just cars. It's about people.? She claimed that the legislation ?will shore up millions of jobs and stimulate local economies . . . .?

A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill is a procedural mechanism that is usually employed to gain approval for measures that the House leadership deems to be not very controversial. There is a limited time period for debate. Amendments cannot be offered. A two thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Cantor (R-VA), the second ranking House Republican, opposed the bill, although he said it was ?reluctant opposition?. He first said that he had hoped the bill would not have come to the floor under the suspension of the rules procedure that prevented Members from offering amendments. He said he wanted to offer an amendment ?to allow individuals to use the credit for the purchase of a fuel-efficient, previously owned vehicle. Even after a generous credit, for many American families, a new car is financially out of reach. Yet with gas prices rising again, these families deserve the same opportunity to upgrade their current vehicle to a more fuel-efficient model.?

 Cantor then noted that ?there is already a substantial inventory of previously owned, fuel-efficient vehicles on dealer lots available for purchase (and that) . . . the livelihood of tens of thousands of Americans depend on the used car market. Used car sales outnumber new car sales 3-1 in the U.S., and there are more than twice as many used car dealers as new car dealers in this country. Treating cars that meet the same fuel-efficiency standards differently, based on whether they are new or previously owned, effectively picks winners and losers among these dealers. Given the difficult economic situation faced by all Americans, I do not believe that it is wise or necessary to reward some Americans while punishing others.?

Rep. Flake (R-AZ) also opposed the bill. He said it represented an effort by the government ?to manufacture demand . . . It is defying the laws of economics and saying we can manufacture enough demand to keep the auto industries afloat without other measures that they need to take to stay afloat. We can't simply manufacture demand any more than we can defy any of the other laws of economics. ?

The bill passed by a vote of 298-119. Two hundred thirty-nine Democrats and fifty-nine Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and ten Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the ?Cash for Clunkers? bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
Y Y Won
Roll Call 310
Jun 04, 2009
(H.R. 626) On passage of legislation providing federal employees with 4 paid weeks of parental leave

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passing H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009. The Act, among other things, provided for 4 paid weeks of parental leave for federal employees. Federal employees were permitted under existing law to take up to 12 weeks of parental leave. However, existing law did not provide that any portion of those 12 weeks would be paid.

Supporters of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act claimed it would improve the ability of the federal government to recruit and retain workers by providing a benefit many workers in the private sector receive. Opponents claimed that it would cost additional billions of dollars that the government could not afford at a time it was running large deficits.

Rep. Lynch (D-MA), a major supporter of the Act, first noted that current law already provided federal workers with up to 12 weeks of unpaid parental leave. He then said H.R. 626 ?does nothing more than permit those Federal employees . . . to receive paid leave for 4 weeks out of the 12 weeks to which they already have access and . . . provides employees the option to use accrued sick or annual leave, if available, for the remaining 8 weeks. . . .?

He then noted that ?America is lagging behind in offering paid leave for parents. Currently, the Federal Government, as an employer, guarantees zero paid leave for parents in any segment of the workforce. However, H.R. 626, once enacted, will, in fact, change that . . . most Federal employees cannot afford to take unpaid leave. This often forces these employees to choose between spending more time with their newborn child or maintaining an income to support their families . . . .? Lynch added that, since the federal government is the largest employer in the country, ?its policies in this area do set a tone for the country.?

Rep. Issa (R-CA), who was leading the opposition to the bill, claimed it ?sends the wrong message at the wrong time to working American taxpayers and families that are struggling in difficult times.? He argued that millions of Americans have lost their jobs: ?(B)ut in fact, there's no suffering (among federal employees) in Washington.? He also claimed that the bill has ?no protections against . . . those who do not need this special benefit getting it . . . ? Issa added that ?in a bad time, when tens of thousands of auto workers are being laid off . . . we're looking at a new benefit that could easily cost $4 billion over the next 10 years.?

Referring to the fact that the bill will enable more federal workers to be away from their jobs, Issa claimed: ?(I)f you create additional days the Federal workforce will be off, you can only have one of two choices. Either their labor wasn't needed and, as a result, doesn't need to be replaced, or their labor was needed and will be replaced. Replacement costs money. That ultimately will lead to a higher cost.?

Lynch responded by suggesting that the Republicans were just using the poor current economic conditions as an excuse to oppose a bill they never supported.

The legislation passed on a vote of 258-154. Two hundred and thirty-four Democrats and twenty-four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and forty-nine Republicans and five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate the bill providing federal employees with 4 weeks of paid parental leave.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Won
Roll Call 309
Jun 04, 2009
(H.R. 626) Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act - - on a motion to add a provision that would terminate the Act if the federal deficit at the end of any fiscal year exceeded $500 billion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit (send back) to committee, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009 with instructions to require that the Act terminate on the 30th day following any fiscal year in which the federal deficit exceeded $500 billion. The Parental Leave Act, among other things, gave federal employees 4 paid weeks of parental leave.

Rep. Issa (R-CA), who made the motion, said its purpose was to ?tie the enactment of this new and expensive and overly generous benefit (provided by the Act) to the national debt. He estimated that the Act would cost an ?additional 1, 2 or $4 billion (in) . . . new benefits paid to Federal workers? and said these amounts should not continue to be paid ?unless this Congress is able to get its house in order?. He added that the new benefits should not be allowed ?to continue on the backs of 14 million unemployed Americans, until or unless we're able to bring the deficit at least in line with where it was just two short years ago.?

Rep. Lynch (D-MA), one of the leading supporters of H.R. 626, opposed the motion because he said the additional language it proposed ?guts the entire bill. (It) . . . would leave Federal employees exactly where we find them today.? He then suggested that those Republicans supporting the motion were being ?disingenuous?. Lynch claimed that Republicans have consistently opposed the parental leave benefit provided by H.R. 626 ?under every circumstance?, regardless of whether a surplus or a deficit was being projected, and that the reference to the deficit in the motion was just an excuse to oppose the bill. Lynch noted that Republicans opposed the bill during the Clinton Administration when there was no deficit, and in 2008 when ?the unemployment rate was only 5.6 percent, and we had a very strong economy.?

The motion failed by a vote of 171-241. One hundred and sixty-three Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-one Democrats and ten Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to a vote on final passage of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Won
Roll Call 308
Jun 04, 2009
(H.R. 626) On the Issa of California Amendment, which would have placed significant restrictions on the use of parental paid leave by federal employees.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Issa (R-CA) to H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009. The amendment had two main purposes. It provided for 4 paid weeks of parental leave for federal employees. It also permitted federal employees to take an ?advance? against future leave for the purpose of parental leave. Federal employees were permitted under existing law to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid parental leave, if they had accrued that amount. However, existing law did not provide that any portion of those 12 weeks would be paid. Existing law also did not permit employees to ?borrow? against future leave time, if they had not yet accrued 12 weeks of unpaid leave.

Supporters of H.R. 626 claimed it would improve the ability of the federal government to recruit and retain workers by providing a benefit many workers in the private sector receive. Opponents claimed that it would cost additional billions of dollars that the government could not afford at a time it was running large deficits.

The House Republican leadership described the amendment as prohibiting any federal employee from using any parental paid leave provided in the legislation until that employee uses all of their accrued paid leave. In addition, the amendment would have required that all paid parental leave be treated as an advance and be subject to repayment in the same manner as any other paid leave.

Speaking on behalf of his amendment, Rep. Issa said it recognizes that federal workers should ?be able to use accrued and earned time . . . to avail themselves of their 12 weeks of family medical leave.? He also said the amendment recognized that ?not every (federal employee) . . . may have accrued leave sufficient to do 12 full weeks. Therefore, my amendment allows for that worker to take an advance against future sick leave and other leave in order to ensure that they may remain with their new child for the full 12 weeks allowed within the law.?

Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT), who supported the amendment, said: ?(W)e want to be as compassionate as we can. But at a time when we have literally millions and millions of people who are out of work, when we are looking at a $1.8 trillion budget deficit just this year alone . . I think we have an obligation . . . to remember for every dollar, every benefit that we want to hand to a Federal worker, we're going to have to take that money from somewhere; and we're going to have to take it from the American people's pockets to give it to someone else. . . .?

Rep. Lynch (D-MA), one of the leading supporters of H.R. 626, opposed the amendment because, he said, ?it totally goes against the bill's fundamental purpose . . . It does little more than restate the status quo with regard to the type and amount of leave that is currently available to new parents in the Federal Government . . . we should not replicate the current inadequate system that forces new moms and dads to choose between their paycheck and caring for a newborn.? He went on to argue that the amendment ?would strike the bill's core requirement that Federal employees receive 4 weeks of paid parental leave. Instead, it would require new mothers and fathers to take advance leave in order to take care of their newborn or newly adopted child. In other words, new employees would be required to go into debt in their available leave as a cost of caring for their child.?

Lynch also argued that the amendment would have the ?odd result? of forcing new employees ?to take unpaid leave . . . and then later on after the 8 or 12 weeks had expired . . . give those employees . . . 4 weeks of paid leave . . . and I think in some cases it may turn out that this may increase the cost . . . The true effect of this amendment is to gut the primary purpose of the bill, which is to support families and child development by providing 4 weeks of unconditional paid leave to new mothers and fathers in the Federal workforce.?

The amendment failed on a vote of 157-258. One hundred and fifty-four Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-one Democrats and seventeen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no additional language was added to the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act placing significant restrictions on the use of parental paid leave by federal employees.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Won
Roll Call 304
Jun 04, 2009
(H.R. 2200) On the Mica of Florida amendment to change the standards for determining when the Transportation Security Administration can issue an emergency regulation or a security directive

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2200 authorized funding for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). There had been many complaints from Members of Congress about the substance of some of the emergency regulations the TSA had issued, and about the methods used in developing those regulations. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Mica (R-FL) that permitted the TSA to issue an emergency regulation or security directive without adhering to the usual rulemaking procedures when it determined that it was responding to ?an imminent threat of finite duration". It also required the TSA to comply with the usual rulemaking procedures after a security directive or emergency order it issued had been in place for more than 180 days.

Rep. Mica said in his statement in support of the amendment that its passage would ensure that the waiver of the usual rulemaking procedures ?occurs only when there is an ?imminent threat of finite duration? . . .This amendment would refine TSA's security directive issuance process to make it truly responsive to imminent threats and not just the whim of the agency.? Rep. Petri (R-WI), who also sponsored the amendment, said it ?seeks to clarify the standard for when TSA is allowed to circumvent the rulemaking process . . . While there are circumstances in which these security directives are necessary to address immediate threats to our transportation systems, they too often have been issued under unclear circumstances . . . .?

Rep. DeFazio (D-OR) opposed the amendment. He said he shared ?the tremendous frustration with a bureaucracy that gets over the edge for no real purpose? and acknowledged ?that the current process is not perfect . . . (and) that the TSA had done some stupid things.? However, he then said ?I don't think the way to solve inadequacies and problems with the current directive process is to create an even more lengthy, expensive bureaucratic process.?  

DeFazio noted that H.R. 2200 already had language ?to make (the bureaucracy) responsive and responsible and make their work make more sense and meet our true security needs. But if you impose this (proposed change) on the entire structure, you're going to divert a lot of resources in the Transportation Security Administration over into a bureaucratic, lengthy rulemaking process. They are not going to have the flexibility to change . . . . . . It is not a practical way to address this.?

The amendment passed on a vote of 219-211. One hundred and seventy-seven Republicans and forty-two Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and eleven ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including an overwhelming number of the most progressive Members. As a result, language was added to H.R. 2200 that changed the standards for determining when the TSA can issue an emergency regulation or a security directive.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Lost
Roll Call 301
Jun 04, 2009
(H. Res 474) Legislation funding the Transportation Security Administration Description - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for consideration by the House of H.R.2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act. This legislation, among other things, tripled existing funding for surface transportation systems to $7.6 billion during the 2010 fiscal year, increased the funding an additional 6% for fiscal year 2011, and directed the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to adopt the policy proposed by the 9/11 Commission.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO), who was leading the effort to pass the rule for H.R. 2200, described that bill as ?a much-needed fix to an agency tasked with maintaining security in some of our most important facilities.? He added: ?(T)he urgency is clear, especially since many programs under the Transportation Security Administration have not been altered or revised since their original authorization . . . passed immediately after the attacks on September 11, 2001. Since that time, we have seen threats against our transportation systems change dramatically. We've seen attacks against rail and mass transit systems in London, Madrid and Mumbai. As a result, this legislation broadens the focus of TSA to address more than just aviation security, which, for years, received an overwhelming majority of funding and manpower.?

Perlmutter also claimed that: ?(T)he bill has been developed over several months with a great amount of input from majority and minority Members, labor and business and independent analysis. The bill passed out of the Homeland Security Committee without any dissenting votes, and as it comes to the floor, 14 substantive amendments will be debated. Of those 14, eight are Republican amendments and six, obviously, are from the Democratic side.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was managing the rule for the Republicans, said he planned to vote for H.R. 2200, but expressed concern about the rule because ?the legislation was really rushed to the floor by the majority. On such an important issue as the safety of our transportation systems, one would think the majority would want the input of the very agency affected by the legislation. And yet it decided it was more important to move forward than to wait until the administration, the new administration, had selected a TSA administrator who could provide Congress the necessary input and new ideas on how Congress can improve the agency.?

Diaz-Balart complained that the Democratic majority ?announced that the House would consider the Transportation Security Administration reauthorization bill the week of May 18. However, at the time of the announcement, the legislative language of the bill was nowhere to be found.  The majority kept the text . . . hidden under lock and key until late on Monday, May 18. And just as they released the text, they set a hard and fast deadline of 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 20, for Members to submit their amendments. What this did was give Members, in effect, one business day to read the legislation that reauthorizes the TSA and draft and submit amendments.?

Diaz-Balart went on to say this procedure was not ?an anomaly on the majority's part, but it's business as usual. Since the majority took power in Congress in January 2007, Members have been given an average of one business day or less to submit amendments than we did when we were in the majority.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 243-179 along almost straight party lines. All two hundred forty three ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. All one hundred and seventy-six Republicans, joined by three Democrats, voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move on to debate the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 300
Jun 03, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

 

Y Y Won
Roll Call 297
Jun 03, 2009
(H.R. 31) On passage of a bill extending federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Most local records and tribal documents of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina were destroyed either during the Civil War or as a result of Virginia's 1924 Racial Integrity Act. H.R. 31 was designed to extend federal recognition to the tribe, although it did not meet all the usual standards for gaining recognition. This vote was on passage of the legislation.

Rep. Rahall (D-WV), who was leading the support for the bill, began by saying that the legislation ?is more than a century overdue.? He noted that ?the Lumbees have a functioning government worthy of Federal acknowledgment. Yet the Lumbee people still do not have the government-to-government relationship they deserve . . . (although) studies undertaken by the (Interior) Department have consistently concluded that the Lumbees are a distinct, self-governing Indian community.?

Rahall acknowledged that ?some may argue that the Lumbees should not be allowed to bypass administrative process established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . I can assure you extending Federal recognition to a tribe at this time is not something new, nor does it bypass administrative process.?

Rep. Hastings (R-WA), who led the opposition to S.31, first said that the bill ?sets a bad precedent? because recognition of the Lumbee tribe would violate ?a fundamental principle of Indian law . . . that a recognized tribe should be a tribe that can trace continuous existence from the earliest days of our Republic to the present. In fact, this is enshrined in one of the seven mandatory criteria that the Bureau of Indian Affairs uses to evaluate petitions from groups seeking recognition.? He argued that, although the Bureau of Indian Affairs has standards, ?(W)e in Congress do not seem to have a clear standard for determining . . . why the Lumbees warrant recognition while other groups do not. Unless the House develops a clear, rational, fixed policy on recognition, then our act of recognizing a tribe would deem to be arbitrary. This could undermine the standing of recognized tribes everywhere.?

Hastings also expressed concern over the five year cost of $786 million the bill would require. He claimed this ?could force the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service to alter formulas for the provisions of service to all other tribes, possibly reducing their allocation.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 240-179. Two hundred and twelve Democrats and twenty-eight Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and forty-four Republicans and thirty-five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate the bill extending federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
Y Y Won
Roll Call 296
Jun 03, 2009
(H.R. 31) Legislation extending federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina - - a motion to add language requiring the Secretary of the Interior to verify that members of the Lumbee Tribe are descendants of coastal North Carolina tribes

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to add language to legislation extending federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. That language would have required the Secretary of the Interior to verify that members of the Lumbee Tribe are descendants of coastal North Carolina tribes. Most local records and tribal documents of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina were destroyed either during the Civil War or as a result of Virginia's 1924 Racial Integrity Act. The legislation was designed to extend federal recognition to the tribe, although it did not meet all the usual standards for gaining recognition.

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) made the motion to add the language. He first noted that the preamble to H.R. 31 reads, in part, that, ?the Lumbee Indians . . . are descendants of coastal North Carolina Indian tribes . . . .? Hastings argued that, given this preamble, it was ?reasonable? to ask the Interior Secretary to make the verification ?because there have been some concerns about the tribe's enrollment.? Hastings then referenced Bureau of Indian Affairs regulations that ?list a wide variety of evidence? based on which the Secretary can make the verification.

Hastings pointed out that ?the tribe claims 54,000 members, and the Congressional Budget Office says the cost (of recognizing it) would be $786 million over 5 years. This is an increase from just 2 years ago when they were told that there were 40,000 tribal members. Moreover, it appears the tribe is keeping its rolls closed until Congress passes this bill.? He added that his proposed language ?merely provides a means of verifying the base rolls, something the Bureau of Indian Affairs should (have done) if the Lumbees had gone through the regulatory process.? Hastings added that ?a wrong decision on this verification . . . could have an adverse impact on all tribes.?

Rep. Rahall (D-WV), who was leading the support for the bill, opposed the addition of the proposed language. He said:?It is long established policy in this country for Indian tribes to determine their own membership . . . This motion . . . would single out the Lumbee Tribe as the only tribe in America that would be subject to this new requirement. It's discriminatory.? Rahall also said he wanted to clarify that:?This is not something new that we're doing today, granting federal recognition to an Indian tribe. There are 561 federally recognized Indian tribes according to the General Accountability Office. Of those, 530 were recognized by the Congress of the United States . . . And none were recognized under the criteria that's being offered in this motion . . . .?

Rep. McIntyre (D-NC), who also opposed the additional language, referred to it as a ?subterfuge.? He claimed:?It's another attempt to push the Lumbees . . . back to the bureaucracy. And (that?s) the last thing . . . our Lumbee American citizens deserve . . . .? McIntyre argued that ?no other tribe that has received federal recognition through an act of the United States Congress has had to go back through a verification process that is now proposed in this motion . . . that would single them out to further treat them unfairly . . . .?

The motion failed by a vote of 197-224. One hundred and sixty Republicans and thirty-seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twelve Democrats and twelve Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the proposed language was not added, and the House moved to a vote on passage of the bill extending federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
N N Won
Roll Call 295
Jun 03, 2009
(H.Res. 490)Legislation extending federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 31 and H.R. 1385 were bills that extended federal recognition to a number of Indian tribes that were based partly or fully in Virginia. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for consideration of those bills. The rule allowed only certain designated amendments to be offered to one of the bills, and did not permit any amendments to be offered to the other. Rep. Cardoza (D-CA), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, referred to the bills which the rule covered and said that their passage ?will right several wrongs in our country's history and bring closure to the issue of full Federal recognition of (these) tribes.? He noted that the tribes had been trying to obtain federal recognition since the 19th century, but various bills to recognize them ?failed due to opposition from the Department of the Interior.?

Cardoza also said that ?the circumstances surrounding all of these tribes are certainly unique and warrant special attention by Congress.? He supported this statement by noting that:?(D)uring the Civil War, most local records and tribal documentation were destroyed in fires at government buildings. . . In addition, Virginia's 1924 Racial Integrity Act--pushed by a noted white supremacist--was responsible for the deliberate and systematic destruction of over 46 years of any records that traced and recorded the existence of vast Indian tribes. . . But despite the wealth of documentation that exists for each tribe, it is not clear whether they could obtain proper documentation to be acknowledged by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.? Cardoza also noted that all of the tribes covered by the legislation have been recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia where they are located.

Rep. Dreier (R-CA), who was leading the debate on the rule for the Republicans, opposed both the rule and the bill for which it provided consideration. He said he opposed the rule because of its limitations on the amendments that could be offered to the bill. Dreier said these limitations did not provide for ?an open process which would have allowed the House to address many . . . issues . . . ?, including an amendment that Rep. Shuler (D-NC) wanted to offer. Dreier argued:?(I)t's very sad that I have to stand here as a minority Member fighting for the rights of a majority Member of this institution.?

Dealing with the substance of the two bills, Dreier said the question of tribe recognition ?demands clarity, fairness and transparency. The two underlying bills, unfortunately, deliver just the opposite. . . These tribes have sought legislative action because they lack the proper documentation to complete the regular administrative process . . . (and) we need to consider the overall fairness of our actions.? Dreier noted that ?there are currently nine other tribes . . . that have fully completed their application processes and are awaiting final determinations. They have done their due diligence and deserve to have their cases addressed in the proper order. While the six tribes covered in H.R. 1385 may deserve special dispensation from the normal BIA process, questions have been raised regarding the fairness of penalizing the nine other tribes who fully completed the process and are patiently waiting in line for the determination. The process serves a purpose:ensuring that tribal determination is fair, consistent and fully vetted. We need to think very, very carefully before upending that regime.?

Dreier also expressed concern about the estimated $786 million cost that would result from the passage of the bills and the recognition of the tribes. He concluded by claiming that ?these bills have problems but this rule has a bigger problem. As happens all too often in this Democratic majority, this debate will be closed rather than open, and Members will be shut out of the process.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 231-174.Two hundred and twenty-nine Democrats and two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-six Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debate on the bills extending federal recognition to a number of Indian tribes.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
Y Y Won
Roll Call 291
May 21, 2009
(H.R. 915) On passage of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act. The reauthorization bill provided $70 billion for airport capital improvements and $16.2 billion in airport improvement funding around the country. It also required additional air safety requirements, including semi-annual FAA inspections of foreign repair stations, and drug and alcohol testing on those working on U.S. aircraft. In addition, the increased the maximum passenger facility fee that airports can charge.

Rep. Arcuri (D-NY) began his statement in support of the bill and the rule for it by acknowledging that many of the safety improvements mandated by the bill ?come with increased costs?. However, he added that the measure was still ?long overdue.? There were some Republicans who spoke favorably of the bill, including Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL). He said that ?(I)f U.S. air travel is to continue its fundamental role in our economy, we have to make certain that we have the safest, most modern and efficient transportation system in the world. By reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration funding and safety oversight programs, the underlying legislation that is being brought to the floor takes an important step toward that goal. ?

A number of Republicans had significant concerns about various elements of the legislation. Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) claimed that the bill ?detrimentally impacts American job creation, and will further exacerbate the federal deficit during an economic downturn.? She pointed to the language she said ?rewrites modern aviation labor law by requiring FedEx Express employees to organize under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) rather than the Railway Labor Act (RLA),? which she said ?will almost certainly disrupt the company's plans for economic expansion. Furthermore, H.R. 915 would terminate airline code-share alliance agreements between airlines and the U.S. Government after three years. In so doing the legislation will disrupt antitrust protection that is considered critical by the airline industry, and threaten at least 15,000 domestic airline jobs.?

Rep. Blackburn also argued that the multi-billion dollar outlay in the bill from ?a federal budget already stretched thin by trillions of dollars in deficit spending . . . will only add to the credit card tab mounting at an astonishing pace in only five months of unified Democrat leadership.

Rep. Petri (R-WI) said: (W)hile there are clearly many useful provisions . . . which we do support, there are, unfortunately, several which we do not. And . . . one of the important areas (is) . . . the foreign repair station inspection language. He said that requiring twice annual inspections of repair stations in Europe would be opposed by the European Union and will violate the spirit of the United States-European Union Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement.?

The bill passed by a vote of 277-136. Two hundred and forty Democrats and thirty-seven Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and thirty-two Republicans and four Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate the FAA Reauthorization Act.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 290
May 21, 2009
(H.R. 915) A bill providing $70 billion for airport capital improvements and $16.2 billion in airport improvement funding - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions to add language prohibiting any funds going to the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

A number of Republicans had been focusing on ?earmarks? in spending bills that had been inserted by Rep Murtha (D-PA), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee. An earmark is a legislatively-mandated federal grant. During Murtha?s years in Congress, he had directed many earmarks toward funding projects at the local airport in his district, which was subsequently named for him. This was an effort to insert language in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act to prevent any further federal funds from being spent at projects at that airport.

The effort was made in the form of a motion to recommit (send back) the FAA Reauthorization Act the House was considering to the originating committee with instructions to add language prohibiting any funds in the bill from going to the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport. The FAA Reauthorization Act provided $86 billion for airport improvements around the country.

Rep. Campbell (R-CA) made the motion to recommit with instructions. He first noted that the Murtha Johnstown airport ?handles six commercial flights a week . . . to one place, Washington, D.C., a location all of 3 hours' drive from Johnstown, Pennsylvania. But for those six commercial flights a week, less than one a day to a place only 3 hours' drive away, the Federal taxpayer has spent $150 million in improvements since 1990. . .  In addition, the Federal taxpayer spends $1,394,000 every year in subsidies to the single air carrier making . . . less than one flight a day out of this airport. That, by the way, computes to nearly $5,000 in subsidy per flight, which takes less than 45 minutes since it's only 3 hours' drive away.?

Campbell characterized the spending on the airport as ?wasteful and irresponsible?. He referenced the ?bridge to nowhere? in Alaska, which had become a symbol of foolish capital spending, and called the Johnston facility ?the airport for no one.? Campbell concluded by arguing ?we have debts and deficits as far as the eye can see. If we can't stop wasting the taxpayers' money on boondoggles as obvious as this one, why should the public trust us at all with any of their money??

Rep. Oberstar (D-MN), who was leading the effort on behalf of the legislation responded by noting ?(T)his is the first negative earmarking that I have witnessed in Congress . . . To those on the other side who are laughing now, I wonder what their reaction will be when another amendment comes to deny funding . . . to an airport in their communities . . . This airport serves 1,000 military personnel. It serves the Pennsylvania National Guard. It serves the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve and the U.S. Army Reserve, and these units have been deployed 28 times in the last 10 years in service of the United States abroad.?

Oberstar went on to argue that the proposed language would, among other things, unfairly prohibit funds going to the Murtha Johnstown Airport under the special federal program designed to help airports in small communities that had commercial air service prior to airline deregulation in 1978. He noted that the purpose of that program was ?to ensure that small towns in rural areas would not be cut out of America's national system of airports and airport service and airline service. It has worked effectively.?

The motion was defeated on a vote of 154-263. One hundred and forty-three Republicans and eleven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-five Democrats and twenty-eight Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, no language was added to the FAA Reauthorization Act preventing any of the funds it authorized from going of the Murtha Johnstown Airport.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 285
May 21, 2009
(H.Res. 464) A bill providing $70 billion for airport capital improvements and $16.2 billion in airport improvement funding - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act. The Act provided $70 billion for airport capital improvements and $16.2 billion in airport improvement funding. It also required additional air safety requirements, including semi-annual FAA inspections of foreign repair stations, and drug and alcohol testing on those working on U.S. aircraft. In addition, it increased the maximum passenger facility fee that airports can charge.

The rule for the bill permitted only certain amendments to be offered to it. The Republican minority had continually objected during the current Congress to rules such as this one that did not permit any Member to offer an amendment. The Republicans claimed that this unduly limited debate and did not permit all citizens to be adequately represented by their Members of Congress.

 Rep. Arcuri (D-NY) began his statement in support of the rule and the bill by acknowledging that many of the safety improvements mandated by the bill ?come with increased costs?. However, he added that the measure was still ?long overdue.? Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), speaking in support of the purpose of the reauthorization act said that ?(I)f U.S. air travel is to continue its fundamental role in our economy, we have to make certain that we have the safest, most modern and efficient transportation system in the world. By reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration funding and safety oversight programs, the underlying legislation that is being brought to the floor takes an important step toward that goal. ?

Rep. Diaz Balart then said ?(A)lthough I support the underlying legislation . . . I must oppose the rule that is bringing it to the floor because it blocks . . . a complete and fair debate unnecessarily . . .    The rule brought forth by the majority today forbids the House from considering amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle. Yes, it allows four out of six Republican amendments that were introduced in the Rules Committee, but it blocks, it prohibits, a total of 21 amendments. Some of those amendments are bipartisan amendments, and most are amendments from the majority party. I may not have voted for all those amendments . . . but I certainly believe that this House should have had the opportunity to debate them, to consider them, and to vote on all the amendments.?

Diaz-Balart questioned the ?logic? of the Democratic majority in restricting the number of amendments that could be offered on this ?legislation that obviously enjoys almost consensus support. I recognize the obligations of the majority to frame debate here and to organize the floor. . . (but) the amount of very strictly organized rules . . . has been really extraordinary and, I think, unnecessary.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 234-178. All the ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Nine other Democrats joined with one hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move to consideration of the FAA Reauthorization Act.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 284
May 21, 2009
(H.Res. 464) A bill providing $70 billion for airport capital improvements and $16.2 billion in airport improvement funding - - on moving to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion to have the House move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act. That Act provided $70 billion for airport capital improvements and $16.2 billion in airport improvement funding. It also required additional air safety requirements, including semi-annual FAA inspections of foreign repair stations, and drug and alcohol testing on those working on U.S. aircraft. In addition, it increased the maximum passenger facility fee that airports can charge. The rule for the bill permitted only certain amendments to be offered to it.

Rep. Arcuri (D-NY) began his statement in support of the rule, the motion to bring it to an immediate vote, and the bill itself by acknowledging that many of the safety improvements mandated by the bill ?come with increased costs?. However, he added that the measure was still ?long overdue.? Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), speaking in support of the purpose of the reauthorization act, said that ?(I)f U.S. air travel is to continue its fundamental role in our economy, we have to make certain that we have the safest, most modern and efficient transportation system in the world. By reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration funding and safety oversight programs, the underlying legislation that is being brought to the floor takes an important step toward that goal. ?

Rep. Diaz Balart then said ?(A)lthough I support the underlying legislation . . . I must oppose the rule that is bringing it to the floor because it blocks . . . a complete and fair debate unnecessarily . . .    The rule brought forth by the majority today forbids the House from considering amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle. Yes, it allows four out of six Republican amendments that were introduced in the Rules Committee, but it blocks, it prohibits, a total of 21 amendments. Some of those amendments are bipartisan amendments, and most are amendments from the majority party. I may not have voted for all those amendments . . . but I certainly believe that this House should have had the opportunity to debate them, to consider them, and to vote on all the amendments.

?I don't know why . . . the majority, each time a bill comes up for consideration under a rule, it consistently . . . blocks amendments from debate. . . Is it that they're afraid of debate? Are they afraid of losing the vote on some amendments? Are they protecting their Members from what they consider to be tough, difficult votes? Are they afraid of the democratic process . . . ??

Rep. Arcuri responded by pointing out that five of the eight amendments that Republicans asked to offer to the bill were made in order under the rule and that only seven of the twenty-two amendments offered by Democrats were made in order. He concluded ?I would say that the percentage was more than fair on both sides of the aisle.?

The motion passed by a vote of 246-175 along almost straight party lines. All the ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Three other Democrats joined with one hundred and seventy-two Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on the rule setting the terms for considering the FAA Reauthorization Act.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 283
May 21, 2009
A resolution to appoint a committee to investigate whether Speaker Pelosi accurately charged the CIA with misleading her about its use of interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists - - on whether to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling that prevented a vote on the resolution.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

A controversy had developed about whether the CIA had accurately advised House Speaker Pelosi about its use of inappropriate interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists, during her previous service as the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. The CIA said that it had kept her fully advised about the use of these techniques. Pelosi had publicly claimed that she was never told that these techniques were being used, challenged the truthfulness of what she and other congressional leaders were told by CIA officials about the techniques, and accused the CIA of lying. The CIA claimed that it does not lie to Congress. In response to these events, the House Republican minority had proposed a formal investigation into the matter.

Rep Bishop (R-UT) had raised a ?question of the privileges of the House? regarding the matter, and offered a resolution relating to it. That resolution would require a bipartisan subcommittee of the House Intelligence Committee ?to review and verify the accuracy of the Speaker's (relevant) public statements? about the matter and report its finding within sixty days. Under House rules, a question of the privileges of the House resolution can relate to the integrity of House proceedings and questions relating to the conduct of Members.

Bishop said that, if there had been a pattern of ?misconceptions (and) misinformation that has been given to the House of Representatives by an agency of government, that is an untenable and improper situation to have; and it is imperative that we try to find the truth of that matter, to make sure that if it has happened, it never happens again.? He claimed that his only point in offering the resolution was to establish a process whereby the truth regarding this issue could be identified, and to enable the House to learn whether federal agencies have engaged in a pattern of misleading the House. Bishop also said that such an investigation would ?safeguard the reputation of the House (because) . . . it is imperative to reconcile as soon as possible the . . . contradictory statements by Speaker Pelosi and CIA Director Panetta.

The Democratic majority did not favor the resolution to appoint a committee to investigate the matter. They believed that the resolution was an effort by the Republicans to embarrass Speaker Pelosi, and that the Republicans hoped an investigation would reveal Pelosi had been informed of the interrogation techniques the CIA was employing and did not object to them.

The Chair ruled that the Bishop resolution was not privileged because it ?is not confined to questions of the privileges of the House?. That ruling was based on the fact that the resolution proposed to direct a subcommittee of the Intelligence Committee ??to review and verify the accuracy of? certain public statements of the Speaker concerning communications to the Congress from an element of the executive branch.  Such a review necessarily would include an evaluation not only of the statements of the Speaker but also of the executive communications to which those statements related. Thus, the review necessarily would involve an evaluation of the oversight regime that formed the context for those communications? and this would exclude it from being exclusively a matter of the privileges of the House.

Rep. Bishop appealed the ruling of the Chair. An appeal of a ruling can be voted on by the House. Before that could occur, Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD), who is second in seniority to Speaker Pelosi, moved to table (kill) the appeal. The effect of tabling it would be to end consideration of the appeal of the ruling, which would effectively end any consideration of Rep. Bishop?s resolution calling for a committee to investigate the Pelosi-CIA disagreement.

The motion to table (kill) the appeal passed by a vote of 237-184. Two hundred and thirty-two Democrats and five Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and fifteen Democrats noted ?nay?. As a result, the House ended consideration of the resolution to appoint a committee to investigate the Pelosi-CIA disagreement.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 282
May 21, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

 

Y Y Won
Roll Call 280
May 20, 2009
( H.R. 2352) The Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009, which expanded access to business counseling, training and networking to small business owners - - on the motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions to add language to ensure that small business owners are made aware of the alleged adverse effects of future energy taxes

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2353, the 2009 Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act, amended the Small Business Act to expanded access to business counseling, training and networking to small business owners, including underserved populations such as women, veterans and Native Americans. There was significant support for the addition of language to the bill that would ensure that small business owners are made aware of the alleged adverse effects of future energy taxes. However, the terms under which the Act was being considered did not permit an amendment to be offered to add this language. It did permit a motion to send the measure back to the originating committee with instructions to add the relevant language and report the bill back to the House. That is what this motion would accomplish.

Rep. Capito (R-WV), who made the motion, said it ?direct the Small Business Administration to make sure small businesses are provided with information and technical assistance if and when they face an increase in costs as a result of the enactment of any . . . (direct or indirect) tax on carbon emissions . . . . Small businesses operate on very clear margins, and it is the duty of this body to protect those job creators, not go after them with increased tax burdens.? Capito referenced the ?cap and trade? program, which many Republicans opposed, as an example of a tax that could effectively impose a cost increase on small businesses. Under the cap and trade program, those companies emitting higher pollution levels than the law would ordinarily allow can purchase ?credits?, enabling them to continue to emit the higher levels, from companies that emit much lower pollution levels than the .

There was no real opposition voiced to the motion. Rep. Velazquez (D- NY), commenting on the language it would have added to the legislation, said she understood that Rep. Capito ?is trying to make a point of climate change reform. What I would hope is that (she) will engage in a constructive dialogue on our long-term energy challenges . . . The legislation . . . (here) will provide assistance to small businesses and also small manufacturers as we transition to a green economy, and in fact, the bill that we have before us today creates a green entrepreneurs training program in the sectors of energy efficiency, clean technology. Also, several amendments adopted today will help promote energy efficiency. . . we are calibrating the effect that any legislation regarding climate change will have on small businesses, and that is why we are addressing some of those issues in the bill that we have here today.?

The vote passed by a vote motion of 385-41. Two hundred and ten Democrats and one hundred and seventy-five Republicans voted ?aye?. Forty-one Democrats, including more than half of the most progressive Members, voted ?nay?. As a result, the  Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act was sent back to committee with instructions to have language added that was designed to ensure that small business owners are made aware of the adverse effects that could be caused by future energy taxes.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Lost
Roll Call 277
May 20, 2009
(H.R. 627) To permit the carrying of guns in national parks - - on concurring in an amendment that the Senate had added to an unrelated bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on permitting people to carry guns in national parks. The provision allowing the carrying of guns had been added by the Senate to an unrelated piece of legislation known as the Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights, which the House had previously passed and sent to the Senate. The Senate then sent the credit card bill back with the gun provision attached. The House had adopted a procedure which required a separate vote on the gun provision apart from its vote on passage of the credit card bill.

Rep. Maloney (D-NY), who had been described as the ?major author and chief advocate for the credit card bill?, in referencing the Senate passage of the bill said ?(M)y only regret with the Senate's action is that they voted to include a completely unrelated provision allowing guns in our national parks, rolling back a rule that was put into place by President Reagan that has absolutely no purpose on this bill and should be removed in a separate vote.?

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) who supported the amendment said that ?gun control advocates falsely claim that this amendment will increase poaching because American gun owners won't be able to resist the temptation to shoot wildlife encountered in national parks . . . the fact is that American gun owners are simply citizens who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights without running into confusing red tape.  Opponents of this amendment will also call it unprecedented, far reaching and radical. But the fact is, it merely puts national parks and refuges in line with current regulations of national forest lands and Bureau of Land Management lands. . . The current policy is outdated, unnecessary, inconsistent and confusing to those who visit the checker board of public lands, and the policy needs to be changed, and this amendment does just that.?

Rep. McCarthy (D-NY), who was one of the leading gun control advocates in the House, said she was ?incredibly disappointed that this well-meaning bill has been hijacked and used as a political tool to ram a provision down the throats of Americans when they need our help to address more pressing issues. Adding an amendment that will allow loaded guns into our national parks to a bill that is designed to help American families during an economic crisis shows an ignorance of the seriousness of our Nation's economic crisis and a disregard for the needs of its consumers. This amendment should not be part of this bill. Our national parks are among our greatest treasures . . . and every year millions and millions of families from all walks of life travel from far and near to enjoy these amazing resources. When families are out experiencing the wonders of our lands, the last thing they should have to worry about is a threat or the possible threat of gun violence. ?

Rep, Bishop (R-UT) responded to Rep. McCarthy by first noting that there are ?some in government who are very uncomfortable with the concept of an armed citizenry. . . (but) our Constitution. . .gave the protection in the Second Amendment to gun rights. The issue today is whether Congress will insist that the National Park Service live under the same rules that the national forests and the Bureau of Land Management areas have been under all the time. There's nothing unique or new about this. It is simply a matter of conformity. The real winners in this amendment are law-abiding Americans who will no longer be treated as criminals, even though they're good people. ?

The gun provision passed by a vote of 279-147. One hundred and seventy-four Republicans and one hundred and five Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and forty-five Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and two Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved the carrying of guns in national parks.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Gun Control
N N Lost
Roll Call 275
May 20, 2009
(H.Res.457) The Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009 expanding access to business counseling, training and networking to small business owners - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2352, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009 amended the Small Business Act to expanded access to business counseling, training and networking to small business owners, including underserved populations such as women, veterans and Native Americans. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of the bill. The rule limited the amendments that could be offered by individual Members. The debate focused both on the rule and on the underlying bill itself.

Rep. Polis (D-CO), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, claimed that it represented ?a giant step forward in ensuring a bright future for all Americans who are struggling to establish or grow their own businesses.? Polis called the bill ?bipartisan?, and said it ?represents what we can accomplish when Republicans and Democrats work together. While there are many ideological and political differences on how to address the economic crisis, this bill is a product of consensus.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), acknowledged that the bill had some Republican support, but expressed concern that the rule limited the number of amendments that could be offered. She said that this was ?a great opportunity for the majority to have given an opportunity for us (the Republican minority) to offer a lot of amendments to the bill . . . And I'm very concerned about the process . . . because we haven't gone through a process that I think would have been fair to our side of the aisle.

 Foxx also said that while the bill is well-intentioned, ?what small businesses, the engine of our economy, need are things that are different from this bill.? She said to the Democratic majority that ?we come from two different world views in terms of how we approach this kind of an issue? and suggested that the bill is not really going to create jobs, other than for bureaucrats, and that the impact of its provisions had not been adequately evaluated and lacked accountability.

Rep. Polis responded by noting that the Republicans had only asked to have three amendments made in order under the rule, that two were excluded because they would have violated House procedures, and the other was made in order under the rule. He also claimed that the bill would create 73,000 needed new jobs. Foxx? replay was to suggest that the federal government would pay a great deal to create those jobs. She referenced the previously-passed economic stimulus legislation that the Republicans opposed and said ?in much of the legislation that has been passed this year, there has been a great cost to the jobs (created).?

The debate then moved to the merits of some other matters that had either been ruled non-germane, or were in other pieces of legislation. The Republicans complained that an amendment to revise the estate tax would help small businesses, but was not permitted to be offered to this bill. The Democrats made the point that no Republicans supported the economic stimulus legislation that had been passed earlier in the session, and noted that it contained some tax changes to help small businesses.

The resolution passed by a vote of 247-175 along almost straight party lines. All two hundred and forty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Two other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-three and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move on to debate the 2009 Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
Y Y Won
Roll Call 274
May 20, 2009
(H.Res. 457) Legislation expanding access to business counseling, training and networking to small business owners - - on a moving to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2352, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009 amended the Small Business Act to expanded access to business counseling, training and networking to small business owners, including underserved populations such as women, veterans and Native Americans. This was a procedural motion to have the House mover to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 2352. The rule limited the amendments that could be offered by individual Members. The debate focused both on the rule and on the underlying bill itself.

Rep. Polis (D-CO), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, claimed that it represented ?a giant step forward in ensuring a bright future for all Americans who are struggling to establish or grow their own businesses.? Polis called the bill ?bipartisan?, and said it ?represents what we can accomplish when Republicans and Democrats work together. While there are many ideological and political differences on how to address the economic crisis, this bill is a product of consensus.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) acknowledged that the bill had some Republican support, but opposed the rule that limited the number of amendments that could be offered. She said ?I'm very concerned about the process . . . because we haven't gone through a process that I think would have been fair to our side of the aisle.? Foxx also said that, while the bill is well-intentioned, ?what small businesses, the engine of our economy, need are things that are different from this bill.? Addressing the Democratic majority, she added that ?we come from two different world views in terms of how we approach this kind of an issue? and suggested that the bill is not really going to create jobs, other than for bureaucrats, and that the impact of its provisions had not been adequately evaluated and lacked accountability.

Rep. Polis responded by noting that the Republicans had only asked to have three amendments made in order under the rule, that two were excluded because they would have violated House procedures, and that the other was made in order under the rule. He also claimed that the bill would create 73,000 new jobs. Foxx? replay was to suggest that the federal government would pay a great deal to create those jobs. She referenced the previously-passed economic stimulus legislation that the Republicans opposed and said ?in much of the legislation that has been passed this year, there has been a great cost to the jobs (created).?

The debate then moved to the merits of some other matters that had either been ruled non-germane to H.R. 2352, or were in other pieces of legislation. The Republicans complained that an amendment to revise the estate tax would help small businesses, but was not permitted to be offered to this bill. The Democrats made the point that no Republicans had supported the economic stimulus legislation passed earlier in the session, which contained tax changes designed to help small businesses.

Under House procedures, before a bill can be considered, the House must first approve a resolution containing the rule for that bill. The rule provides the terms under which the legislation will be considered, included the amendments that may be offered. The effect of ordering the previous question is to close debate and immediately move to a vote on the pending matter, in this case a vote on the rule setting the terms for considering the amendments to the Small Business Act.

The motion was approved on a vote of 244-175 along almost straight party lines. All two hundred and forty-four ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. All one hundred and seventy-two Republicans, joined by three other Democrats, voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to a vote on the rule for the bill amending the Small Business Act to expanded access to business counseling, training and networking.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
Y Y Won
Roll Call 273
May 20, 2009
(H, Res. 456) Legislation designed to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of consumer credit - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? establishing terms for consideration of the bill designed to establish fair and transparent consumer credit practices. The House had previously passed a version of the bill and sent it to the Senate, which had amended it. Under House procedures, the House first had to agree to this rule before it could consider whether to accept the Senate version. Under the terms of the proposed rule, no Member could offer an amendment to the bill.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule noted that Americans hold nearly $1 trillion of credit card debt and that there have been many recent reports of ?the deceptive practices of credit card companies?. She argued that ?(C)redit cards have gone from being a luxury to . . . being a necessity? and noted that ?(F)amily and consumer groups have highlighted the more than 91 million United States families who are subject to unfair interest rate hikes and being taken advantage of by hidden penalties and fees.?

Pingree went on explain the need for the legislation by saying that credit card agreements used to be ?reasonably straightforward and fair . . . (but) all that has changed. Credit card agreements are a tangle of fine print with complicated provisions that almost seem designed to keep the cardholder in debt forever. Everywhere you turn, it seems the credit card companies have dreamed up a new fee or another clever scheme to raise your interest rate. Basic fairness has been replaced by deception and greed.    These days using a credit card is like going to a Las Vegas casino. No matter how clever or responsible you are, nine times out of ten, you are going to lose, and the company is going to win. Managing your finances shouldn't be a gamble. The deck shouldn't be stacked against you.?  Pingree concluded by claiming that ?this bill will bring back basic fairness to the credit card industry and level the playing field for Americans to take responsibility for their finances.?

Rep. Sessions (R-TX), who was leading the Republican opposition to the rule, referenced the fact that it would not permit Members to offer individual amendments during House consideration. He said that this limitation does not allow for ?the open and honest debate that has been promised time and time again by my Democrat colleagues.? Sessions said he also opposed the bill itself because it ?is yet another example of the federal government overstepping its boundaries into the private marketplace.? Sessions added that it reflects the view that Congress needs ?to regulate every sector of the economy?.

Sessions also argued against the bill because the Federal Reserve had recently approved passed new credit card rules, effective in 2010 that, he said, ?would protect consumers and provide for more transparency and accountability in our credit market. He added that he opposed the Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights because it ?allows for the Federal Government to micromanage the way the credit card and the banking industry does its business. If enacted into law, it is not credit card companies that will suffer. It will be everyone that has a credit card . . . Every American will see an increase in their interest rates. And some of the current benefits that encourage responsible lending will most likely disappear, for example, cash advances and over-the-limit protection. ?

The resolution passed by a vote of 247-180.Two hundred and forty-five Democrats and two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-four Republicans and six Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debate on the bill to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of consumer credit.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 265
May 14, 2009
(H.R. 2346) On passage of the bill providing additional fiscal year 2009 funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of the 2009 bill providing additional fiscal year 2009 funding for the ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rep. Obey (D-WI), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee and led the support for the legislation, limited his argument to the following sentence: ?we have a new President who has inherited a war he is trying to end. This bill tries to help him do that. We have no real alternative but to support it.? Rep. Lewis (R-CA), who was leading the Republicans in the debate on this measure, urged an ?aye? vote because ?the (bill) provides the necessary resources for our soldiers and civilians to wage a successful battle on multiple fronts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.?

Lewis then went on to criticize the fact that ?(H)ouse Members were initially led to believe that this legislation would be kept at the President's original level of $84 billion to fund only the critical needs of the global war on terrorism. As presented today, however, this legislation has grown to $96.7 billion . . . .?

A number of the most progressive House Members expressed reservations about, or outright opposition to, the additional funding. Rep. Honda (D-CA) first said he recognized ?that our new (Obama) administration believes that this supplemental (funding) is a necessary carryover from the previous administration, but I cannot support the continuation of the Bush Administration's failed modus operandi in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, and the mis-proportioned 90-10 doctrine of assistance allocation--that is, 90 percent for military investments and only 10 percent for political, economic, and social development. . . .?

Rep. Conyers (D-MI) said he opposed the measure because he did not believe that the United States ?has a duty to determine the fate of nations in the greater Middle East.? Conyers added: ?I believe the policies of empire are counterproductive in our struggle against the forces of radical religious extremism . . . If it is our goal to strengthen the average Afghani or Pakistani citizen and to weaken the radicals that threaten stability in the region, bombing villages is clearly counterproductive. For every family broken apart by an incident of ?collateral damage,? seeds of hate and enmity are sown against our nation.? Conyers concluded his remarks by saying that ?this vote is a referendum on our means, not on our goals in the region or our commitment to defeating those who would wish us harm.?

Rep. Nadler (D-NY) noted that he supported the bill ?reluctantly?, and expressed the views of many progressive House Members when he said that he ?will not support an open-ended long term commitment in Afghanistan. I am concerned that the goals may very well be too ambitious, too vague, and too costly--in lives and treasure--for our country. I will continue to monitor the situation closely, and I will oppose funding for unrealistic mission creep.?

The bill passed on a vote of 368-60.Two hundred Democrats and one hundred and sixty-eight Republicans voted ?aye?. Fifty-one Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent to the Senate the bill providing additional fiscal year 2009 funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 264
May 14, 2009
(H.R. 2346) The 2009 fiscal year supplemental spending bill which contained funding for the ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions to restore $3 billion for Pakistan counterinsurgency efforts and $200 million for combating drug imports from Mexico

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2346, the 2009 fiscal year supplemental spending bill, contained funding for the ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was a vote on a motion to recommit (send back) the bill to committee with instructions to add language providing for changes in parts of the bill. The additional language was designed to restore $3 billion in overall defense spending, to move the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Program funding from the State Department budget to the Defense Department budget, and to shift $200 million to law enforcement operations in the efforts against Mexican drug importers.

Rep. Rogers (R-KY), who made the motion said that the language he proposed be added to the appropriations bill ?will keep up our military assistance to Pakistan's counterterrorism fight, prevents a cut in the current year's (worldwide) troop support, and shifts a small part of the bill's increase in foreign aid to keeping the Mexican drug cartels out of American cities.? Rogers argued that, although ?State does great diplomatic work . . . counterinsurgency is not the State Department's forte . . . the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Funding is not a diplomatic tool; it's a military tool designed for aiding what is arguably one of the most important military counterinsurgency efforts in history. The Secretary of Defense has been clear that he does not feel the State Department currently has the capacity or ability to administer this counterinsurgency program.?

Referring to the reason he was proposing an additional $200 million to the Mexican drug war efforts, Rogers said ?this bill fails to include one red cent for the vital work of our law enforcement agencies fighting the cartels along our border with Mexico . . . More than 90 percent of the cocaine comes to us through Mexico, disbursed through a distribution network that touches virtually every major city in our country, not to mention methamphetamines and the other dangerous drugs.?

Rep. Obey (D-WI), who chairs the Appropriations Committee, opposed the motion. Obey said ?we have heard many a lecture from the other side of the aisle about spending levels, but this proposal would add $3 billion to the spending levels in this bill . . . (and) it eliminates the Pakistani counterinsurgency fund for next year, which has already been endorsed by (Defense) Secretary Gates.? Obey also noted that the bill already contained $400 million in direct aid to Mexico. He added that the massive economic stimulus bill, which the House had recently passed and which every Republican opposed, ?provided an over $700 million increase to deal with our border problems.?

Rep. Murtha (D-PA), who chairs the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, also opposed the motion, primarily on procedural grounds. He said that the Democrats and Republicans on the committee ?made a deal and the White House endorsed our deal. They didn't like what we did, but they endorsed our deal. . . And what you are doing is fighting this thing all over again, the same way you tried to do it in the full committee . . . I don't appreciate the fact we make a deal and then we turn around here and (you) try to change that deal.?

The vote failed on a vote of 191-237. One hundred and seventy-four Republicans and seventeen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-three Democrats and four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the changes proposed by the motion were not added, and the House moved to vote on passage of the fiscal year 2009 supplemental spending bill containing funding for the ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL War on Drugs
WAR & PEACE US Intervention in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan
N N Won
Roll Call 262
May 14, 2009
(H.Res. 434) The bill to provide additional fiscal year 2009 funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - - on agreeing to the rule setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill providing additional fiscal year 2009 funding for the ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rule allowed the Appropriations Committee to offer a major amendment to the bill, but did not allow for Members to offer individual amendments. Although there was general bipartisan support for the additional funding, the Republican minority opposed the rule setting the terms for considering the bill, because it did not allow for any individual amendments to be offered.

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) expressed the position of the Republican minority when he said ?the Democratic leadership has done a less than perfect job in dealing with the request for bipartisanship, shutting out Republicans and injecting a greater and greater amount of partisanship into the legislative process. There are some key improvements that I believe need to be made. Unfortunately, the rule that we are considering today prevents any amendments from being considered. Even amidst this great bipartisan effort, the Democratic leadership has chosen to tarnish the outcome by refusing to allow debate on a number of key issues.?

The leading issue on which the Republicans wanted to offer amendments related to the closing of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Rep. Boehner (R-OH), the House Minority Leader, said he opposed the rule because he wanted the House to have ?a fair and open debate on (the Guantanamo) issue and (give) Members the opportunity to allow the House to work its will . . . .? Rep. Rogers (R-KY) noted other issues on which he thought the bill providing additional 2009 funding should have focused, including drug enforcement. He urged a ?no? vote on the rule, after which, he argued, ?we can be allowed to bring these matters to this bill.?

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, did not respond directly to the arguments of the Republicans. He did claim that the amendment prepared by the Appropriations Committee, which the rule made in order to be offered, was drafted ?in the spirit of bipartisanship?.

The resolution passed by a vote of 240-188. All two hundred and forty ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One hundred and seventy-eight Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debate on the bill providing additional fiscal year 2009 funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
Y Y Won
Roll Call 261
May 14, 2009
(H.Res. 434) The bill to provide additional fiscal year 2009 funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill to provide additional fiscal year 2009 funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rule allowed the Appropriations Committee, which had developed the bill, to offer a major amendment to it, but did not allow Members to offer individual amendments. Although there was general bipartisan support for the additional funding, the Republican minority opposed the rule setting the terms for considering the bill, because it did not allow for any individual amendments to be offered. It also opposed the motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule.

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) expressed the position of the Republican minority when he said ?the Democratic leadership has done a less than perfect job in dealing with the request for bipartisanship, shutting out Republicans and injecting a greater and greater amount of partisanship into the legislative process. There are some key improvements that I believe need to be made. Unfortunately, the rule that we are considering today prevents any amendments from being considered. Even amidst this great bipartisan effort, the Democratic leadership has chosen to tarnish the outcome by refusing to allow debate on a number of key issues.?

Referring to this vote, Dreier said ?the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan.?

The leading issue on which the Republicans wanted to offer amendments related to the closing of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Rep. Boehner (R-OH), the House Minority Leader, encouraged Members to vote ??no?? on the motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule, so that the House could have what he termed ?a fair and open debate on (the Guantanamo) issue and (give) Members the opportunity to allow the House to work its will . . . .? Rep. Rogers (R-KY) noted other issues on which he thought the supplemental appropriations should have focused, including drug enforcement. He urged a ?no? vote on the motion, after which, he argued, ?we can be allowed to bring these matters to this bill.?

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule and for moving to an immediate vote on it, did not respond directly to the arguments of the Republicans. He did claim that the amendment prepared by the Appropriations Committee, which the rule made in order to be offered, was drafted ?in the spirit of bipartisanship?.

The motion passed by a vote of 240-188. All two hundred and forty ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One hundred and seventy-eight Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the bill providing additional fiscal year 2009 funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
Y Y Won
Roll Call 260
May 14, 2009
(H.R. 2187) On the Kline of Minnesota amendment to change the title of the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act to ??A bill to saddle future generations with billions in debt?

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, authorized $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities. This was a vote to change the title of the Act to read: ??A bill to saddle future generations with billions in debt, and for other purposes.??

Rep. Kline (R-MN) offered the amendment. The majority of Republicans shared the view, reflected in the wording of the proposed title change, that the legislation created a costly program the federal government could not afford. During the debate on the bill, Rep. Castle (R-DE) had said ?if we start this program, you are going to see an increase in requests for school construction that is going to blow everything out of the water. . . And that says nothing about the overall deficit of our country.? Rep. Dreier (R-CA), had summarized the Republican view when he argued ?the federal government can?t do absolutely everything.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), one of those leading the support for the measure, had responded to the Republican arguments that the deficit was too large to start a new program by noting that the Republican Bush Administration ?left office with $1 trillion in deficits, when they entered office with $5 trillion in surplus . . . .? Rep. Andrews (D-NJ), who also supported the measure, had argued that the Republicans were ?8 years too late? to talk about the deficit. He asked ?where was the (spending) trigger before they enacted the reckless tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country? Where was the trigger before they enacted the disastrous Medicare part D program and plunged us further in deficit? And where was the trigger before they poured over $1 trillion into a mismanaged war in Iraq??

The amendment failed on a vote of 149-257. All one hundred and forty-nine ?aye? votes were cast by Republicans. Two hundred and thirty-two Democrats and twenty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the title of the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act was not changed.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Won
Roll Call 259
May 14, 2009
(H.R. 2187) On passage of the bill authorizing $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, which authorized $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities. Rep. Polis (D-CO), a supporter of the legislation, had argued in favor of it by saying that ?an excellent education . . . (can) only be achieved . . . in safe schools and productive learning environments equipped with the resources required to succeed. Anything else is increasingly unacceptable in the 21st century.  Unfortunately, as a Nation, we are unable to meet this basic standard. According to the American Federation of Teachers, our schools fall short of being in good condition by an estimated $255 billion. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave our Nation's schools a D on the national infrastructure report card.? 

Polis also argued that: (B)y making schools more energy efficient and less reliant on fossil fuels, the bill will also help reduce the emissions that contribute to global warming, as well as cut energy costs, saving operational money for schools and local governments.

The majority of Republicans expressed concern about the new program because they believed that school construction should remain a state and local responsibility and, as Rep. Castle (R-DE) said: ?(T)he Federal Government has assigned roles dealing with certain things that we already do that we are not really living up to as fully as we should . . . if we start this program, you are going to see an increase in requests for school construction that is going to blow everything out of the water. . . I can't imagine anyone who would be opposed to it conceptually. But can we afford to add another education program that's going to be underfunded? And that says nothing about the overall deficit of our country.?

Rep. Thompson (R-PA) had attempted during consideration of the bill to have language added , which would have prevented it from becoming effective until the deficit was below $500 billion, claiming that the government could not afford to move into this new area. Thompson had made the point that ?our deficit has never exceeded $500 billion, that is until this year in which we're facing a deficit of $1.84 trillion. . . .? 

The bill passed by a vote of 275-155. Two hundred and fifty-one Democrats and twenty-four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-four Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
Y Y Won
Roll Call 258
May 14, 2009
(H.R. 2187) A bill authorizing $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities - - on the motion to allow the bill to take effect only so long as the federal deficit is below $500 billion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Thompson (R-PA) to add language to a bill, authorizing new school construction, modernization and ?greening? grants, which said the bill could only take effect if the federal deficit were below $500 billion.

Thompson, in his explanation of the amendment, said: ?(W)e're not cutting the bill. We're not damaging the schools. We're not doing any of the other things that the majority would surely accuse us of. We're keeping this bill exactly as it is now. The only difference is that when our nation's deficit exceeds $500 billion, we will not authorize the funding for this particular new program.  Half a trillion dollars is an awfully high bar. In fact, the entire time George W. Bush was President--in fact, the entire history of our great nation, our deficit has never exceeded $500 billion, that is until this year in which we're facing a deficit of $1.84 trillion . . . This motion. . .  ensures that this new program will wait until we can afford it.?  .

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) supported the motion to add the additional language. He had expressed the view of many Republicans during the debate on the legislation when he said that ?the federal government can?t do absolutely everything.? Dreier anticipated an argument would be made that those not supportive of the immediate implementation of the measure did not favor improved schools, and characterized that argument as ?absolute lunacy.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), one of those leading the support for the measure, opposed the motion to add the additional language. He argued: ?(W)e have an attempt to kill this (legislation) based upon a deficit from a party that gave us and left office with $1 trillion in deficits, when they entered office with $5 trillion in surplus . . . The all-time world champions of deficits now want to suggest to you that you should put your schools at the end of the line of the deficit that they created.? Rep. Andrews (D-NJ) added: ?(I)f the minority wants to be sure there's a trigger before you can do something, where was the trigger before they enacted the reckless tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country? Where was the trigger before they enacted the disastrous Medicare part D program and plunged us further in deficit? And where was the trigger before they poured over $1 trillion into a mismanaged war in Iraq? This amendment is 8 years too late.?

The motion failed by a vote of 182-247. One hundred and seventy-six Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and one Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, the additional language was not added to the legislation, and the House moved to a vote on passage of the bill.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Won
Roll Call 255
May 14, 2009
( H.R. 2187) On the Giffords of Arizona amendment to encourage schools receiving funds for projects under the Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act to educate their students about the projects

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, authorized $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities. This was a vote on an amendment to H.R.2187 that would encourage schools receiving funds for projects under this Act to educate their students about the projects that the schools have undertaken. This included both how the projects function as well as the environmental, energy, and sustainability benefits.

Rep. Giffords, speaking in support of her amendment, said it would encourage schools receiving funds to educate their students about the projects that they have undertaken. This would include both how the projects function as well as the environmental, energy, and sustainability benefits. She said it would also provide an opportunity to teach students about how to use natural resources in terms of the way it affects the world economically, environmentally, and geopolitically. Giffords also argued that it will expose students to new technologies and show them how they can solve problems through creativity and innovation. She said: ?(W)e live in an increasingly technological world; we must take every opportunity to inspire our kids and equip them with the skills that they're going to need for 21st-century problems.

Rep. McKeon (R-CA), who was managing the bill for the Republicans, first noted that there was some disagreement about whether funding school construction is a proper role of the federal government; but, referring to the amendment, he said ?it's difficult to argue that any such program should not contain an educational component? and noted that he would support it and ask his Republican colleagues to support the amendment.

Most Republican House Members objected to any federal activity they considered ?interference? in local school decisions. This general opposition led the majority of Republicans to oppose the Giffords amendment. They believed that the amendment tied a recommendation of what should be taught in the schools to federal assistance in funding school construction and renovation.

The amendment passed by a vote of 334-97. Two hundred and fifty-four Democrats and eighty Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety-six Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act to encourage schools receiving funds for projects under the Act to educate their students about those projects.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
Y Y Won
Roll Call 249
May 13, 2009
( H.R. 2187) On the Titus of Nevada amendment to establish a council to advise the Secretary of Education on green high-performing schools

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R.2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, authorized $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities. Rep. Polis (D-CO), a supporter of the Act, described the need for the legislation by saying that ?an excellent education . . . (can) only be achieved . . . in safe schools and productive learning environments equipped with the resources required to succeed. Anything else is increasingly unacceptable in the 21st century.?

The was a vote on an amendment to H.R. 2187, offered by Rep. Titus (D-NV), to establish a council to advise the Secretary of Education on green high-performing schools. Specifically, the council would advise on the impact of such schools on teaching and learning, health, energy costs, and environmental impacts. The council would also work with the Secretary to identify Federal policies that are barriers to helping states make schools green and high performing, and to recommend federal policies to increase the number of such schools. Additionally, the council would provide technical assistance to states and school districts.

Rep. Titus, speaking in support of the amendment she co-authored, claimed that it would provide the Secretary of Education with the tools needed ?to ensure the opportunities outlined in this important bill are available to as many schools as possible. It will also ensure that the upgrades made to school facilities meet the highest standards of quality and that the Secretary is always getting feedback about how to improve the program.? She said the council ?will help with coordination, efficiency, best practices and accountability.?

Rep. Markey (D-CO), the other author of the amendment, said it would help the Education Secretary ?evaluate the benefits of these greener schools and identify the roadblocks schools face in achieving (those benefits).?

Rep. McKeon (R-CA) opposed the amendment, saying it ?makes the government even bigger than it already is (and) expands the Federal Government's role in school construction to unprecedented levels.? McKeon added: ?(T)he Federal Government is big enough? and creating this new council ?will only serve to expand and cement Federal interference in how school facilities are maintained. . . The States and the local districts (should) take the lead (in school construction)? with the federal government offering ?limited but helpful support.?

McKeon also argued that the establishment of this council would be another case of the federal government ?steadily consuming more taxpayer dollars and slowly taking control--actually not slowly, it's been quite rapidly in the last few months--over what used to be State or local decisions. Adding an advisory council for green schools does not help. In fact, it makes the problems worse.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 270-160. Two hundred and fifty-one Democrats and nineteen Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-eight Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language establishing an advisory council was added to the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
Y Y Won
Roll Call 246
May 13, 2009
(H. Res. 427) A bill authorizing $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate on the bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, authorized $6.4 billion in new grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, repair, modernization and ?greening? of public educational facilities. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of H.R. 2187. Those terms included specifying which amendments could be offered during considering of the measure.

Rep. Polis (D-CO), a supporter of the rule and the legislation to which it related, began his remarks by saying that ?an excellent education . . . (can) only be achieved . . . in safe schools and productive learning environments equipped with the resources required to succeed. Anything else is increasingly unacceptable in the 21st century.   Unfortunately, as a Nation, we are unable to meet this basic standard. According to the American Federation of Teachers, our schools fall short of being in good condition by an estimated $255 billion. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave our Nation's schools a D on the national infrastructure report card.? 

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), speaking for the Republican minority, began by agreeing that America?s public schools ?are increasingly overcrowded, unsafe, and obsolete, detracting from student performance.? He then turned to criticizing the Democratic majority for how it was handling the rule for consideration of this and other legislation.

Diaz-Balart said that the Democrats had promised ?they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. . . However, that promise has yet to come to fruition . . .  A prime example of how they have consistently stymied openness and bipartisanship can be seen by looking at the virtual absolute lack of open rules that they have allowed since they took control of the House of Representatives in 2006. In nearly 2 1/2 years, the majority has allowed one open rule--and that was over 2 years ago . . . Now it is time that the majority lives up to its campaign promise and allows an open debate process.? An open rule is one that allows any Member to offer an amendment.

Rep. Hall (D-NY) responded by noting that Diaz-Balart had cited the 2009 appropriations bill as an example of legislation on which the deliberation ?was somehow closed . . . .? Hall claimed that it was agreed to ?in committee and subcommittee and through the normal appropriations process, but there were hundreds, if not thousands, of special appropriations or earmarks that . . . were asked for and granted to Republican Members of Congress.?

Diaz-Balart responded to Hall that he ?was talking about the process that does not permit amendments on the floor. . . The fact that there were earmarks in the bill is a separate debate.? Diaz-Balart also argued that it seemed illogical to restrict amendments on this piece of legislation, which he suggested had some Republican backing. Rep. Kirk (R-IL), supporting Diaz-Balart, said he wanted to offer what he termed ?a bipartisan amendment? that would increase the facilities eligible for grants authorized by the Act, but was unable to do so under the restrictive terms of the rule. Kirk said he wanted ?to ask the majority, What are you afraid of? You have a 78-seat majority in the House of Representatives, but you are afraid that amendments may carry.? Rep. Polis responded to Kirk by noting that 14 of the 34 amendments proposed by Members had been made in order to be offered under the rule.

The resolution passed by a vote of 248-175 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-three Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the rule was approved and the House was able to move to consider the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
Y Y Won
Roll Call 245
May 12, 2009

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: H RES 378 Recognizing the 30th anniversary of the election of Margaret Thatcher as the first female Prime Minister of Great Britain
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 243
May 12, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 242
May 07, 2009
(H.R. 1729) On passage of legislation was designed to help ensure that lenders only make loans that borrowers will be able to repay

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on House passage of H.R, 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act. That legislation was designed to help ensure that lenders only make loans that borrowers will be able to repay. The House Financial Services Committee, which developed the bill, said the legislation would ?curb lending that had been a major factor in the highest home foreclosure rate in the nation in 25 years . . . It would establish a simple standard for all home loans: institutions must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold.? The bill was being opposed by the Mortgage Bankers Association.

Rep. Cardoza (D-CA) began his statement in support of the bill by noting: ?(M)any economists have correctly stated that the foreclosure crisis is the root of our economic meltdown, and . . . until the housing market is stabilized, the economy will continue to worsen . . .  .? He said that a similar mortgage crisis must never be permitted again and ?(T)he (Act) is one more step in that direction.?

Cardoza argued that ?the foreclosure crisis can be traced back to the rapid increase in subprime mortgages and risky underwriting practices, most of which were made with no Federal supervision,? and that borrowers ?were lured into low ?teaser? introductory interest rates which morphed into loans which they had little chance of repaying once rates increased, starting the uptick in the foreclosure market.  H.R. 1728 is aimed at preventing these predatory practices in the future.?

Rep. Manzullo, speaking in opposition, claimed that the additional costs for such things as appraisals necessitated by the bill would cost the mortgage banking industry nearly three billion dollars. He said this would be translated into additional ?hidden costs? of $700 per loan to future borrowers.

Rep. Sessions (R-TX), also speaking in opposition, said the legislation ?limits choice, reduces credit, and increases costs . . . at a time when the effort should be about making home mortgages more reliable, (and) . . . making sure that consumers would be able to have an opportunity to have a chance to have a home.? He also criticized an authorization in the bill to support law suits against violating lenders as ?a $140 million slush fund for trial lawyers.?  Sessions cited a statement by the head of the National Consumer Law Center, which he said supports the notion that establishing the fund is effectively ?paying lawyers to come and do what we should do here in this body with thoughtful, honest, straightforward legislation.?

The bill passed by a vote of 300-114. Two hundred and forty Democrats and sixty Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and eleven Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?.  As a result, the House passed and sent to the Senate the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 241
May 07, 2009
On the McHenry of North Carolina amendment to exempt ?high-cost mortgage loans? from the coverage of the bill designed to help ensure that lenders only make loans that borrowers will be able to repay

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. McHenry (R-NC)  to delete the provisions in the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act that applied its regulations to ?high-cost mortgage loans.? High cost mortgages are loans with high fees, which are taken out by buyers with less than perfect credit. Those loans are also covered by separate legislation passed in 2002, and by regulations issued by the Federal Reserve.

Rep. McHenry said the provisions in the bill covering high-cost loans should be deleted because placing those loans under the Act?s additional regulations would effectively eliminate the possibility that the loans could be offered, even though ?they may be a reasonable option for a number of consumers.? McHenry went on to argue that ?(M)embers need to ask themselves, if the marketplace for mortgages is going to become so heavily regulated, further regulated with so many new protections included in the rest of this bill, then why in the world do we need (the additional provisions covering high cost loans)??  He referenced congressional testimony from the Massachusetts Bank Supervisor in which the supervisor expressed concern that expanding the number of high cost loans covered by the Act ?will result in much fewer loans being made.?

Rep. Miller (D-NC), a leading sponsor of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, opposed the amendment. He referenced McHenry?s statement during the debate that ?the bill will have the effect of outlawing certain kinds of loans and limiting choices?, and said: ?( Y)es, we do intend to limit choices. The (supporters of the McHenry Amendment) say they would defend to the death the right of consumers to choose to get cheated blind, to get cheated out of their income, to get cheated out of their life savings. And we want to limit that choice because we don't think that consumers really choose that. When someone needs to borrow money to buy a house . . . they shouldn't have to swim in waters filled with fins. There should be some protections.?

Miller went on to note that, in 1999, North Carolina passed legislation much like the provisions the McHenry Amendment sought to delete, and ?a study at the University of North Carolina . . . found there was no diminution in the availability or terms of mortgage credit in North Carolina.  Did people make fewer loans like this? Yes. That was the whole point; they got better loans.?

The amendment failed by a vote of 171-255, along almost straight party lines. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and two Democrats voted ?aye?.  Two hundred and fifty-one Democrats and four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, high cost mortgage loans were not exempted from the coverage of the Act.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Won
Roll Call 240
May 07, 2009
(H.R. 1728) On the Price of Georgia amendment that would have required the Federal Reserve Board to certify that legislation, designed to help ensure that lenders only make loans borrowers will be able to repay, will not reduce the availability or increase the price of credit for qualified mortgages.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment to H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, offered by Rep. Price (R-GA). The amenedment would have required the Federal Reserve Board to certify that the legislation will not reduce the availability or increase the price of credit for qualified mortgages.

Price said that the purpose of the amendment was to ?protect responsible borrowers.? He said it would do this by ensuring ?that prime borrowers will not be punished with increased rates.?  Price noted that, when the Federal Reserve testified on the impact of H.R. 1728, it ?had reservations regarding the impact of this bill on access to credit. In fact, they felt that there was a significant possibility that the adoption of this bill would actually decrease the availability of credit.?

Price said there was concern that the legislation would cause it ?to become more difficult for qualified borrowers to have access to affordable credit. So if the proponents of this bill don't believe it will restrict credit or raise the cost on borrowers, then they shouldn't have any trouble voting for this amendment. The amendment simply stipulates that the Federal Reserve will certify that that would be the case.   But if they don't think that the bill will pass this review from the Federal Reserve with flying colors, then I think it would be time for them to reconsider whether or not this legislation is what we need at this time.?

Rep. Frank (D-MA), who chairs the Financial Services Committee, which developed the legislation, opposed the amendment. He said he was surprised ?at the back-and-forth attitude some of my most conservative colleagues have toward the Federal Reserve System. On the one hand, there has been a great deal of concern, which I share, about the unlimited power of the Federal Reserve in some areas. But time and again we are being told, as in this amendment, we should yield to the Federal Reserve our constitutional power to legislate.?  Frank said he had confidence in Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, but opposes ?the notion that we would cede to the Federal Reserve the power to enact legislation . . . ?, since the Fed is not ?the constitutional equal of the Congress of the United States.?

Price responded by noting ?that the Federal Reserve has jurisdiction over this area. In fact, the Federal Reserve has put forward particular rules regarding mortgages. And, in fact, many of them address the very issues that are being addressed in this bill today.? He went on to say the question is: ?(A)re we as a Congress going to increase the availability of credit and decrease the cost? Or are we going to simply decrease the availability of credit and, therefore, decrease the ability of the American people to realize their dream?? Frank answered that there was general agreement that credit need to be increased, but that it had to be increased ?in a reasonable way.?

The amendment failed on a vote of 167-259. One hundred and sixty-three Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?.  Two hundred and forty-nine Democrats and ten Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no requirement was added to the bill designed to help ensure that lenders only make loans that borrowers will be able to repay requiring the Federal Reserve Board certify that the legislation would not reduce the availability or increase the price of mortgage credit.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Won
Roll Call 239
May 07, 2009
(H.R. 1728)On the Hensarling of Texas amendment that would have deleted the provisions in the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act that make those who either purchase mortgages after they are originated, or package them into securities, liable for deceptive practices engaged in during the original marketing of the mortgage loan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. This was a vote on an amendment, offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX), to H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, The amendment would have deleted the provisions in the legislation that make those who either purchase mortgages after they are originated, or package them into securities, liable for deceptive practices engaged in during the original marketing of the mortgage loan. H.R. 1728 was designed to help ensure that lenders only make loans that borrowers will be able to repay. The report of the House Financial Services Committee, in which the bill was developed, said the legislation would ?curb lending that had been a major factor in the highest home foreclosure rate in the nation in 25 years . . . It would establish a simple standard for all home loans: institutions must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold.?

Rep. Hensarling began his remarks in support of his amendment by agreeing that there is a need for what he termed ?effective policing of fraud and misrepresentation? in the origination of mortgages. He went on to present arguments as to why H.R. 1728 does not go about meeting that need. Hensarling said ?one particularly bad and onerous aspect of this legislation is something called assignee liability. What this means is that once the mortgage is entered into, that those who securitize the mortgage, those who may invest in the mortgage, that all of a sudden new legal liability will attach to them as well.? He also complained that the bill introduces this new legal liability if it is shown that the loan was extended without giving the borrower a ?net tangible benefit'', but does not make clear what that term means.

Hensarling also made the point that borrowers who take out loans they cannot repay should also bear some personal responsibility. He further argued that, although the bill also penalizes lenders giving loans to borrowers who do not have a ?reasonable ability to pay?, it does not make clear what standard means. Hensarling concluded that the bill ?is a plaintiff's lawyer's dream, and so we will have an explosion of liability exposure.?

Rep.Watt (D-NC) opposed the amendment. He argued that it is not enough just to provide formal disclosure rules, without also penalizing those who engage in fraudulent practices or extend loans they know cannot be repaid. Watt argued that ?everybody who is in default now got full disclosures of what the terms of their loans were. And they were ineffective to prevent the kind of predatory lending and policies that this bill addresses.? He said current disclosure law ?is not enough to protect (borrowers) any more than disclosure that a doctor may not be the best doctor in America is going to stop people from going to the doctor.?

Hensarling responded that the impact of the restrictions in the bill, which his amendment sought to remove, is to hurt potential borrowers who ?still ought to have an opportunity to realize their American Dream, and we ought to quit protecting them out of their homes.? Watt answered that, in developing the bill, the Financial Services Committee ?walked a delicate balance between protecting consumers and protecting the availability of funds.? He went on to say that ?the balance that (Rep. Hensarling) would have us address in his amendment would say ?no assignee or securitizer of a residential mortgage loan shall be liable under this subsection.? Watt claimed the result would be lenders continuing to make inappropriate loans and assigning or selling them to companies that buy the loans because they do not have any liability for the fraudulent practices.

The amendment failed on a vote of 171-252. One hundred and sixty-seven Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?.  Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the amendment was defeated and the language creating liability for assignees and securitizers of loans originated using fraudulent practices was retained in the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Won
Roll Call 238
May 07, 2009
(H.R. 1728) Frank of Massachusetts amendment eliminating language in the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act prohibiting housing counseling funds being awarded to any organization in which an employee had been indicted for Federal election or voter fraud

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment to the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, offered by Rep. Frank (D-MA). The amendment eliminated language in the bill that prohibited housing counseling funds from being awarded to any organization in which an employee had been indicted for Federal election or voter fraud. Frank said the targeted language had erroneously been inserted because there was no recognition that it penalized an organization that had been ?indicted?, but not convicted. He noted that the change would ?vindicate an important principle of American law that indictment should not be a cause of serious penalty, that people should continue to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.?

Rep. Bachmann (R-MN) opposed the amendment because it ?strips down language in the bill designed to keep tax dollars from falling into the hands of organizations indicted for voter fraud or its related crimes.? She referred to a specific organization that both represents mortgage borrowers and also has had accusations of voter fraud made against it and said: (T)he stories of their indictments for voter fraud for violating their tax status for voter registration improprieties abound. Grand juries across the Nation have found them and their employees lacking. Yet we continue to funnel millions of dollars to their coffers. . . Can't this body do something about this? How many felony charges does it take . . . ? Congress isn't the arbitrator of guilt or innocence. Congress does decide to spend the people's money.? She disagreed with Rep. Frank that the amendment was about due process and said it was really ?about our duty as stewards of the taxpayers' dollar . . . .?

Rep. Frank responded by first noting that, under the bill, conviction, rather than indictment, would prevent an organization from receiving housing counseling funds. He went on to argue that, without the amendment, ?a single indictment of any individual by any prosecutor for any organization anywhere in America? would prevent it from receiving these funds and ?(I) think we have seen enough of prosecutorial misconduct (and) I want to now repudiate the notion that the action of a single prosecutor who may be politically motivated to indict anybody anywhere for election fraud, disables that organization . . . .?

The Frank Amendment was approved by a vote of 246-176, along almost straight party lines. All 245 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats.  Four other Democrats and one hundred and seventy-two Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the amendment passed and the language preventing any organization that was indicted for voter fraud from receiving funds under the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act was eliminated.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 237
May 07, 2009
(H.Res. 406) A bill to help ensure that lenders only make loans that borrowers will be able to repay - - on a resolution setting the terms for continued consideration of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, was designed to help ensure that lenders only make loans that borrowers will be able to repay. The House Financial Services Committee, which developed the bill, said the legislation would ?curb lending that had been a major factor in the highest home foreclosure rate in the nation in 25 years . . . (and) establish a simple standard for all home loans: institutions must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold.? This was a vote on a resolution or ?rule? allowing the House to resume its consideration of the bill, and to permit fourteen amendments to be offered to it. Five of those fourteen would be offered by members of the Republican minority.

Rep. Cardoza (D-CA) began his statement in support by noting: ?(M)any economists have correctly stated that the foreclosure crisis is the root of our economic meltdown, and . . . until the housing market is stabilized, the economy will continue to worsen . . .  .? He said that a similar mortgage crisis must never be permitted again and ?(T)he (H.R. 1728) is one more step in that direction.?

Cardoza argued that ?the foreclosure crisis can be traced back to the rapid increase in subprime mortgages and risky underwriting practices, most of which were made with no Federal supervision,? and that borrowers ?were lured into low ?teaser? introductory interest rates which morphed into loans which they had little chance of repaying once rates increased, starting the uptick in the foreclosure market.  H.R. 1728 is aimed at preventing these predatory practices in the future.?

Rep. Manzullo (R-IL), speaking in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, claimed that the additional costs for such things as appraisals necessitated by the bill would cost the mortgage banking industry nearly three billion dollars. He said this would be translated into additional ?hidden costs? of $700 per loan to future borrowers. Manzullo argued noted that an amendment he had that would overcome much of this problem was not included among the fourteen amendments that would be made in order by a ?yes? vote on the question of providing for further consideration of H.R. 1728. 

Rep. Sessions (R-TX), also speaking in opposition, claimed that not making in order amendments that Republican members wanted to offer prevents ?the open, honest debate that has been promised by my Democrat colleagues time and time again.?

The resolution was approved by a vote of 247-174, along almost straight party lines. All 247 ?ayes? votes were cast by Democrats.  One other Democrat and one hundred and seventy-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to resume its deliberations of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act and consider fourteen designated amendments to it.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 227
Apr 30, 2009
(H.R. 627) A bill to give credit card holders additional rights and to limit the conditions under which credit card issuers could raise interest rates - - on a motion to send the bill back to committee and add language requiring the Federal Reserve Board to study whether the legislation would have an adverse impact on small business

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 627 gave credit card holders additional rights and limited the conditions under which credit card issuers could raise interest rates. This was a vote on a motion to recommit (send back) the bill to committee, and add language requiring the Federal Reserve Board to study whether the legislation would have an adverse impact on small business.

Rep. Roskam (R-IL), who made the motion, said he wanted to ?make sure we are not having an impact on the small person.? He also said that he wanted Congress to press the ?pause button? on the credit card issue, because Congress had recently taken several hasty actions that ?have been presented in one way and . . .  turned out very differently.? Among the examples he gave were what he termed the ?drumbeat? during the ?bailout debate? the previous year.

Roskam said he was comparing this credit card reform legislation to the bailout bill ?because they are indicators of mischaracterizations of things.? He argued that Congress should be reluctant to move forward because this credit card reform bill may harm small business, which he termed ?the biggest job creators in our economy?. He added that, if the bill does have an adverse impact on small business, ?then we have failed.?

Gutierrez (D-IL), a leading supporter of H.R. 627, responded to Roskam?s argument by noting ?(T)he small business community has already spoken on this issue.?  He pointed to the endorsement of the legislation by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which is the most active political organization operating on behalf of small businesses. Gutierrez claimed that these endorsements remove the rationale Roskam put forward for his motion to recommit with instructions to add language.

Gutierrez also claimed that ?the same Federal Reserve Board which the minority wishes to . . . (do) a study, has already spoken.? He pointed to a report by the Federal Reserve that the practices at which the bill aims are ?unfair?, ?deceptive? and ?wrong?, and noted that the Fed already established rules against those practices, which are scheduled to become effective on July 1, 2010

The motion was defeated by a vote of 164-263. One hundred and fifty-nine Republicans and five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and sixteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on passage of legislation that gave credit card holders additional rights and limited the conditions under which credit card issuers could raise interest rates.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Won
Roll Call 226
Apr 30, 2009
H.R. 627, On the Maloney of New York amendment, which required credit cardholders to agree explicitly before they receive over-the-limit protection and be charged a fee for that protection.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 627 modified the Truth in Lending Act provisions relating to credit cards. H.R. 627, among other things, gave credit card holders additional rights and protections, and limited the conditions under which credit card issuers could raise interest rates.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Maloney (D-NY) that required credit card holders to affirmatively agree to receive over-the-limit protection on their credit card in order for a credit card company to charge an over-the-limit fee. Additionally, the amendment would allow for transactions that go over the limit to be completed for operational reasons as long as they are of a small amount, without the credit card company being allowed to charge a fee.

Rep. Maloney (D-NY) began her statement in support of the amendment by claiming: ?(F)or far too long, credit cardholders have been alone in the fight to bring reasonable standards back to credit card practices. With the passage of this amendment and the underlying bill . . . consumers will be treated more fairly by credit card issuers and will be better able to manage their accounts. ?She noted that President Obama had recently told card company executives ?that credit cards had become unnecessarily complicated for consumers, often leading them to pay more than they reasonably expect.?

Maloney went on to argue: ?(O)ur constituents are faced with a multitude of fees and penalties that can be assessed to their credit card accounts. In many cases they do not even know the fees exist because disclosure agreements can be confusing and hard to understand. She cited a recent editorial in the New York Times, which ?detailed one of the so-called ?worst tricks? used by credit card companies, ?allowing a consumer to overcharge on his or her account but when the bill arrives, the consumer has been assessed an over-the-limit fee.? ?'

Rep. Neugebauer (R-TX) opposed the amendment because he said it would take ?choices away from the people that use credit cards . . . .? He went on to say that the credit card system ?is really not broken,? and cited a Federal Reserve study that examined the over-the limit issue and ?decided to leave it alone, found out it was working extremely well.? Neugebauer also opposed the amendment because he characterized it as ?micromanaging this process. And the big losers are going to be the consumers that rely on that very valuable service.?

Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) opposed the amendment because it took away what he suggested was the ability of consumers to make choices, which he said strengthens the competitive market. Hensarling claimed that ?consumers overwhelmingly want this (over-the-limit) option . . .? and that a better solution would be ?informed consumers, with effective disclosure.? He urged Congress to ?quit protecting consumers from their choices. Quit protecting them from competition. You are making their lot worse, not better, when you do this.?

The amendment was approved by a vote of 284-133. Two hundred and forty-one Democrats and forty-three Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventeen Republicans and sixteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House added language, requiring that credit card holders explicitly agree to receive and be charged for over-the-limit protection, to the bill it was considering that amended the Truth in Lending Act.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 225
Apr 30, 2009
(H.R. 627), On the Slaughter of New York amendment, which limited the amount of credit that card issuers could extend to college students.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 627 modified the Truth in Lending Act provisions relating to credit cards. This was a vote on an amendment offered to the bill to limit the amount of credit that card issuers could give to college students. It would accomplish this by, among other things, reducing the limit on the credit card of a college student to $500 or 20% of the annual income of the student, whichever is greater.

Rep. Slaughter (D-NY), an author of the amendment, said it was intended ?to protect college students from the hardship of excessive credit card debt and bankruptcy.? She cited a figure from Sallie Mae, the largest issuer of student loans, showing ?the average undergraduate has $2,200 in credit card debt, and that figure jumps to $5,800 for graduate students, (and) 84 percent of undergraduates have at least one credit card, up from 76 percent in 2004. On average, students have 4.6 credit cards, and half of college students have more than four . . . .? She then noted: ?(O)nly 17 percent have said that they regularly pay that debt. . . .?

Slaughter also cited a 2005 study indicating ?that many university administrators believe that credit card debt leads to a higher drop-out rate than their academic failure . . .  and even more seriously they may be forced to declare bankruptcy and may not have enough credit rating to have credit cards again.? She also argued that, if her amendment were enacted, ?the credit card companies (would) take responsibility for their lending practices to reduce the number of young people carrying excessive debt and filing for bankruptcy.?  

Rep. Bachus (R-AL), who opposed the amendment, said it could hurt students who actually need a credit card to incur necessary purchases. He also argued that the supporters of the amendment ?are really beginning to micromanage.? Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) opposed the amendment because it limited the ability of individuals over 18 to obtain credit cards and said: ?(W)e're talking about folks . . . who can vote, who can go to war, in most States can marry, own real property. We shouldn't be paternalistic towards them.?

Rep. Neugebauer (R-TX), another opponent voiced his concern that the amendment reflected ?a road we seem to be going down every day in these first hundred days (of the Obama Administration), and that is the Federal Government telling people what they can and cannot do. . . .?

The amendment was approved by a vote of 276-154. Two hundred and thirty Democrats and forty-six Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and twenty-nine Republicans and twenty-five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House added language which restricted the amount that could be offered on credit cards to college students.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 224
Apr 30, 2009
(H.R. 627) Legislation giving credit card holders additional rights and protections, and limiting the conditions under which credit card issuers could raise interest rates - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating a bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 627 amended the portion of the Truth in Lending Act relating to credit cards. Among other things, the bill gave credit card holders additional rights and protections and enumerated and limited the conditions under which credit card issuers could raise interest rates. This vote was a on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of H.R. 627. The arguments for and against the rule focused on the underlying bill as well as on the specifics of the rule.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, began by claiming :?(I)n a time when many Americans are struggling . . . unfair credit card practices threaten many families. Americans deserve . . . reliability and not chaos within their statements.? He noted that the trend over the last twenty years was toward ?risk-based pricing? by credit card issuers and, as a result, ?rates have increased and fees have increased dramatically. The terms of most agreements have become so complicated, consumers don't know what they are getting into when they sign on to a credit card agreement. Most, if not all, agreements allow the issuer to change the interest rate or other terms of agreement at any time for any reason . . . That?s just not right.?

Rep. Session (R-TX), who was helping to lead the opposition to the rule and to H.R 627, first complained that, by limiting the number of amendments allowed to be offered, the rule ?does not call for the open and honest debate that has been promised by my Democratic colleagues time after time.? Rep. Roskam (R-IL) echoed that theme by noting that, of the 52 amendments that were requested to be allowed for consideration, only 17 would be allowed under the rule.

Turning to the substance of the measure, Sessions argued that it was another example of the Democrats having ?the Federal Government overstepping its boundaries into the private marketplace? and into an area that should be within the jurisdiction of the states. He argued ?that people who get credit cards . .  . have a responsibility when they sign a contract to live up to that responsibility.?

Sessions also argued that the legislation was not necessary because the Federal Reserve had recently ?passed new credit card rules that would protect consumers and provide for more transparency and accountability in the marketplace. These new regulations are set to take effect in July 2010, an agreed-upon date to ensure the necessary time for banks and credit card companies to make crucial and critical adjustments to their business practices without making mistakes and without harming consumers.?

Sessions went on to argue that, if the legislation is enacted, ?it is not credit card companies that will suffer. . . Every American will see an increase in their interest rates, and some of the current benefits that encourage responsible lending will most likely disappear.?

The rule passed by a vote of 249-175 nays along almost straight party lines. All 249 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Only one Democrat joined with all one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the bill giving credit card holders additional rights and protections, and limiting the conditions under which credit card issuers could raise interest rates.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 223
Apr 29, 2009
(H.R. 1913) On passage of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which provided federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and added disability, age, sexual orientation, and military or law enforcement service as protected categories.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 1913, which gave the U.S. Attorney General authority to provide assistance to state and local governments to investigate and prosecute violent crimes motivated by prejudice based on the victim?s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or military or law enforcement service.

Those Members supporting the bill argued that it would enhance American?s tradition of protecting liberty and granting acceptance. They also argued that the government needed to make clear that hate crimes committed because of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, or disability should be categorized in the same way as hate crimes motivated by factors such as race or ethnicity. Those Members opposing the bill had been arguing that it would have a ?chilling effect? on free expression that it would make thought a crime, and that bad ideas such as bias on account of sexual orientation would eventually be shown to be ?bankrupt.?

Rep. Conyers (D-MI), who was leading the effort on behalf of H.R. 1913, noted that it would enable the Department of Justice to assist state and local law enforcement agencies ?in investigating and prosecuting bias-based brutality and help defer the costs when they overwhelm State and local resources. And when necessary . . . it authorizes the (Justice) Department to step in and prosecute at the Federal level.?

He explained that the legislation expands existing federal hate crimes law by adding ?group characteristics deservedly recognized for protection, the reason being due to their being well-known targets for bias-based violence . . . sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability.?  Conyers claimed: ?(T)hese crimes of violence are directed not just at those who are directly attacked; they are targeting the entire group with the threat of violence.?

Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-WI), one of the leaders of the opposition to the legislation, acknowledged that the ?motivation behind this bill is extremely well-intentioned.? He then argued that the bill was not the right way to approach the issue because ?by setting up a separate hate crime . . . someone could be indicted for the violent crime and the hate crime simultaneously. At the first trial, the person is acquitted of the violent crime, and at the second trial the person is convicted of the hate crime, meaning what the defendant says during the commission of that crime. And that ends up criminalizing free speech . . . . ?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), who also opposed the bill, argued that it ?will establish a new category of criminal activity, which is thought crimes. Today it is the politically correct thought crimes, those directed toward certain protected groups, but . . . it is but a small step to add new types of thought crimes to the list, and suddenly we find ourselves back on the Orwellian threshold of Nineteen Eighty-Four and staring down the specter of the thought police.?

The bill passed by a vote of 249-175. Two hundred and thirty-one Democrats and eighteen Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-eight Republicans and seventeen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate legislation providing federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and adding the disability, age, and sexual orientation as protected categories.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Hate Crimes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 222
Apr 29, 2009
(H.R.1913) Legislation that provided federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and to add disability, age, and sexual orientation to the categories of protected classes - - on the motion to send the bill back to committee and add members of the armed forces and law enforcement as protected categories

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1913gave the U.S. Attorney General authority to provide assistance to state and local governments to investigate and prosecute violent crimes motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. This was a vote on a motion to recommit (send back) the bill to committee with instructions to insert additional language that would, among other things, add current or former members of the armed forces or law enforcement officers to the class of individuals protected by it.

Those supporting H.R.1913 had been arguing it would enhance American?s tradition of protecting liberty and granting acceptance. They also argued that the government needed to make clear that hate crimes committed because of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, or disability should be categorized in the same way as hate crimes motivated by factors such as race or ethnicity. Those Members opposing the bill had been arguing that it would have a ?chilling effect? on free expression, that it would make thought a crime, and that bad ideas such as bias on account of sexual orientation would eventually be shown to be ?bankrupt.?

Rep Gohmert (R-TX), who offered the motion, said that the proposed language should be added based on the idea that every American deserves to be equally protected. He noted that military personnel were abused after the Vietnam War and ?there is absolutely no question that law enforcement officers are frequently targeted specifically because of who they are and because they are wearing the uniform . . . .?


Rep. Conyers (D-MI), who was leading the support for H.R. 1913, opposed the motion. He noted that the intent of the legislation was to protect those who are threatened because they are ?despised?, who are not safe, and who are ?being denied the most fundamental protection of liberty. They are targeted for the most extreme violence by extremists who have decided, in their own warped view of how we should exist among each other in our society, as people who don't deserve to have life.? Conyers then argued that the proposed instructions are not consistent with that intent.  He said that ?members of the armed services are not victims of bias-based prejudice or hatred . . . they are not in the same situation as the groups we are seeking to protect in this bill. Besides, specific protections for members of the armed services already exist in the Federal law----it makes killing someone in the military a capital crime.?

The motion failed by a vote of 185-225. One hundred and sixty Republicans and twenty-five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and nine Democrats and sixteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, service in the armed forces or law enforcement was not added as a protected category and the House moved to an immediate vote on its passage of H.R. 1913.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Hate Crimes
N N Won
Roll Call 220
Apr 29, 2009
(H.R. 1913) The bill providing federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and to add disability, age, sexual orientation, and service in the military or law enforcement to the categories of protected classes -- on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1913 gave the U.S. Attorney General authority to provide assistance to state and local governments to investigate and prosecute violent crimes motivated by prejudice based on the victim?s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or previous military or law enforcement service. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 1913.The arguments made for and against the rule focused largely on the substance of the bill itself.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, noted that the legislation was motivated in large part by recent hate crimes that had occurred as a result of the sexual orientation of the victim. He argued that its passage would ?enhance our country's 233-year tradition of protecting liberty, freedom, and acceptance?, and noted that, under existing federal law, the government ?is only authorized (to act) in those cases in which the victim was targeted because of race, color, religion, or national origin.? He went on to say that the government needed to make clear that hate crimes committed because of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, or disability are to be viewed like those motivated by factors such as race or ethnicity.

Referring to arguments he anticipated would be made against the bill as an infringement on free speech, Hastings first said: ?(T)his legislation is not about thinking or believing, but acting and harming. This legislation strengthens, not weakens, the First Amendment freedom of speech protections. It prohibits for use as evidence a defendant's speech or association unless specifically related to the crime, and this legislation does not disturb constitutionally protected speech or associations . . . It criminalizes acts of violence against people based on the victim's characteristics. ?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), who was leading the opposition to the rule, said that the overriding issue with this legislation was its ?chilling effect? on free expression. She noted that ?we have a long tradition of protecting the speech of everyone, from those with the most mainstream ideas to those on the fringe.? Foxx added that ?in the end, in a healthy marketplace of ideas where the public square allows for an airing of all ideas . . . bankrupt ideas are destined to fail. We should not live and legislate in fear of bankrupt ideas.? 

Foxx argued that the bill will start the country ?down the road towards a public square that is less robust, more restrictive, and that will squelch our cherished constitutional right to free speech. It will establish a new category of criminal activity, which is thought crimes. Today it is the politically correct thought crimes, those directed toward certain protected groups, but . . . it is but a small step to add new types of thought crimes to the list, and suddenly we find ourselves back on the Orwellian threshold of Nineteen Eighty-Four and staring down the specter of the thought police.? She concluded by noting her ?distress? over the fact that the rule for considering the bill restricted the amendments that could be offered; she claimed that some of the amendments the Republicans wanted to offer would have been approved by the House.

The rule passed by a vote of 234-190. The two hundred and thirty-four ?aye? votes were all cast by Democrats. Fifteen other Democrats joined with all one hundred and seventy-five Republicans in voting ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin consideration of H.R. 1913.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Hate Crimes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 219
Apr 29, 2009
(H.R.1913) A bill providing federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and adding disability, age, sexual orientation, and service in the armed forces or law enforcement to the categories of protected classes - - on moving immediately to a vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1913 provided federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and added disability, age, sexual orientation, and service in the armed forces or law enforcement, as protected categories. This was on ?ordering the previous question?, a procedural motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House consideration of the bill.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, noted that the legislation was motivated in large part by recent hate crimes that had occurred as a result of the sexual orientation of the victim. He argued that its passage would ?enhance our country's 233-year tradition of protecting liberty, freedom, and acceptance?, and noted that, under existing federal law, the government ?is only authorized (to act) in those cases in which the victim was targeted because of race, color, religion, or national origin.? He went on to say that the federal government needed to make clear that hate crimes committed because of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, or disability are to be viewed like those motivated by factors such as race or ethnicity.

Referring to arguments he anticipated would be made against the bill as an infringement on free speech, Hastings first said; ?(T)his legislation is not about thinking or believing, but acting and harming. This legislation strengthens, not weakens, the First Amendment freedom of speech protections. It prohibits for use as evidence a defendant's speech or association unless specifically related to the crime, and this legislation does not disturb constitutionally protected speech or associations . . . It criminalizes acts of violence against people based on the victim's characteristics.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), who was leading the opposition to the rule, said that the overriding issue with this legislation was its ?chilling effect? on free expression. She noted that ?we have a long tradition of protecting the speech of everyone, from those with the most mainstream ideas to those on the fringe.? Foxx added that ?in the end, in a healthy marketplace of ideas where the public square allows for an airing of all ideas . . . bankrupt ideas are destined to fail. We should not live and legislate in fear of bankrupt ideas.? 

Foxx argued that the bill will start the country ?down the road towards a public square that is less robust, more restrictive, and that will squelch our cherished constitutional right to free speech. It will establish a new category of criminal activity, which is thought crimes. Today it is the politically correct thought crimes, those directed toward certain protected groups, but . . . it is but a small step to add new types of thought crimes to the list, and suddenly we find ourselves back on the Orwellian threshold of Nineteen Eighty-Four and staring down the specter of the thought police.? Foxx concluded by noting her ?distress? over the fact that the rule for considering the bill did not allow amendments to be offered; she claimed that some of the amendments the Republicans wanted to offer would have been approved by the House.

The motion passed by a vote of 234-181. All two hundred and thirty-four ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eight other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-three Republicans in voting ?nay?. As a result, the House moved immediately to vote on the rule setting the terms for debate for H.R. 1913.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Hate Crimes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 216
Apr 29, 2009
(S.Con. Res. 13) On agreeing to budget for fiscal year 2010

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a resolution establishing the budget for fiscal year 2010. The fiscal year 2010 budget provided for, among other things, health care reform, a middle class tax cut, increased funding for a number of social programs, additional spending in energy conservation, and a slower rate of increase in defense spending. It also included ?reconciliation? language, which allowed the Senate to consider health care reform without giving the minority the ability to filibuster it.

Rep. Spratt (D-SC), who was leading the effort in support of the budget, called it ?a deficit reduction budget, because it lowers the deficit by $1.2 trillion over 5 years?, but said it ?is not so committed to deficit reduction that it overrides or overlooks other needs. In fact, it takes on topics that previous budgets have found too tough to face, such as health care for millions of Americans who do not have insurance.? Spratt claimed that it creates initiatives to make the U.S. economy more productive, citing increased spending in higher education as an example. He noted that there had been Republican criticism of the increased spending in the budget and argued that the changes it would make in health care, energy, education, and environmental policies  ?are all implemented by way of reserve funds . . . (that) are all deficit-neutral.?

Rep. Ryan (R-WI), who was leading the opposition to the budget resolution, claimed that ?an honest accounting of this budget? would show that ?there is an additional $1.172 trillion in deficit spending that's occurring here that had been masked . . . .? He claimed that the budget would allow for ?an absolute gusher of new spending, of more taxing and of more borrowing, which results in a record level of new borrowing? that would double the national debt in 5 ½ years and triple it in about 10 1/2 years. Ryan argued that Congress needs ?to bring fiscal discipline and some limits and some control to the process of taxing and spending?, but that this budget would do the opposite.

Rep Spratt responded by acknowledging that ?this is a big spending bill? but then noted that it actually reduces spending through the end of fiscal year 2010.  Rep. Rep. Becerra (D-CA) supported Spratt by saying that the budget had to respond to the weak economic conditions in the country. Becerra agreed that it was not ?a perfect budget?, but argued that it is ?difficult to be perfect when you inherit a $1.3 trillion deficit and when the (economy) is going down into the ditch . . . .?

The resolution passed by a vote of 233-193. All two hundred and thirty-three ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Seventeen other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy-six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved the fiscal year 2010 budget.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 214
Apr 28, 2009
(H. Res. 37) The fiscal year 2010 budget - - on the resolution setting the terms for debate

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The 2010 fiscal year budget, among other things, provided for a middle class tax cut and increased funding for a number of social programs in the areas of health care, education and clean energy. It also included ?reconciliation? language, which allowed the Senate to consider health care reform without giving the minority the ability to filibuster it. This vote was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of the fiscal year 2010 budget.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, described the proposed budget as ?a clean break from the past (and) a roadmap for economic recovery . . . .? He claimed that it would ?create jobs, support working families, strengthen our national defense and renew America's global leadership.? McGovern also said it would allow the U.S, to take ?the first critical steps to . . . creating good jobs (and) . . . altering the Tax Code . . . (to) reduce the tax burden on the middle class . . . .? He claimed that the Republicans believe ?we should reduce taxes for the very wealthiest. It's a simple difference in philosophy.?

McGovern defended the reconciliation language in the resolution that would prevent a Senate filibuster on health care reform. He suggested that the removal of the ability of Republicans to filibuster health care reform is the only way that legislation to implement reform can be passed. McGovern also claimed that health care reform is needed ?not just to improve health care quality and improve coverage, but to reduce the crushing burden of health care costs on American businesses.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA), who helped lead the opposition to the rule, argued ?that Democrats have been saying that Republicans have no interest or desire to work with President Obama, that all we say is `no?. . . I have got to say that repeatedly we have come forward with alternatives, and we very much want to work in a bipartisan way. He pointed to two different Republican alternative budgets that were considered and rejected by the House during the consideration of its original version of the budget. House Minority Leader Boehner summarized the Republican alternatives as ?better solutions (with) less spending, (with) less taxes and much less debt . . . .?

Dreier also argued that the Democratic budget ?sets the stage for tax increases that we can't afford. It makes the fundamental mistake that led to our economic crisis in the first place--profligate, unaccountable and irresponsible behavior.? He then referred to the anti-filibuster reconciliation language it includes, and claimed that it  ?will allow the Democratic leadership to cram through massive health care legislation with little scrutiny and . . . zero bipartisanship.? He added ?(I)t will also allow them to attach dramatic new energy taxes on every household in America in order to pay for their health care proposals,? which, he argued, would ?expand government bureaucracy and tax the American people during an economic recession.?

The rule passed by a vote of 234-185. All two hundred and thirty-four ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eleven other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move to debate the fiscal year 2010 budget.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 213
Apr 28, 2009
(H.Res.371) The fiscal year 2010 budget - - on waiving all points of order against the resolution setting the terms for debate

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The 2010 fiscal year budget, among other things, provided for a middle class tax cut and increased funding for a number of social programs in the areas of health care, education and clean energy. It also included ?reconciliation? language, which allowed the Senate to consider health care reform without giving the minority the ability to filibuster it. This was a vote on a motion to waive all points of order on the resolution or ?rule? that set the terms for debate of the 2010 fiscal year budget.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, began by describing the budget as ?a clean break from the past (and) a roadmap for economic recovery . . . .? He claimed that it would ?create jobs, support working families, strengthen our national defense and renew America's global leadership.? McGovern also said it would allow the U.S, to take ?the first critical steps to . . . creating good jobs (and) . . . altering the Tax Code . . . (to) reduce the tax burden on the middle class . . . .? He also claimed that the Republicans believe ?we should reduce taxes for the very wealthiest. It's a simple difference in philosophy.?

McGovern then defended the reconciliation language in the resolution that would prevent a Senate filibuster on health care reform. He said the removal of the ability of Republicans to filibuster health care reform is the only way legislation to implement that reform could pass. McGovern also claimed that health care reform is needed ?not just to improve health care quality and improve coverage, but to reduce the crushing burden of health care costs on American businesses.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA), who led the opposition to the rule, noted ?that Democrats have been saying that Republicans have no interest or desire to work with President Obama, that all we say is `no?. . . I have got to say that repeatedly we have come forward with alternatives, and we very much want to work in a bipartisan way.? He then pointed to two different Republican alternative budgets that were considered and rejected by the House during the consideration of its original version of the budget.

House Minority Leader Boehner characterized the Republican alternatives as creating ?a better solution (with) less spending, (with) less taxes and much less debt . . . .? Dreier argued that the Democratic budget ?sets the stage for tax increases that we can't afford. It makes the fundamental mistake that led to our economic crisis in the first place--profligate, unaccountable and irresponsible behavior.? He then argued that the anti-filibuster reconciliation language in the resolution ?will allow the Democratic leadership to cram through massive health care legislation with little scrutiny and . . . zero bipartisanship . . . It will also allow them to attach dramatic new energy taxes on every household in America in order to pay for their health care proposals,? which, he argued, would ?expand government bureaucracy and tax the American people during an economic recession.?

The motion passed by a vote of 240 -179. All two hundred and forty ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Six other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-three Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move to consider the rule setting the terms for debate of the fiscal year 2010 budget.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 212
Apr 28, 2009
(H.Res.365) The fiscal year 2010 budget - - on a procedural vote to allow the House to consider the resolution setting the terms for debate

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House was in the process of considering the fiscal year 2010 budget that had been agreed to by representatives from the House and Senate. Before the budget, or most other measures, can be considered, the House must first pass a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of the measure. The House Rules Committee presented the rule for the fiscal year 2010 budget on the same day the vote on it was scheduled. House procedures require that a two third approval be given before a rule can be considered on the same day it is presented. This was a vote on a motion to waive that two thirds requirement, and requiring only a majority approval for this accelerated process.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), who led the effort to obtain the waiver, noted that it was necessary to accelerate approval of the budget, because it was ?a critical document (that) comes at a critical time in our country.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA), who led the opposition to the waiver, described the effort to obtain it as ?a mechanism to circumvent House rules in order to hastily cram through legislation.? He agreed that the acceleration of consideration for a budget would be needed if the government were running out of money, but that was not the case here. He also noted that, under the Budget Act, Congress is supposed to approve a budget by April 15, but that date had already passed.  Dreier added that the ?Democratic leadership wasn't in a hurry when that deadline came and went, and there is no new deadline at all that needs to be met right now . . . (since) the next recess . . . is about a month away . . . .?

Dreier also said: ?(T)he only thing that I can figure out is that tomorrow marks the conclusion of the President's first 100 days . .  . (but a) problem rises when his party cares more about symbolism and photo opportunities than taking the power of the purse, (and) our constitutional responsibility. . . I would hope that the Democratic leadership would care more about fiscal responsibility than a photo opportunity.?

McGovern responded by noting that the Members had ?a full debate? when the House version of the budget resolution was considered. He referenced the fact that this included voting on four separate substitute budgets, which ranged from the one offered by the Congressional Progressive Caucus to the one offered by the conservative Republican Study Committee. McGovern also noted that House Members would have twenty-four hours to review the House-Senate budget agreement that the rule covered, before voting on it.

The motion to waive the two thirds requirement was approved by a vote of 233-191. Two hundred and thirty-two Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-four Republicans and seventeen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the two-thirds requirement was waived and the House was immediately able to take up the rule setting the terms for debating the final 2010 budget.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 203
Apr 23, 2009
(H.R. 1145) On the Shadegg of Arizona amendment, which would have required the identification of state and local water research and development programs that duplicate the effort of federal programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1145, the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of 2009, was designed to promote the coordination of various federal research, development, and management efforts in dealing with national water needs. The Act had bipartisan support.  This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep Shadegg (R-AZ) that would have required those federal departments or agencies implementing the Act to identify federal water-related research and development technological innovative activities that are duplicated by more than one Federal agency or program, or by a federal agency and a state or local government or Indian tribe. It would also have required any federal department or agency finding duplication to make recommendations to the President as to how to avoid such duplication.

Rep. Shadegg (R-AZ), first noted that the purpose of the Act is to coordinate federal water programs to ensure they are conducted in an ?`efficient and cost-efficient manner.?'' He then said that there are currently over 20 federal agencies carrying out research and development on water programs, as well as state, county and local agencies engaging in the same kind of work. Shadegg went on to claim that the provisions of the Act do not necessarily avoid duplication of efforts. He said his amendment ?is intended to look at the issue of efforts at the federal level which duplicate each other and to at least make a recommendation that they be consolidated for reasons of efficiency, and to do the same with regard to State, local or tribal efforts.?

Rep. Gordon (D-TN), who was leading the support for the Water Research and Development Initiative Act, opposed the amendment. He said it ?would require the administration to determine what research, development and technology innovation programs exist in 50 states, over 87,000 local government entities, and more than 500 federally recognized tribes ? (and) compiling this information would be an enormous and expensive undertaking.?  Gordon added that the amendment has no provision for paying these costs. He also argued that, even if an identified duplicative state or local program was very small, the amendment ?would preempt a Federal effort that could be much more significant and worthwhile.?   

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 160-271. One hundred and fifty-four Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and nineteen republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, language was not added to the Water Research and Development Initiative requiring the identification of state and local water research and development programs that duplicate the effort of federal programs.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 202
Apr 23, 2009
(H.R. 1145) On the Roskam of Illinois amendment, which would have directed the General Accountability Office to identify whether there is duplication in federal water research and development programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1145, the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of 2009, was designed to promote the coordination of various federal research, development, and management efforts in dealing with national water needs. The Act had bipartisan support. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Roskam (R-IL) that would have directed the General Accountability Office (?GAO?) to identify whether there is duplication in federal water research and development programs. It also would have suspended the implementation of any programs created by H.R. 1145, which GAO identified as duplicating other federal water efforts, pending the final results of that study.

Rep. Roskam (R-IL) claimed he was ?trying to follow up on President Obama's inaugural address where he really challenged Congress and the American people to go through the Federal budget line by line, looking carefully at programs.?  Roskam said that he thought the President wanted Congress to ?look where there is possible duplication, and that's what this amendment seeks to do.?  Roskam went on to say that the intent of the amendment is to bring clarity to the coordination of federal water programs.

Rep. Hall (R-TX), who supported the Water Research and Development Initiative Act, but had previously raised some concerns about it, spoke in support of the amendment. He said it focuses on ?the duplication that exists among Federal agencies involved in water research efforts . . . to streamline these efforts. ?

Rep. Gordon (D-TN), who was leading the support for H.R. 1145, opposed the amendment. He said Rep. Roskam was ?well-intended?,  but argued that the bill already included provisions to accomplish what the amendment would do. Gordon noted that the bill ?looks at the 20 (federal) agencies that invest in water research, and it coordinates them so we can get our best bang for the buck. It also helps to do away with . . . duplication.? As a result, claimed Gordon, passage of the amendment ?would only slow down the process of this coordination and slow down the process of better utilizing our resources and saving that money.? He emphasized that this delay could cause severe problems because 40 states were currently facing, or were projected to be facing, severe water problems over the next five years.

Roskam responded that his amendment was not meant to impede action and added: ?(I)n the great scheme of things, the pace at which Congress is moving and the pace at which programs are being put in place, let's hit the pause button here, and let's have the GAO go out and really span the spectrum because, in the underlying legislation, it is absolutely silent as to duplicative efforts. ?

The amendment failed by a vote of 194-236. All one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and nineteen of the Democrats voted ?aye?. All 236 ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats.  As a result, language was not added to the Water Research and Development Initiative directing the General Accountability Office to identify whether there is duplication in federal water research and development programs.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 198
Apr 22, 2009
(S.Con. Res. 13) Health care reform - - on instructing House Members, who will be negotiating a final version of the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution with the Senate, not to include any language that would prevent a Senate filibuster of separate health care legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

If a budget resolution includes a procedure called ?reconciliation?, the Senate is able to consider certain legislation to which the procedure applies without the ability of any senator to filibuster that legislation. The budget resolution that had passed the House applied the reconciliation procedure to health care and certain other issues. The budget resolution that had passed the Senate did not have any reconciliation language. This was a vote on a motion to instruct the House Members, who would be negotiating the final budget resolution with the Senate, not to include the reconciliation procedure in that resolution.

Rep. Ryan (R-WI), who offered the motion, argued that the Democratic majority-sponsored budget that the House had passed ?exploits the current financial crisis to rush through a sweeping expansion of the Federal Government.? He said that the issues of health care would be covered by the reconciliation procedure. Ryan said that the reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution ?allow for the Senate to consider certain measures without the possibility of a filibuster . . . In other words, it's a way for Congress to sweep . . . legislation through with very little debate, no amendments, get it into law without the public seeing what is happening.?

He explained that the aim of his motion was to ensure that the budget resolution ?doesn't trigger a fast-track process, otherwise known as budget reconciliation, to jam through a government takeover of health care . . . . Ryan went on to say ?if we're going to have a debate about having a brand-new energy tax, if we're going to have a debate about tax increases and spending increases doubling and tripling our national debt, let's have that debate. Let's not just sweep the thing through.?

Rep. Spratt (D-SC), chairman of the House Budget Committee, responded to Ryan by arguing that not having reconciliation apply to health care reform would effectively prevent any such reform from being enacted.  Rep. Schwartz (D-PA)  supported Spratt and argued: ?(T)he American people did call on us to take action on this these critical issues. . . That is what this budget does. . . That is what we want to do. We would like to do it in a bipartisan way.? But Schwartz then added that she opposed the motion to drop reconciliation because working on these issues in a bipartisan way ?may not be possible?.

The vote on the motion was 196-227. All one hundred and seventy-three Republicans and twenty-three of the Democrats voted ?aye?. All 227 ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, the House budget conferees were permitted to allow language to be included in the final resolution allowing the Senate to consider health care reform without the possibility of a filibuster.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Won
Roll Call 194
Apr 21, 2009
(H.R. 388) On passage of legislation to assist in the conservation of 15 endangered cat and canid species including the lion, cheetah, jaguar, and wolf

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the House rules and pass H.R. 388, the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2009. A canid includes any member of the dog family. The purpose of the bill was to assist in the conservation of 15 endangered cat and canid species including the lion, cheetah, and jaguar and African wild dog. The bill established a new Great Cat and Rare Canid Conservation Fund to finance Federal matching grants that support conservation projects to conserve what were classified as highly endangered wildlife species and their shrinking habitats. The legislation was patterned after other wildlife conservation funds authorized by Congress to help conserve and recover endangered populations of rhinoceros, tigers, African and Asian elephants, great apes, and marine turtles.

Rep. Christensen (D-Virgin Islands), who was leading support for the measure, summarized the supporters? position by saying ?great cats and rare canids are no less deserving than these other keystone wildlife species.? She noted that the bill was modeled on a similar measure the House had passed during the previous year, but which had failed to become law.

A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill is a procedural mechanism that is usually employed to gain approval for measures that the House leadership deems not to be very controversial. There is a limited time period for debate, and amendments cannot be offered. A two thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Bishop (R-UT), who opposed the measure, first pointed out that he had voted for a similar bill the House previously considered when it targeted ?only 12 imperiled big cats and rare dog species?. He noted that the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2009 included several other species, few of which could be considered ?keystone?, unlike the African elephant, the tiger, and the rhinoceros. He said he was also troubled about ?the inclusion of things like the Iberian lynx, which lives exclusively in Spain and Portugal. . . . These are clearly two countries that are not impoverished European nations. They could easily afford to conserve their own native wildlife.? 

Bishop went on to say: ?(M)ore importantly, at a time when America has a national debt in excess of $11 trillion, you still have to question whether this legislation is the proper priority for right now. . . is it really appropriate to spend our constituents' hard-earned tax money to conserve an African wild dog, an Ethiopian wolf, or a Borneo bay cat in Asia? We still are taxing too much, spending too much, and borrowing too much.  . .  If it were to go back to the original bill that came out last year. . . then you would have a decent standard bill which I would firmly support.?

Rep. Inslee (D-WA), the sponsor of the previous year?s legislation, responded to Bishop by first noting that the 15 species covered by the  Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2009 ?are all recognized at risk both under United States considerations and under the international consortiums of . . . the World Conservation Union . . . .? He then listed three reasons that Americans should have an interest in these species even though some of them are not in the United States:?( N)umber one . . . they are enjoying the presence of these species . . . (by) watching them on television . . . Number two, when we preserve these species and when we preserve their habitat, it is in our self-interest because . . . the rain forest in South America is preserved. That is the lungs of the planet. We cannot solve our climate change problems without it. This can, in fact, help Americans through our environmental challenges that we have. And, third, this bill is a great investment because for every dollar we put in, and it's a very small commitment of $5 million . . . . we get $4 from the international community to match and exceed our investment. It is a prudent investment.?

The bill passed by a vote of 290-118. Two hundred and thirty-eight Democrats and fifty-two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventeen Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate legislation to assist in the conservation of 15 endangered cat and canid species including the lion, cheetah, and jaguar.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 193
Apr 21, 2009
(H.R. 388) On passage of legislation to assist in the conservation of the world's species of cranes, including the whooping crane

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the usual House rules and pass H.R. 388, the Crane Conservation Act of 2009. The measure was intended to assist in the conservation of the world's 15 crane species, including the whooping crane and the sand hill crane found in North America. The bill would establish a new fund out of which Federal matching grants would be made to conserve the endangered birds and their habitats around the world.

Rep. Baldwin (D-WI), who had introduced the legislation in the House, explained that the bill ?will provide the resources to support initiatives that protect cranes and, importantly, their habitats, which have deteriorated due to industrial development, pollution, and other human disturbances, including wars and other violent conflicts. The bill will also provide the means for the United States to fulfill various international obligations and commitments, thus having a large environmental and cultural impact across the globe. Additionally, the Crane Conservation Act will provide resources for the United States to bring people and governments around the world together to protect ecosystems, develop adequate habitats, and encourage overall goodwill.? 

Baldwin noted that: ?(C)ranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with 11 of the world's 15 crane species at risk of extinction. . .?  She also pointed out that cranes ?have served as ambassadors of harmony and peace in the international arena. Representatives from nations with various political struggles have reached beyond the instability to address the conservation of cranes.?

A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill is a procedural mechanism that is usually employed to gain approval for measures that the House leadership deems not to be very controversial. There is a limited time period allowed for debate, and amendments cannot be offered. A two thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Bishop (R-UT) spoke in opposition to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, although he characterized its purpose as ?a noble concept.? He first noted that seven crane species were already protected under the federal Endangered Species Act, and that there were ?several laws on the books which can help conserve domestic cranes and their habitats . . . . ? He also argued that the special fund established by the bill is ?another one of several funds that keep growing all the time without any coordinated policy to it.?

Another reason Bishop gave for his opposition was that: ?(W)ith the current economic crisis the United States finds itself in--exacerbated by our spending bills in the stimulus, in the budget, and the omnibus bills which simply spend too much, tax too much, and borrow too much--it is highly questionable whether this is the time to once again create another multinational fund to spend taxpayers' money overseas. Other countries should be required to step up to the plate to save their own wildlife without relying on American funds going there. ?  Rep. Gohmert (R-TX) echoed that theme and said . . . it is my understanding that of the 15 crane species here, 13 are not in the United States.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 288-116. Two hundred and thirty-six Democrats and fifty-two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifteen Republicans and one Democrat, voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed, and sent on to the Senate, legislation to assist in the conservation of the world's 15 species of cranes.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 192
Apr 02, 2009
(H.Con. Res. 85) On passage of the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on House adoption of the budget resolution for fiscal year 2010, with guidelines over five years, proposed by the Democratic majority. It provided for significant increased spending in social programs, including expansion of health care coverage; slowing in defense spending increases; the expiration of some existing tax reductions, and the adoption of other tax changes that it claimed provided relief for up to 95% of all Americans; and the adoption of a ?cap and trade? program intended to reduce energy use by having companies that emit excessive amounts of pollutants buy energy credits from companies that pollute less. The Congressional Budget Office projected that, if implemented, the resolution proposed by the Democratic majority would reduce the deficit to $586 billion in 2013.

Rep. Spratt, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, began the debate by commenting that ?it is all but impossible to balance a budget when the economy is in recession, and, for that matter, it is ill-advised. Our budget is not so committed to deficit reduction that it overrides or overlooks other needs . . . (and it) launches some bold initiatives to make our economy more productive and our people more competitive . . . But the bigger picture will show that this budget leaves in place the middle-income tax cuts . . . the child tax credit, and the marriage penalty relief. It indexes the alternative minimum tax to keep it from coming down on middle-income taxpayers, for whom it was never intended. It also extends estate tax exemptions at the 2009 level . . . .?

Rep. Ryan (R-WI) led the opposition to the Democrats? budget. He summarized it as: ?(S)pends too much, borrows too much, taxes too much.? He went on to argue that ?the debt held by the public under this budget doubles in 5 1/2 years . . . One estimate from MIT says the cap-and-trade (energy) scheme could raise taxes on households by as much as $4,500 a year.. . (and) these tax increases (are not) being used to pay down debt . . . They are to fuel higher spending . . . So we are putting our country on this vicious cycle of chasing ever higher spending with ever higher taxes that never quite catch up with that spending to give us a record amount of debt. The problem is one day maybe people won't buy our debt. What happens when that happens?? 

The resolution passed by a vote of 233-196. All 233 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-six Republicans, and voted ?nay?. As a result, the 2010 fiscal year budget proposed by the Democratic majority was adopted by the House and sent on to the Senate.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 191
Apr 02, 2009
(H.Con. Res. 85) On approval of the fiscal year 2010 budget proposed by the Republican minority

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the budget proposed by the Republican minority, which was offered as a substitute for the Democratic majority-sponsored budget that the House was considering. According to the Republicans, their proposed budget had significantly lower spending levels, taxes, and deficits than the Democratic budget.

Rep. Ryan (R-WI), who was leading the support for the Republican budget, said it is based on the notion that the answers to the country?s economic problems ?all don't flow out of Washington. The answers come from individual Americans . . . not Washington bureaucrats, not the idea that we have to take more money and more power away from the people and spend it on their behalf and exercise it on their behalf.  Unfortunately, that is the arrogant, paternalistic notion that is being brought to the floor here by the (Democratic) budget . . . .?

Ryan also argued that the Republican budget would implement a plan that will create more jobs than the budget proposed by the Democrats. He claimed that ?in the fifth year alone you'd have more than two million more jobs under the Republican alternative than you would under the Democratic proposal . . . (because) they raise taxes on small businesses. They raise taxes on pensions, on the assets that make up our savings. They raise taxes on energy. They raise debt borrowing, which will lead to higher interest rates. ?

House Republican Leader Boehner summarized the Republican argument against the Democratic budget when he said that it makes ?no tough choices . . . when you just keep spending money, you don't have to make decisions. You just keep spending money. The fact is, if you look at (the Democratic) budget, it spends too much; it taxes too much, and it puts too much debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids. ?

Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), speaking in opposition to the proposed Republican budget, said it was ?a shortsighted attempt to short-circuit essential investments in our economic recovery and long-term growth. It takes back resources for long overdue investments in education and health care and in energy.  A $29 billion cut to income security programs over 10 years, $25 billion of which comes from critical nutrition program increases. The kind of investments that conservative economists tell us have the most powerful stimulative impact, $1.73 in economic growth created for every dollar spent, if only it were allowed to reach families in need . . .   This (Republican) budget is the last thing our economy needs now or down the road: the kind of drastic cuts to essential services that will raise costs, which will destroy our ability to compete and to grow. It's a relic of 8 long years of a failed economic policy of the Bush administration.?

Rep. Spratt (D-SC), the chairman of the House Budget Committee added that: ?Under the guise of deficit reduction, more tax cuts are provided (in the Republican budget) for the upper brackets.?

The proposed budget was defeated by a vote of 137-243. All 137 ?aye? votes were cast by Republicans.  Thirty-eight other Republicans joined all two hundred and five Democrats and voted ?nay?. As a result, the budget proposed by the Republican minority was not adopted.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 190
Apr 02, 2009
(H.Con. Res. 85) On approval of the fiscal year 2010 budget proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the budget proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus (?CBC?), which was offered as a substitute for the Democratic majority-sponsored budget that the House was considering. The CBC budget was based on the Democratic budget, but it also would have immediately repealed the Bush-era tax cuts, and applied the revenue that would have been generated to education, health care, job training, international trade, justice, transportation, and veterans programs. The CBC budget would have reduced funding for the proposed ballistic missile defense system and reallocated that funding to increased Defense Department health care research programs and wounded veterans? assistance.  In addition, it would have reallocated funds to allow the Defense Department to finish implementing recommendations of the Government Accountability Office relating to waste, fraud, and abuse within the department. 

Rep. Lee (D-CA), one of the leading supporters of the CBC budget, began her floor statement by saying that ?a budget is more than a fiscal document. It really is a moral document. It defines who we are as a Nation. It reflects our priorities and our values. . . .? She noted that the proposed Democratic budget reflects a ?shift in priorities away from the failed policies of the previous administration . . . (by)  investing in education, health care, clean energy, transportation, and our veterans . . . .?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) expressed the basis of the Republican opposition to the CBC proposal by characterizing it as ?the Democratic budget on steroids--even more spending, even more tax increases, and even more deficits?, and noting that it ?really highlights the dramatic differences between the two sides--the priority differences.?   He went on to say: ?(A)s economic conditions continue to deteriorate for 2009, this budget immediately increases taxes for small businesses and for individuals that are set to expire in 2011. Just like the Democrat's budget, this substitute increases taxes by $1.5 trillion . . . over the next 10 years. Just like the Democrat's budget, this substitute budget increases spending by $18.3 trillion . . . over just the next 5 years. And just like the Democrat's budget, this substitution also increases the national debt to $17 trillion by 2014.?

The proposed budget was defeated by a vote of 113-318.  All 113 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, including the overwhelming majority of the most progressive Members. One hundred and forty-three other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the budget proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus was not adopted.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 189
Apr 02, 2009
(H.Con. Res. 85) On approval of the fiscal year 2010 budget proposed by the Republican Study Committee

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the budget developed by the Republican Study Committee (?RSC?), which was offered as a substitute for the 2010 fiscal year Democratic majority-sponsored budget that the House was considering. The Republican Study Committee is composed of conservative Republican House Members, and describes its mission as offering solutions based on principles of limited government, lower taxes, individual freedom, and a robust national defense.

Rep. Jordan (R-OH), offered the RSC budget as a substitute for the Democratic majority-supported budget, which the House was considering. Jordan described the Democratic budget as an ?attack on freedom . . . (with) the largest tax increase in history, which attacks the liberty . . . of current taxpayers . . . .? He argued that, if the Democratic budget is passed: ?(T)here will be more debt in the next 6 years than it took the 43 previous Presidents to accumulate. . .? Jordan also claimed the Democratic budget ?attacks freedom? with its ?cap-and-trade? proposal, under which companies that emit excessive amounts of pollutants would have to buy energy credits from those companies that pollute less; he said this energy proposal ?is going to be a tax on every single American and on every single small business owner.? Jordan also attacked what he referred to as ?the further nationalizing of health care? in the Democratic budget. He claimed that the budget would result in the creation of a ?board that's going to now  decide what kind of health care treatment you and your family receive . . . .?

Jordan also said that the Republican Study Committee budget ?takes a bold but responsible approach to getting our fiscal house in order, achieving balance by the year 2019.?  He argued that it ?preserves the tax relief adopted earlier in this decade, it encourages small businesses to create jobs, and it protects families from any tax increase (and)ends the misguided spending bills and bailouts of recent years.? Among the specific elements in it was a one percent annual reduction to all non-defense discretionary spending, while defense remained fully funded. Jordan emphasized: ?(T)he key to fiscal sustainability lies in reforming entitlements, particularly Medicare, and our Republican Study Committee budget ?responsibly slows the growth of Medicare . . ..?

Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR), speaking in opposition, said the tax cuts it contained are ?outmoded and discredited, and . . . most important . . . (it cuts) aid to Americans most in need, students, the elderly, the sick, disabled, (while) assaulting our environment . . . .? Rep. Van Hollen (D-MD) expressed his opposition to it because he claimed the RSC approach ?takes a meat ax to the Medicare program . . . . (It) goes back to the same old tax cutting for the wealthiest Americans, whereas the Democratic plan provides tax cuts of $1.5 trillion for working Americans, not just the wealthiest.? Van Hollen also claimed that the Republican budget would ?slam a brake on the economic recovery plan that this Congress passed and is making its way through our economy.?  Jordan responded that the Republican budget does not ?put up a stop sign (to recovery). We put up a stop sign to debt.?

The proposed budget was defeated by a vote of 111-322.  All 111 ?aye? votes were cast by Republicans. All two hundred and fifty-seven Democrats, joined by sixty-five other Republicans, voted ?nay?. As a result, the budget developed by the Republican Study Committee was not adopted.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Won
Roll Call 188
Apr 02, 2009
(H.Con. Res. 85) On approval of the fiscal year 2010 budget proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the Congressional Progressive Caucus  (?CPC?) budget, which was offered as a substitute for the Democratic majority-sponsored budget that the House was considering. The CPC budget would have cut defense spending by $158 billion in Fiscal Year 2010, implemented nearly 800 outstanding Government Accountability Office recommendations to reduce waste, fraud and abuse at the Defense Department, saved $90 billion by executing a complete withdrawal from Iraq, rolled back what it characterized as ?the Bush tax breaks for the top 1 percent?,  and invested $991 billion in non-defense discretionary spending including $300 billion for health care, anti-poverty programs, infrastructure, and non-military foreign assistance . An additional $30 billion was included to fight global warming and promote energy independence, $70 billion for education programs and $45 billion to make veterans health care an entitlement.

Rep. Woolsey (D-CA), a co-author of the budget proposal, began her statement in support by saying that, in the 2008 election, ?the American people voted to take the country in a new direction, and that is exactly what the CPC budget does, not by making small adjustments, but by fundamentally changing the way our government allocates its resources.?  Rep. Lee (D-CA), a member of the CPC, speaking in support of its proposal, said that budgets ?reflect our Nation?s values and priorities? and that the CPC budget ?provides critical relief to those who are suffering during this economic crisis.?

Rep. Hensarling (R-TX), who opposed the CPC budget, grouped it together with the budget proposal put forward by the Democratic majority and said ?they have a whole lot more in common than they have in their differences. (Both) of these budgets . . .  are simply radical . . . They tax too much, and they borrow too much. . . We were looking at entitlement spending simply being out of control.?  To support his opposition, Hensarling cited a recent statement from the Federal Reserve that, unless meaningful action is taken to address the rapid growth of entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened.

Rep. Inglis (R-SC) opposed the CPC budget on the ground that it would increase the deficit and said ?we?ve overdosed on credit, and there really is a limit to how much you can spend. . . .?
 
The proposed budget was defeated by a vote of 84-348 All 84 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive House Members. One hundred and seventy-two other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the budget put forward by the Congressional Progressive Caucus was not adopted.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 187
Apr 02, 2009
(H.R. 1256) On passage of legislation, which authorized the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the marketing and production of cigarettes and other tobacco products

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on House passage of H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which authorized the Food and Drug Administration (the ?FDA?) to regulate the marketing and production of tobacco products, to the committee that developed it. The legislation was a response to a thirteen year old Supreme Court ruling that Congress had to give specific authority to the FDA for it to be able to apply this regulation. The bill specifically directed the FDA to end the marketing and sales of tobacco to children, to prevent cigarette manufacturers from calling cigarettes `light' or `less dangerous', and to require the removal of certain damaging materials from cigarettes. The Act also established a new fee paid for by the cigarette industry to fund the additional work that would be required of the FDA. 

Rep. Waxman, who was leading the Democratic supporter of the bill, had previously argued that ?regulating tobacco is the single most important thing we can do right now to curb (its) deadly toll, and FDA is the only agency with the right combination of scientific expertise, regulatory experience, and public health mission to oversee these products effectively.?

Rep. Rogers (R-MI), had argued that the Act would place too large an additional burden on the FDA. The impact, he claimed, would be that the FDA Commissioner would then continually have to decide between working on the limitations and prohibitions on cigarettes mandated in the bill and devoting resources to examining food facilities and undertaking research on various diseases.

Rep, Waxman (D-CA), had responded that ?this bill will not divert resources away from other important functions at the Food and Drug Administration (because) it is fully funded by a user fee from the tobacco industry . . . and none of the funds to deal with tobacco will come out of other activities at FDA.?  He added that the bill also allowed the FDA to borrow money to support the early stages of the new program to insure that other FDA funds were not diverted from their usual purposes. Waxman noted that the measure ?is supported by 1,000 public health and other groups, including the Heart Association, the Lung Association, the Cancer Society and the American Public Health Association. They would not support this bill if it did what (Rep. Rogers) claims it does . . . .?

Rep. Smith (R-TX) expressed his opposition to the measure because the prohibitions on cigarette marketing in the bill constitute ?speech restrictions . . . that raise serious first amendment concerns.? He expressed his belief that the result will be ?a swarm of lawsuits that will only divert us from trying to develop more effective approaches to tobacco use in the United States.?

The bill passed by a vote of 298- 112. Two hundred and twenty-eight Democrats and seventy Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and four Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?nay?.  As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate legislation authorizing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the marketing and production of cigarettes and other tobacco products.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Tobacco Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 186
Apr 02, 2009
(H.R.1256) Legislation which authorized the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products - - on the motion to send the bill back to committee

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, authorized the Food and Drug Administration (the ?FDA?) to regulate the marketing and production of tobacco products. The legislation was a response to a thirteen year old Supreme Court ruling that Congress had to give specific authority to the FDA for it to be able to apply this regulation. The Act specifically directed the FDA to end the marketing and sales of tobacco to children, to prevent cigarette manufacturers from calling cigarettes `light' or `less dangerous', and to required the removal of certain damaging materials from cigarettes. The Act also established a new fee paid for by the cigarette industry to fund the additional work that would be required of the FDA. This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Rogers (R-MI) to send the bill back to committee.

A motion to recommit to committee is a procedural device used by an opponent of a pending measure to attempt to prevent a vote in the House on that measure. Rep. Rogers argued that the bill should not move forward because it would place too large an additional burden on the FDA. The impact, he claimed, would be that the FDA Commissioner would then continually have to decide between working on the limitations and prohibitions on cigarettes mandated in the bill and devoting resources to examining food facilities and undertaking research on various diseases.

Rep. Waxman, who was leading the Democratic supporter of the bill, had previously argued that ?regulating tobacco is the single most important thing we can do right now to curb (its) deadly toll, and FDA is the only agency with the right combination of scientific expertise, regulatory experience, and public health mission to oversee these products effectively.?

Waxman (D-CA), responded to the Rogers motion by arguing that ?this bill will not divert resources away from other important functions at the Food and Drug Administration (because) it is fully funded by a user fee from the tobacco industry . . . and none of the funds to deal with tobacco will come out of other activities at FDA.?  He added that the bill also allowed the FDA to borrow money to support the early stages of the new program to insure that other FDA funds were not diverted from their usual purposes. Waxman noted that the measure ?is supported by 1,000 public health and other groups, including the Heart Association, the Lung Association, the Cancer Society and the American Public Health Association. They would not support this bill if it did what (Rep. Rogers) claims it does . . . .?

The motion failed by a vote of 169- 256. One hundred and fifty-seven Republicans and twelve Democrats voted aye. Two hundred and thirty-eight Democrats and eighteen Republicans voted ?nay?.  As a result, the bill was not sent back to committee, and the House moved to a final vote on legislation, which authorized the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Tobacco Industry
N N Won
Roll Call 185
Apr 02, 2009
(H.R.1256) On the Buyer of Indiana amendment, which would have required the FDA to consider the cost or feasibility of imposing restrictions or prohibitions on tobacco use, and would also have permitted the marketing of ?lower-risk? tobacco products

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, authorized the Food and Drug Administration (the ?FDA?) to regulate the marketing and production of tobacco products. The Act was a response to a Supreme Court ruling that Congress had to give specific authority to the FDA for it to be able to regulate tobacco. H.R. 1256 directed the FDA to end the marketing and sales of tobacco to children,  to prevent cigarette manufacturers from calling cigarettes ?light? or ?less dangerous?, and to require the removal of certain damaging materials from cigarettes. It also established a new fee paid for by the cigarette industry to fund the additional work that would be required of the FDA. 

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Buyer (R-IN) that would have substituted new language for the provisions of H.R. 1256.  The substitute language would have, among other things, required the FDA to consider the cost or feasibility of imposing restrictions or prohibitions on tobacco use, and would also have permitted the marketing of ?lower-risk? or ?light? tobacco products.

Rep. Waxman, who was the leading Democratic supporter of the Act, began by saying that ?regulating tobacco is the single most important thing we can do right now to curb (its) deadly toll, and FDA is the only agency with the right combination of scientific expertise, regulatory experience, and public health mission to oversee these products effectively.?  Waxman then noted that the bill was supported by many health-related organizations including the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Rep. Buyer argued: ?(T)he supporters of (the Act) claim that it is designed to protect children from the dangers of smoking. But (it) does not include any provision that actually protects minors from tobacco use.? He then cited support from The American Association of Public Health Physicians for his substitute, since it would require the states to use a portion of the funds they recovered in law suits against the tobacco companies to combat underage smoking and promote smoking cessation.

Rep.McIntyre (D-NC), who co-authored the substitute, noted that the tobacco industry contributes over $36 billion to the U.S. economy annually and employs over 19,000 people. He described the substitute as ?a practical approach to government regulation of tobacco that protects health while preserving a vital economic engine for many communities . . . .? McIntyre pointed to out that the substitute also ?specifically protects growers by preventing any government agency from requiring changes to traditional farming practices . . . .?

Rep. Smith (R-TX) expressed his support for the amendment because it would eliminate the prohibitions in H.R. 1256 on cigarette marketing in the bill, which he said constitute ?speech restrictions . . . that raise serious first amendment concerns.? He expressed his belief that the result will be ?a swarm of lawsuits that will only divert us from trying to develop more effective approaches to tobacco use . . . .?

The amendment failed by a vote of 142-284. One hundred and twenty-four Republicans and eighteen Democrats voted aye. Two hundred and thirty-three Democrats and fifty-one Republicans voted nay. As a result, the provisions of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act remained in place.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Tobacco Industry
N N Won
Roll Call 184
Apr 02, 2009
(H.Con. Res.316) The budget for fiscal year 2010 - - on agreeing to the resolution setting the terms for debate

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debate of the budget for fiscal year 2010. That budget also included spending guidelines for the next five fiscal years. Under House procedures, before a measure can be considered, the House must first approve a rule setting the terms for debate of the measure.

The debate focused primarily on the merits of the Democratic and Republican budget proposals, rather than on the terms of the rule for debating them. Rep. McGovern (D-MA), who led the effort on behalf of the rule, claimed that the Democratic budget ?reduces the deficit . . . cuts taxes for middle-class families, and . . . makes critical investments in health care, education, and clean energy.  . . . .?  He argued that the Obama Administration inherited an economy in a deep recession, with a projected annual deficit of over $1 trillion, ?which was the direct result of the policies of the Bush administration, along with their Republican allies in Congress . . . .? McGovern went on to argue that the proposed Democratic budget will reduce the deficit by growing the economy, creating good-paying jobs for middle-class Americans, and investing in the green energy economy of the future.   He contrasted this with the Republican budget proposal he said would slash health care and nutrition ?for the most vulnerable Americans . . . (ignore) the educational needs of our people . . . (and rely) on the same dirty fossil fuels that threaten our environment and increase our dependence on foreign oil.?

Rep. Andrews (D-NJ), supporting McGovern, said that the Republicans? claim that the Democratic budget will raise taxes is untrue and: ?(I)n fact, there is a $1.7 trillion tax reduction (in the Democratic budget) for the bottom 95 percent of people in this country, for middle-class people.? Rep. Maloney (D-NY) added that the effect of the budget resolution would be to cut the deficit by two-thirds by 2013.

Rep. Dreier (R-CA), who led the Republicans in the debate, responded to the Democrats? claim that their budget would reduce the deficit by saying that, after reviewing that budget, ?I don't know where that comes from. . . all the spending that is in here . . . will create deficits that are . . . extraordinarily high.?  Rep. Lungren (R-CA) referred to the claims of the Democrats that the Bush Administration had created the deficits. He said ?to condemn the actions of the past and then say you're going to get out of it by repeating it but doubling down on it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.? Lungren also argued that the ?cap and trade? system included in the Democratic budget, under which companies that emit excessive amounts of pollutants would have to buy energy credits from those companies that pollute less, is effectively an unfair tax on many small business that consumer would ultimately bear.

The rule passed by a vote of 242-176. All 242 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Six other Democrats joined all 170 Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move ahead to debate the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Tobacco Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 183
Apr 02, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 182
Apr 01, 2009
(H.R.1664) On passage of the Pay for Performance Act that limited the types executive compensation that could be paid by companies that received federal government financial assistance.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of H.R. 1664, the Pay for Performance Act. That legislation generally froze bonus payments for executives and employees of companies that accepted federal funds from the Troubled Asset Relief (?TARP?) Program until those funds were repaid. The Program extended funds to troubled banks. H.R. 1664 did allow for new compensation and bonus arrangements to be made, as long as they were based on performance standards to be crafted by the Treasury Secretary. The bill was one of several measures put forward in response to reports about multimillion dollar bonuses going to executives of AIG. The federal government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep AIG and other banks solvent under the TARP and news of these bonuses created protests in Congress.

Rep. Grayson (D-FL), one of the co-authors of the Act, summarized its basis as seeing to it that ?. . . no one has the right to get rich off taxpayer money, and . . . no one should get rich off abject failure.? He went on to say ?a government that hands out money to such executives is a government that fails to protect its own taxpayers. Grayson added: ?(I)f the banks want to avoid . . . these commonsense restrictions, there's a very simple way for them to do so. Just pay the bailout money back to the government . . . .?

Rep. Culberson (R-TX) expressed his opposition to the legislation by repeating an argument that the Republicans had been making in relation to a number of measures the Democrats had been supporting. He criticized ?liberals who rushed their $800 billion stimulus bill through the House, ensuring these AIG bonuses would be paid? and claimed that ? if the Members had more than 12 hours to read (that) 1,100 page, $800 billion stimulus bill, we might have been able to spot problems like this before Members were forced to vote.? Culberson characterized the Pay for Performance Act as ?political cover? for the Democrats.

Rep. Frank (D-MA), who was managing the Pay for Performance Act, responded to Rep. Culberson by arguing that the Republican position was not logical: Frank first noted that the Republicans were criticizing the fact that the stimulus package was rushed through without recognizing that it would permit the kinds of excessive executive bonuses that the pending legislation was trying to eliminate; he then claimed that, notwithstanding the Republican criticism of the Democrats for permitting those bonuses, they were now opposing a bill designed to eliminate them.

The bill passed by a vote of 247-163. Two hundred and thirty-seven Democrats and ten Republicans voted aye. One hundred and fifty-five  Republicans and eight Democrats voted nay. As a result, the House approved and sent it on to the Senate legislation that limited the types of executive compensation that could be paid by companies receiving federal financial assistance,


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 181
Apr 01, 2009
(H.R.1664) On the Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania amendment expanding the types of executive compensation that were prohibited from being paid by companies receiving federal government financial assistance

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1664, the Pay for Performance Act, generally froze many types of bonus payments for executives and employees of companies that accepted funds from the Troubled Asset Relief  (?TARP?) Program until those funds were repaid. The TARP program had been created to assist troubled banks during the serious economic decline of 2008 and 2009,  The bill was one of several measures put forward in response to reports about multimillion dollar bonuses going to executives of AIG. The federal government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep AIG and other banks solvent under the TARP and news of these bonuses created protests in Congress.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Dahlkemper (D-PA) to H.R. 1664 that expanded the scope of bonus payments for executives and employees that could not be paid by companies accepting federal funds from the TARP Program. Rep. Dahlkemper said her amendment closes loopholes that may exist in the legislation. She summarized the intent of its language as stopping all excessive bonuses ?regardless of when the executive worked at the company . . . (and) regardless of what form they take.? Dahlkemper said the amendment would accomplish this by prohibiting ?payments made before, during, or after employment of the executive by the financial institution receiving a direct capital investment under the TARP? clarifying that ?executive compensation . . . (includes) money paid, property transferred, or services rendered.?

Rep. Bachus (R-AL) opposed the amendment because, he said, it defines the covered compensation ?as payment before employment, during employment, or after termination of employment, which almost appears to be almost a ?cradle-to-grave? period of time.

Rep. Frank (D-MA), who was managing the Pay for Performance Act and supported the amendment, responded to Rep. Bachus, by noting: ?(G)olden parachutes are a form of retirement.? He added that what he characterized as ?outsized retirement packages to a handful of favored employees  . . . (which have) been a part of the problem? is the kind of excessive compensation that the amendment is designed to prevent.

The amendment passed by a vote of 246-180. Two hundred and forty Democrats and six Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-seven Republicans and thirteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House added language to H.R. 1664 setting additional limits on executive compensation that could be paid by banks receiving federal financial assistance.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 180
Apr 01, 2009
(H.R.1664) On the Bean of Illinois amendment that would exempt certain companies that had accepted federal financial assistance from the restrictions that had been imposed on executive compensation paid by such companies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1664, the Pay for Performance Act, generally froze bonus payments for executives and employees of companies that accepted funds from the Troubled Asset Relief (?TARP?) Program until those funds were repaid. The TARP program had been created to assist troubled banks during the serious economic decline of 2008 and 2009, This vote was on an amendment to H.R. 1664, offered by Rep. Bean (D-IL), that allowed for new compensation and bonus arrangements to be made by such banks, as long as they were based on performance standards to be crafted by the Treasury Secretary. It exempted companies that adhere to a repayment program from the coverage of the Act. The Pay for Performance Act was one of several measures put forward in response to reports about multimillion dollar bonuses going to executives of AIG. The federal government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep AIG and other banks solvent under the TARP and news of these bonuses created protests in Congress.

Rep. Bean, speaking in support of the amendment, said it ?recognizes that some financial institutions who participated in the TARP did so because they were asked to by the Treasury or wanted to provide additional loans, not because they needed it or had failed in their businesses. While they expected compensation limits for top executives, they did not expect to be disallowed from providing bonuses company-wide.?

Rep, McMahon (D-NY), who co-sponsored the amendment with Bean, added that ?bonuses are an important part of employee compensation in the financial services industry. . . This amendment is an incentive for these companies to get back their financial health. Once companies that receive TARP funds start repaying the TARP funding, we will lift these restrictions . . .  If for some reason you stop repaying, then you fall under these restrictions of this bill.?

Rep. Frank (D-MA), who was managing the Pay for Performance Act on the House floor, said that, although the amendment was not ?unreasonable?, he did not support it. He expressed concern that, if the amendment passed, banks could announce they were repaying their TARP funds, award the otherwise prohibited compensation, and then adopt a lengthy repayment schedule. His concern was that a lengthy repayment period would suspend the effect of the bill for quite a while.

The amendment passed by a vote of 228-165. One hundred and sixty-five Republicans and sixty-three Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and ninety Democrats, including the majority of the most progressive Members, and eight Republicans voted nay. As a result, language was added to H.R. 1664 that, under certain conditions, exempted companies repaying loans made to them by the government from the federal restrictions on executive compensation.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y N Lost
Roll Call 178
Apr 01, 2009
(H.R.1575) Legislation giving the Attorney General the authority to investigate and challenge certain bonuses paid to entities receiving federal ?bail out? funds - - on suspending the usual House rules and passing the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1575 was designed to give the Attorney General the authority to investigate and challenge certain bonuses paid to entities receiving federal ?bail out? funds. The legislation was developed in response to reports about multimillion dollar bonuses going to executives of AIG. The federal government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep AIG and other banks solvent under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (?TARP?). Reports of these bonuses created protests in Congress. The measure allowed the Attorney General to challenge certain bonuses, paid up to seven months earlier, by entities receiving $5 billion or more in direct federal capital investments. It also authorized the Attorney General to subpoena information relevant to those bonuses. This was a vote on a motion to suspend the regular House rules and pass H.R.1575.

Rep. Conyers, who was leading the support for the bill, characterized it as an effort ?to safeguard taxpayer funds and rein in the out-of-control compensation and bonus abuses by companies that have used Federal Government-supplied capital to stay out of bankruptcy.?   He noted that its terms were based on existing federal fraudulent transfer laws. In anticipation of objections to the bill on constitutional grounds, Conyers entered into the Congressional Records opinions of legal experts supporting its constitutionality.

A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill is a procedural mechanism that is usually employed to gain approval for measures that the House leadership deems not to be very controversial. There is a limited time period allowed for debate.  Amendments cannot be offered. A two thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Smith (R-TX) expressed the reason for the opposition to the measure when he argued: ?(I)n the rush to respond to the bonuses paid to AIG executives . . . The Judiciary Committee has held no hearings, heard no expert witnesses, and provided no reasoned evaluation of this bill during the normal legislative process. . . Now (this bill) has been rewritten in the dark . . . (and) sent prematurely to the floor. . .? 

Smith then noted that the bonuses were permitted under the economic stimulus package Congress had recently passed, and asked:  ?(H)ow could bonuses that Congress and the President specifically ratified suddenly be fraudulent? If they were not fraudulent, how can this be anything other than an unconstitutional taking of contractual rights?? Smith also argued that the practice of recouping bonuses after the fact would ?undermine the Federal Government's ability to recruit bank rescue participants, so this bill will hinder a successful economic recovery rather than contribute to it.?

Rep. Cohen (D-TN) responded to Smith by saying the bill ?does not rewrite contracts whatsoever. It just gives a court the opportunity (to determine whether certain) compensation was a fraudulent transfer and was excessive . . . It shocks the public conscience, and any of those bonuses should be void against public policy, and because they would be void against public policy, this Congress appropriately acted with legislation.? Smith countered by claiming that the bill has the unfortunate effect of leaving the question of fair compensation to hundreds of federal district court judges throughout the country.?

The motion failed on a vote of 223-196. Although the measure received a majority of the vote, under the procedure employed here in which the rules would be suspended a two-thirds vote is required. Two hundred and fourteen Democrats and nine Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixth-five Republicans and thirty-one Democrats voted nay. As a result, Congress did not pass the bill that would have given the Attorney General the authority to investigate and challenge certain bonuses paid to entities receiving federal ?bail out? funds.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 177
Apr 01, 2009
(H. Res. 306) The bill prohibiting excessive compensation by financial institutions assisted by the federal government - - on the resolution providing the terms for debating that bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

A bill had been developed to limit bonuses by companies receiving federal financial assistance in response to reports about multimillion bonuses going to executives of AIG. The federal government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep AIG and other banks solvent under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (?TARP?), and news of these bonuses created protests in Congress. Under usual House procedures, before a measure can be considered, the House must first approve a resolution or ?rule?setting the terms for debating that measure. This was a vote on the rule setting the terms of debate for the bill designed to limit certain excessive bonuses.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO), who was leading the effort in support of the rule, summarized the reason for the bill itself, as follows: ?(A)s the lender . . . the United States has the authority to define the terms by which we are lending money.?  He noted that the salary limits in the bill apply only to financial institutions that have received a capital infusion under the TARP program and only prohibit compensation that is ?unreasonable or excessive or prohibits any bonus or other supplemental payment that is not performance-based?. He also noted that the Treasury Department would establish the guidelines in the bill by which it is determined what is unreasonable or excessive.

Perlmutter said he believes ?in rewarding employees for doing a good job. This bill does allow for performance compensation, but if you have received a capital investment of American tax dollars through TARP to make it through these extraordinary times, there should be commonsense limits on bonuses. . .  If an institution has an outstanding debt to the Federal Government, it has to pay it back before it gets bonuses that are excessive or unrealistic.?

Under House procedures, before a bill can be considered, the House must first approve a rule for setting the terms under which the bill will be debated. Those terms typically include such conditions as which amendments may be offered during consideration of the measure. This rule allowed seven designated amendment to be offered.

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was a leading opponent of the rule and of the bill to which the rule set the terms of consideration. She first argued that the rule should allow for unlimited amendments to be offered, and said:?(T)he majority continues its practice of limiting debate and of limiting opportunities for Republicans to offer amendments and to do whatever we can do to make a bad bill somewhat better or to make a bad rule somewhat better.? She then noted that this compensation limitation bill ?sounds great. However, when you get inside the bill and you read it, it . . . allows the Treasury Department to set the salaries and compensation for all employees in a private organization. This is wrong to do.? She went on to claim ?this administration . . . (is) going to run this country from the government down to every single business in the country: ?

Rep. Arcuri (D-NY) responded by saying he understands ?that some people are critical of AIG. Certainly we understand that. We all are critical of the AIG top executives. I even respect the opinions of those who are critical of this bill. . . . The thing that I don't understand is how you can be critical of both. You really can't. If you are critical of what happened at AIG, then you have to say that this is exactly the kind of thing that Congress should be doing. . . .?

The rule passed by a vote of 236-175 along almost straight party lines. All 236 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and four Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move to debate the bill limiting executive compensation to institutions receiving federal assistance.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 176
Apr 01, 2009
(H.Res. 305) The federal budget for fiscal year 2010-- on the resolution setting the terms for debate

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Under congressional procedures, both Houses must agree on an identical budget outlining revenues and spending for a fiscal year, before any spending bill for that fiscal year can be approved. The House was scheduled to debate the budget for fiscal year 2010 and the general budgetary levels through fiscal year 2014. Under usual House procedures, before a measure can be considered, the House must first approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating that measure. This was a vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the fiscal year 2010 budget.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), who was leading the effort on the rule, focused his attention on the budget itself. He first argued: ?(F)or the last 8 years, President Bush flat out mismanaged the Federal budget (by) enacting huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that led to skyrocketing deficits, by spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without paying for them, and by refusing to invest in the American people.? McGovern then claimed that the budget developed by the Democratic majority writes ?a whole new book, and our budget cuts the deficit by more than half by 2013. It cuts taxes for middle-income families by $1.5 trillion. It creates jobs by investing in health care, clean energy, and education.?

McGovern highlighted three broad areas with which he claimed the budget dealt: ?Fiscal discipline, middle-class tax cuts, and investments in the American people?. He claimed: ?(U)nlike the Bush administration, we actually budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of hiding them under, quote, emergency spending categories . . . Our budget cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans. It provides immediate relief from the alternative minimum tax, it eliminates the estate tax in nearly all the states, and works to close corporate tax loopholes. . . .?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA), who was leading the Republican effort against the rule, also dealt directly with the budget itself. He argued ?this Democratic-Obama budget . . . in fact over the next 5 years doubles the national debt and over the next 10 years triples the national debt. . . . They like to claim that their tax hikes will only hit the super-rich. They are wrong. Their income tax hikes will hit the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy. And their cap-and-trade (energy) program, the great source of revenues, which is really a cap-and-tax program, will raise taxes on every single household in America.?

Dreier further argued:?Republicans aren't advocating extreme austerity, but we are advocating a little common sense. We must own up to the hard choices that are a fact of life for the American people (but) we clearly have an alternative. . . It will not tax small businesses and working families and will not balloon the deficit to untenable proportions . . . I urge my colleagues not to be drawn into the false choice that has been provided by the Democratic majority.? 

The rule passed by a vote of 234-179 along almost straight party lines. All 234 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Five other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move to debate the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 175
Apr 01, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 172
Mar 31, 2009
(H.Res. 279) On passage of the resolution approving the funding levels for all committees of the House of Representatives for the 111th Congress.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Under usual procedures, the House of Representatives passes a resolution early in the first year of each two year Congress authorizing funds for the operation of each of its committees. The House Committee on Administration develops the resolution by holding hearings at which each committee chairman testifies on the needs of the committees for that two year Congress.  H.Res. 279, which provided funds for committee operations during the 111th Congress, generally gave each committee a maximum of a 4.78% increase for 2009. This percentage corresponded to the 2009 cost-of-living increase for Federal employees in Washington, D.C.   For 2010, the committees were to receive an across-the-board increase of an additional 3.9% which, the House Administration Committee estimated, would be needed to maintain staff pay at the level of inflation.

The resolution also provided a few committees with some additional funds - - the Judiciary Committee to undertake mandated inquiries into judicial impeachment, the Energy and Commerce Committee to deal with energy policy, the Financial Services Committee to deal with the ongoing financial crisis, the Small Business Committee to deal with health care, and the Ethics Committee to deal with the conduct of House Members.

Rep. Brady (D-PA), who was leading the Democratic support for the resolution, said: ?Over the last Congress, the committees of the House conducted far more hearings and did far more work than in recent years. They did all this without an increase in funding. Last Congress we were not even able to keep up with inflation . . . (and) have even more work to do in this Congress because of the challenges of our economic situation and other legislative priorities.  At the same time, we know that the economic status of the nation means that we must do more with less.?

Rep. Lungren (R-CA), who was leading the Republican support for the resolution, said it represented a ?commitment to tighten our collective fiscal belts (but it) cannot come at the expense of our constitutionally mandated role of providing oversight over the federal coffers. . . .?  Lungren also noted: ?When Republicans assumed the majority in 1995, we started what has been an ongoing tradition of ensuring the minority party receives at least one-third of the committees resources, an amount I believe necessary to carry out the minority's responsibilities as the party of `loyal opposition.? ? He said he was pleased that the Democrats have included the same percentage for the Republicans in the resolution. 

The only opposition to the resolution was voiced by Rep. Issa (R-CA). He said he was ?disappointed? that inadequate funds were allocated to the Government Oversight and Reform Committee. Issa first noted that President Obama and House Speaker Pelosi had emphasized the importance that oversight was going to have during the 111th Congress. He then argued that, with the hundreds of billions of additional dollars being spent in programs aimed at dealing with the economic downturn ?with virtually no rules and real questions about how much has already been lost . . . ?, that committee should have had its funding increased.

Rep. Capuano (D-MA), a member of the House Administration Committee, responded to Rep. Issa by noting that House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) ?has specifically asked each and every one of the 20 standing committees to do more oversight on their own. . . (and) all of those committees are already doing more oversight this term than they have done in the past.? 

The resolution was approved by a vote of 288-136. Two hundred and forty-five Democrats and forty-three Republicans voted ?aye?.  One hundred and thirty Republicans and six Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved the resolution providing the funding for all its committees for 2009 and 2010.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 169
Mar 31, 2009
(H.R.1388) On passage of legislation providing funds for local community service and volunteer efforts

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on passage of H.R. 1388, legislation, which provided funds for local community service and volunteer organizations. The general intent and substance of the bill had bipartisan support. However, Republicans had expressed concern that the bill did not include language that prohibited funds authorized by it from going to organizations affiliated with groups that promote abortions, as well as political parties and lobbyists, or organizations that have been indicted on voter fraud charges.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who was leading the effort on behalf of the bill, said: ?Not only does it provide increased flexibility for states, but it also increases accountability and efficiency within the administration of the programs.  H.R. 1388 strengthens existing community and national service programs by providing year-round service opportunities for students and the elderly alike, and further encourages volunteer involvement by disadvantaged youth.  This legislation also expands eligibility requirements for senior-focused programs such as Foster Grandparents and the Senior Companion Program, ensuring that individuals with an interest in serving have options available to them. Finally, I am pleased that the legislation reorganizes AmeriCorps activities into several different corps focused on national areas of need such as education, health care, clean energy and veterans. This bill creates 175,000 new service opportunities for Americans.?

Rep. Souder (R-IN) expressed some of the concerns that Republicans had about the bill. He noted that a similar version of this legislation that the House previously passed included a clause restricting the use of funds for sex education. Souder acknowledged that this ?is not likely to be a use of this bill, but as a conservative I sometimes have justifiable paranoia about how liberals may use this money.? He then expressed general concern ?about the amount of money that the federal government is spending. There are going to be bills in this cycle that many Republicans who might have supported them in the past will have reservations on. We have run up in the first 2 months more additions to the deficit than we had in the first 5 years of the last administration. At some point the question is, how are we going to fund these Treasury bills??

Other Republicans also had expressed specific concerns, during earlier deliberations on this measure, about the absence of language in the bill prohibiting funds in it from being given to organizations that affiliated with groups that promote or provide abortions, as well as organizations that have been indicted on voter fraud charges.

The legislation passed by a vote of 275-149. Two hundred and forty-nine Democrats and twenty-six Republicans voted ?aye?. All one hundred and forty-nine ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, the House passed the bill providing funds for local community service and volunteer efforts, and sent it to the president to be signed into law.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Encouraging Voluntary National Service
Y Y Won
Roll Call 166
Mar 31, 2009
(H.Res. 296) Legislation providing funds for local community service and volunteer efforts - - on approving the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to approve the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation providing federal funds for local community service and volunteer efforts. A somewhat different version of this legislation had previously passed the House with bipartisan support. The House was now considering the version of the bill that the Senate had passed. As with most major bills the House considers, it first had to approve a rule for it, before the House could begin debate on the measure.

Rep. Matsui (D-CA), who was among those leading the effort on behalf of the rule and the legislation, said the bill ?strengthens our communities, helps educate future generations, teaches our youth to prepare for and respond to natural disasters, and fosters a growth of respect and compassion throughout our entire society . . . (and) will help launch a new era of American service and volunteerism.? She noted that, ?with increased numbers of Americans losing jobs (because of the recession), many are turning to service as a way to contribute to their communities and learn new skills.?

During consideration of the previous version of this legislation that the House passed, House Republicans had successfully added language that prohibited funds authorized by it from going to organizations affiliated with groups that promote abortions, as well as political parties and lobbyists, or organizations that have been indicted on voter fraud charges. During Senate consideration of the previous version, that language was removed. The language of the measure the House was now considering did not include that language.

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), who was a leader of the previous effort to prohibit funds for those organization, said that similar language was still needed because ?the federal government prohibits . . . funds to be used for abortion as a form of family planning and the federal government should not be paying individuals to volunteer their time at locations that are prohibited from receiving taxpayer dollars . . . .?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was a leading the Republican supporter for the previous version of the legislation, said that he ?must now oppose the legislation? because of the removal of the provisions that prohibited certain organizations from receiving funds it authorized. Diaz-Balart said that he did not ?understand why the majority leadership would force the House to consider legislation that will allow organizations that have been indicted on voter fraud charges to receive taxpayer funds, especially when the House (had previously) overwhelmingly voted to forbid the use of taxpayer funds for such organizations.?

The rule was approved 240-173 along straight party lines. All 240 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, and all 173 ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, the House was able to move to debate whether to accept the Senate version of the bill providing funds for local community service and volunteer efforts.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Encouraging Voluntary National Service
Y Y Won
Roll Call 163
Mar 30, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 161
Mar 26, 2009
On the Goodlatte of Virginia amendment, which provided additional funding for fighting wildfires

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment offered by Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA) to the Federal Land Assistance Management and Enhancement (?FLAME?) Act. The FLAME Act established a dedicated fund for catastrophic, emergency wild land fire suppression activities, separate from other appropriated fire-fighting funding. This new fund was designed to be available when other appropriated funds run out, saving federal agencies from having to dip into non fire-related programs.

The Goodlatte amendment was designed to give the Forest Service permanent authority to contract with states to deal with fires that start on federal land and spread to state and private forest land and vice versa. Goodlatte noted that: ?Fires know no boundaries . . . My amendment provides a more comprehensive approach to preventing dangerous fires and fighting them when they happen.? He said it would give the Forest Service ?an additional tool to address these problems that will ultimately be a cost-saving measure.?  Goodlatte also claimed it would create ?a new contracting tool for the Forest Service to partner with states.? He noted that his amendment was supported by the Society of American Foresters, the Western Council of State Foresters, and the Forest Foundation.

Rep. Rahall (D-WV), who was leading the effort on behalf of the FLAME Act, opposed the amendment. Rahall said his opposition was not to the kind of federal-state agreements the amendment envisioned, but ?rather the way the amendment would allow these types of projects to proceed . . . .? He argued that the amendment ?. . . could undermine current protections in the law that protect taxpayer interests, forest worker rights and which ensure adequate environmental review for activities occurring on forest lands . . . .? Rahall claimed: ?The transfer of contracting authority from the federal government to the states (could have adverse impacts) on federal worker-protection laws (since many of) . . . These federal labor standards do not apply to contracts issued by individual states?. He  noted that the amendment was opposed by the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades and by the Carpenters' Union.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 161-272. One hundred and fifty-three Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty Democrats and thirty-two Republicans voted nay. As a result, language was not added to the FLAME Act to give the Forest Service the authority to contract with states to deal with fires that spread from, or to, federal land.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
N N Won
Roll Call 156
Mar 25, 2009
(H.Res. 281) Legislation providing additional funding for fighting wild fires - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the Federal Land Assistance Management and Enhancement (?FLAME?) Act. The FLAME Act established a dedicated fund for emergency wild land fire suppression activities, separate from other appropriated fire-fighting funding. As with most major bills the House considers, it first had to approve a rule for it, before the House could begin debate on the measure. The rule for the FLAME Act limited the number of amendments that could be offered. Many Republicans opposed that limitation, even though they favored the substance of the legislation.

The new fund established by the Act was designed to be available when other appropriated funds run out, saving federal agencies from having to dip into non fire-related programs. The bill authorized the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to use money from this new fund only after making a specific declaration that a fire was large enough and dangerous enough to warrant such action. The bill also required the Forest Service to send Congress a comprehensive strategy for combating wildfires that addressed shortcomings that had been identified by the Government Accountability Office and the Agriculture Department's Inspector General.

Rep. Polis (D-CO), speaking in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, noted the rapidly rising cost of fighting wildfires, which used 46 percent of the Forest Service's budget in 2008 compared to 13 percent in 1991. He argued: ?Our policy needs to make sure that, as these fires grow in scope and number, we are not forced to make hard choices between money and safety. . . By establishing the FLAME fund, this bill separates the increasing costs of fighting fires from the annual budget that agencies rely on for maintenance and mitigation.?  Polis also claimed ?this bill has gained the support of every environmentally conscious constituency, from land management agencies to environmental and community leaders to local governments.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) expressed the Republican opposition to the terms of the rule that limited the number of amendments that could be offered during the debate of the bill. He said: ?Although I support the underlying legislation . . . Members in the minority have expressed their concern that the legislation only addresses one aspect of the problem, the suppression funding side, without providing real relief and dealing with the underlying problem to help prevent wildfires. . . . . Unfortunately, in what is becoming quite a familiar pattern, the House majority leadership and the majority on the Rules Committee continue to block an open debate even on noncontroversial  legislation. . . the majority is apparently so afraid of losing control of the debate that even on something with obvious consensus support the majority blocks Members from (offering amendments).?

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) argued that ?there is an issue of contention . . . on fire prevention (and) apparently there are objections from the extreme environmental lobby with regard to fire prevention being able to be debated. And the majority party, listening to that extreme lobby, has (under the terms of the rule) not allowed that issue of contention which should be brought before this floor to be even debated.?  Rep. Polis (D-CO) countered the Republican argument by noting that, of the 16 requests for amendments to be offered that were germane under House procedures, 13 were made in order under the rule, ?and indeed five of those were by Republican sponsors.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 248-175 along almost straight party lines. All 248 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Two other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy-three Republicans in voting nay. As a result, the rule was approved and the House was able to move to debate the FLAME Act.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 155
Mar 25, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 153
Mar 25, 2009
(H.R.146) On passage of legislation that would add millions of acres of wilderness, rivers and public lands and sites to federal control

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 146, the Public Land Management Act of 2009. This Act combined into one measure more than 160 proposals designating millions of acres of new wildernesses, wild and scenic rivers, hiking trails, heritage areas, water projects, and historic preservation initiatives.

Rep. Rahall (D-WV), who led the support for the bill, described it as ?landmark legislation (that) combines measures that will strengthen the National Park System, restore our national forests, preserve our wild and scenic rivers, protect our sacred battlefields, and restore balance to the management of our public lands . . . after nearly a decade during which responsible stewardship was abandoned . . . .? Rahall said the bill ?will preserve pristine wilderness . . . protect our national monuments and conservation areas, conserve our free-flowing rivers, establish new park units, guarantee abundant clean water for thousands of families, and more.?

Responding to arguments made by Republican members against the Act, he said ?we were told that this package costs a great deal of money. The Congressional Budget Office has made it clear; it does not. We were told that this is a big federal land grab; but Members now understand that this package contains no condemnation nor taking of land of any kind. We were told this package contained a provision that would put children in jail for collecting fossils. We know now that only large commercial companies who take public resources and sell them for private profit will be penalized.?

Rep. Hastings (R-WA), who was leading the opposition to the bill, first said ?it contains several meritorious separate pieces of legislation, and three parts of this omnibus bill are mine, I might add, (but) the negatives in this bill and the failure to consider it under regular order of any kind of open, inclusive process outweigh any reason, in my mind, to go forward.?

Hastings also argued that the bill blocks ?American-made energy production, locking away hundreds of millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. More than 3 million acres of public land are permanently locked away from energy development.?  He went on to say the Act ?has many other problems. It could--and I say ?could?-- result in a ban on the use of vehicles and other technology to patrol the U.S. border. It bans recreational access to millions of acres of public lands. Even worse, it denies those dependent on wheelchairs, including disabled veterans, from fully enjoying public lands like everyone else. It . . . even hurts civil liberties . . . we received a letter from a coalition of civil rights groups . . . who have grave concerns. And I will quote, ?The bill creates many new federal crimes using language that is so broad that the provisions could cover innocent human error.?''

Rep. Rahall responded ?to some of the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle (M)any of you are in the enviable position, I guess, of protesting against this bill--perhaps voting against it--yet still getting (specific projects) you want. I guess being in the minority sometimes has its advantages. . . .?

The legislation passed on a vote of 285-140. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and thirty-eight Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and thirty-six Republicans and four Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result the House approved, and sent to the President for his signing into law, legislation adding millions of acres of wilderness, rivers and public lands and sites to federal control.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 151
Mar 25, 2009
On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 280 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation adding millions of acres of wilderness, rivers and public lands and sites to federal control. This legislation combined into one measure more than 160 proposals designating new wildernesses, wild and scenic rivers, hiking trails, heritage areas, water projects, and historic preservation initiatives.  As with most major bills the House considers, it first had to approve a rule for it, before the House could begin debate on the measure.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME), one of the primary supporters of the legislation and the rule for it, described the legislation as providing ?the opportunity to strengthen our National Park System, improve forest health, facilitate better management of our public lands, and increase the quantity and quality of the water supply in numerous local communities.? She added: ?By finally passing this legislation today, we will designate over 2 million acres of land as wilderness. ?  In response to an anticipated criticism of the bill, Pingree said ?we are not closing off or preventing access to land . . . This legislation . . . preserves land for hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities.

Rep. Foxx(R-NC), who was leading the opposition to the rule, first noted that she was a supporter of national parks. She then said the bill for which the rule was being debated ?is going to harm our country? because, among other things, it would restrict people with disabilities from using many public lands. She noted that: ?We even have the ACLU . . . opposed to this bill . . . .? Foxx went on to claim: ?But it's going to be rammed through, like so many other things have been rammed through in this session of Congress, and it's setting the tone for how the majority is operating in this Congress at this time . . . there are 160 bills in this one bill--even though 100 of them have never been debated by either (congressional) body . . . ."

Rep. Hastings (R-WA), another opponent of the rule, acknowledged that the bill the rule covered ?does contain some worthwhile provisions?. He then went on to described the overall legislation as ?a monster bill (incorporating) more than 170 pieces of different legislation (and over) 100 of these bills have never been voted on in the House.? He argued that it ?locks up federal lands from renewable energy production, including wind and solar? and would cost $10 billion. Hastings also complained that he had proposed that ten amendments be made in order, but that the rule developed by the Democrats did not allow for any of them to be offered.

In response to the Republicans? complaints, Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR) said he supported the rule because the bill is too important for us to ?tweak the legislation now,? since bills dealing with land and wilderness areas can get ?tied up in Senate politics and procedural activities for a half-dozen years.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 247-177 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?.  One hundred and seventy-four Republicans and three Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating final passage of legislation adding millions of acres of wilderness, rivers and public lands and sites to federal control.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 150
Mar 25, 2009
(H.Res. 280) Legislation adding millions of acres of wilderness, rivers and public lands and sites to federal control - - on a motion that the House vote immediately on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to bring to an immediate vote the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms under which the House could debate legislation adding millions of acres of wilderness, rivers and public lands and sites to federal control. This legislation combined into one measure more than 160 proposals designating millions of acres of new wildernesses, wild and scenic rivers, hiking trails, heritage areas, water projects, and historic preservation initiatives.  As with most major bills the House considers, it first had to approve a rule for it, before the House could begin debate on the measure.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME), one of the primary supporters of the legislation and the rule for it, described that legislation as providing ?the opportunity to strengthen our National Park System, improve forest health, facilitate better management of our public lands, and increase the quantity and quality of the water supply in numerous local communities.? She added: ?By finally passing this legislation today, we will designate over 2 million acres of land as wilderness. ?  In response to an anticipated criticism of the bill, Pingree said ?we are not closing off or preventing access to land . . . This legislation . . . preserves land for hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities.?

Rep. Foxx(R-NC), who was leading the opposition to the rule and the motion to bring it to an immediate vote, first noted that she was a supporter of national parks. She then said the bill for which the rule was being debated ?is going to harm our country? because, among other things, it would restrict people with disabilities from using many public lands. She noted that: ?We even have the ACLU . . . opposed to this bill . . . .? Foxx went on to claim: ?But it's going to be rammed through, like so many other things have been rammed through in this session of Congress, and it's setting the tone for how the majority is operating in this Congress at this time . . . there are 160 bills in this one bill--even though 100 of them have never been debated by either (congressional) body . . . . ?

Rep. Hastings (R-WA), another opponent of the rule, acknowledged that the bill the rule covered ?does contain some worthwhile provisions?. He then went on to describe the overall legislation as ?a monster bill (incorporating) more than 170 pieces of different legislation (and over) 100 of these bills have never been voted on in the House.? He argued that it ?locks up federal lands from renewable energy production, including wind and solar? and would cost $10 billion. Hastings also complained that he had proposed ten amendments be made in order, but that the rule developed by the Democrats did not allow for any of them to be offered.

In response to the Republicans? complaints, Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR) said he supported the rule because the bill is too important for us to ?tweak the legislation now,? since bills dealing with land and wilderness areas can get ?tied up in Senate politics and procedural activities for a half-dozen years.?
 
The motion carried by a vote of 242-180. Two hundred and forty-one Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?.  One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule permitting it to debate legislation adding millions of acres of wilderness, rivers and public lands and sites to federal control.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 144
Mar 19, 2009
(H.Con.Res. 76) A sense of the Congress resolution that salaries of officials of companies receiving federal financial assistance should be limited, and that AIG or its officials should repay the bonuses received by those officials; AIG had recently received federal ?bail out? assistance.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the usual House rules and pass a ?sense of the Congress? resolution. That resolution stated that salaries should be limited and bonuses returned by companies receiving federal assistance. It was drafted in response to the reports that large bonuses were given to AIG executives after the federal government contributed almost $200 billion to rescue the company. The new head of AIG had told Congress that ?AIG's hands are tied. Outside counsel has advised that these [retention payments] are legal, binding obligations of AIG.?

Rep. Frank (D-MA), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, in which the resolution was drafted, said ?there is a great deal of anger in the nation . . . (and) it is a grave error to enrich people who have apparently threatened to leave the company, abandon it and not help them get out of the problems they created unless they are given these bribes called ?retention bonuses?. . . .? Rep. Jackson-Lee (D-TX), speaking in support of the resolution, said: ?It appears that the AIG executives may not have broken the law but certainly the spirit of the law. This is unconscionable. It is an outrage that these businessmen have bucked the system and chosen to dole out federally appropriated dollars . . . .?

A ?sense of the Congress resolution? is a measure used to express the opinion of Congress about a subject of current national interest. It is symbolic in nature and not binding. It is not sent to the President for his signature and lacks the force of law.

Rep. Bachus (R-AL), who was the leading Republican on the resolution, first said he was ?extremely disappointed by the recent news that AIG paid millions of dollars in money bonuses after it received a massive government bailout.? He noted that there was agreement ?that the decisions that led to the collapse of AIG and the payment of large bonuses to some of the same executives who caused the collapse are indefensible. ? He then went on to say that he was opposed to the resolution because it ?is focused on delivering political cover to (the Democrats)?, whom he claimed were responsible for allowing the bonuses to be paid.

Frank responded that, in September of 2008, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and then Treasury Secretary Paulson, ?two appointees of George Bush told Congress that they were going to lend billions to AIG.? Frank added: ''They didn't ask us . . . So from September of 2008 until January 20, 2009, the Bush Administration was in charge of this.? 

A motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution is a procedural mechanism that is usually employed to gain approval for measures that the House leadership deems to be not very controversial. There is a limited time period for debate.  Amendments cannot be offered. A two thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass the resolution, rather than the usual majority.

The motion failed on a vote of 255-160. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and twelve Republicans voted ?aye?.  One hundred and fifty-nine Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. Since fewer than the required two thirds House Members present voted in favor, the resolution regarding AIG salaries and bonuses was not adopted.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 143
Mar 19, 2009
(H.R 1586) On suspending the usual House rules and passing a bill imposing a 90% tax on bonuses given to executives of AIG after the government had ?bailed out? the company.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the House rules and pass H.R. 1586, which imposed a 90% tax on bonuses given to AIG executives that were paid after the government had ?bailed out? the company with hundreds of billions of federal dollars. The news about these bonuses had generated a bipartisan protest. Rep. Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, led the effort in support of the legislation. He explained that ?we're not trying to punish anybody . . . Rewards are subjective, but you don't do it with taxpayers' money. . . .? Rangel said the AIG officials do not ?deserve to have these bonuses at taxpayer expense.? He noted that the way the bill was being handled, with the House rules being suspended, was ?an extraordinary procedure?, but added ?this is an extraordinary situation . . . (that) calls for an extraordinary response to it.? 

A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill is used for legislation that the leadership deems to be not very controversial. There is a limited time period for debate.  Amendments cannot be offered. A two thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME), speaking in support H.R. 1586 during a previous procedural debate relating to the measure, had said ?people across the country are rightly outraged by the egregious nature of the AIG bonuses. It is unconscionable for AIG to pay out $165 million in bonuses to the same top executives who mismanaged the company to the point of failure . . . Families and businesses . . . are struggling to make ends meet and stay in their homes. . . Meanwhile, on Wall Street, we see executives who seem to think they live by a different set of rules . . . .?

The Republican minority also expressed support for imposing a heavy tax on the bonuses. However, many Republicans raised questions about how the bonuses were originally permitted. House Minority Leader Boehner (R-OH), referring to the previously-passed economic stimulus package, said ?in that bill was . . . this one sentence that made it clear that someone knew that these AIG bonuses were about to be paid, and they didn't want them stopped. So somehow in the dark of night, this one sentence was added to the bill so that AIG would pay these bonuses to their executives. I'm wondering where did the language come from. Who wrote it?  . . . (D)o we have to have this political charade of bringing this bill out here? I don't think so.?

The motion carried by a vote of 328-93. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and eighty-five Republicans voted ?aye?. Eighty-seven Republicans and six Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House suspended its usual rules, and passed and sent on to the Senate the bill imposing a 90% tax on bonuses paid to AIG executives.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 142
Mar 19, 2009
(H.Res. 168) Legislation imposing a 90% tax on bonuses given to executives of AIG, which had recently received federal ?bail out? assistance - - on a motion to have an immediate vote on the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a on a motion to bring to an immediate vote H.R. 1586, a bill imposing a 90% tax on certain bonuses given to AIG executives. H. R. 1586 was developed as a result of the bipartisan protests resulting from reports that bonuses were given to AIG executives after a multi-billion dollar rescue of the company by the federal government.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME), speaking in support of the motion and of H.R. 1586, said ?people across the country are rightly outraged by the egregious nature of the AIG bonuses. It is unconscionable for AIG to pay out $165 million in bonuses to the same top executives who mismanaged the company to the point of failure . . . Families and businesses . . . are struggling to make ends meet and stay in their homes. . . Meanwhile, on Wall Street, we see executives who seem to think they live by a different set of rules . . . .?

Rep. Maloney (D-NY) observed that ?it has become somewhat rare for the Members of this body to find themselves in virtually universal agreement, but outrage over the retention bonuses for the very members of the AIG Financial Products Division, who brought a corporate giant to its knees and the economy of our Nation to a standstill, has produced such an agreement. . . .?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) said he supported the intent of the measure, but expressed concern about how the Democrats were handling it. He referred to an unsuccessful procedural effort the Republicans made the previous day to pass the legislation when news of the bonuses first came out. Diaz-Balart noted: ?Yesterday, I made a motion on this floor that would have allowed debate on (the substance of the legislation). My motion was defeated, but it garnered bipartisan support. Every Republican voted for it, and so did eight Democrats . . . Although the motion failed, I am pleased that it attracted the attention of the majority leadership and they finally decided to take action on this scandal . . . (but) I find it quite unfortunate the way in which the majority leadership has decided to handle this scandal. (The majority Democrats) will also block every procedural right the minority has to shape legislation . . . .?

Rep. Diaz-Balart then claimed that ?the Obama administration asked the Senate Banking Committee chairman, Mr. Dodd, to insert a provision in last month's so-called economic stimulus legislation that had the effect of authorizing AIG's bonuses.?  Diaz Balart then asked: ?Was the administration complicit? I think this is an issue that Congress needs to investigate.?  Rep, LaTourette (R-OH) followed up by noting that ?almost every person on the other side of the aisle voted for the stimulus bill that had the provision that protected, authorized, and allowed these bonuses.?

The motion carried by a vote of 242-180. All 242 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eight other Democrats joined with one hundred and seventy-two Republicans in voting ?nay?. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on the bill imposing a 90% tax on bonuses given to AIG executives.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 141
Mar 19, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 140
Mar 18, 2009
(H.R. 1388) On passage of the ?GIVE Act?, which provided funds to AmeriCorps, faith-based organizations and many other local community service and volunteer efforts.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The vote was on House passage of H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (the ?GIVE Act?). This legislation,  among other things, reauthorized funds for existing national service programs including AmeriCorps, several faith-based organizations, and many other local community service and volunteer efforts. It also established four new service corps including the Clean Energy Corps to encourage energy efficiency and conservation, the Education Corps to help increase student engagement in volunteerism, the Healthy Futures Corps to improve health care access, and the Veterans Service Corps to enhance services for veterans. 

Rep. Matsui (D-CA), who led the support for the bill, described the Act as ?bipartisan legislation . . . that strengthens our communities helps educate our future generations, teaches our youth to prepare for and respond to unthinkable tragedies and fosters the growth of respect and compassion throughout our entire society. . . The legislation emphasizes the critical role of service in meeting the national priorities.? 

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was responsible for setting the strategy on the bill for the Republicans, supported the substance of the legislation and said that he was ?pleased that the Committee on Education and Labor, worked in a bipartisan manner . . . to make the programs more effective and efficient, responding to State and local needs . . . .? He went on to say: ?Community service has always been a vital pillar of American society.?

Rep Foxx (R-NC) expressed the opposition that a number of Republicans had to the bill. She argued that the legislation ?expands dramatically the government's role in an area that I don't think the government should be dealing with . . . I think it's important that we encourage volunteers, but this is a paid job.  This is a government-authorized charity. And it concerns me a great deal because I see our taking over what is being done voluntarily by people . . . We're pretty soon going to have a government that controls everything in our society. That's not what America is all about.  . . .?   She said she also opposed the bill because it had no accountability for evaluating the programs it funded. Foxx specifically noted that the AmeriCorps National Community Corps Program was characterized by OMB as ?ineffective? and had never had a comprehensive evaluation done on it.

The legislation passed by a vote of 321-105. Two hundred and fifty-one Democrats and seventy Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and four Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate the ?GIVE Act?, which provided federal funds for many local community service and volunteer efforts.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Encouraging Voluntary National Service
Y Y Won
Roll Call 139
Mar 18, 2009
(H.R. 1388) On a motion to add language to a bill funding local community service and volunteer efforts that would prohibit the volunteers from discussing or promoting abortions, and from engaging in lobbying, union organizing, political activity, voter registration or religious teaching

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The vote was on a motion to recommit (send back) the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (the ?GIVE Act?) to committee with instructions to add language that would prohibit the volunteers from discussing or promoting abortions, and from engaging in lobbying, union organizing, political activity, voter registration or religious teaching. The primary purpose of the GIVE Act was to provide funds to volunteer organizations.  A ?motion to recommit with instructions? is a procedural technique used to modify or delay legislation. If the motion is successful, it returns the measure to the committee that developed the bill with orders to make specified changes before the measure can be returned to the full House for reconsideration.

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), who made the motion, suggested that the additional language was needed because: ?Groups that might be eligible for these grants and volunteers . . . include a laundry list of organizations that engage in activities that many Americans do not support.?  She added ?the Federal Government prohibits use of Federal funds to be used for abortion as a form of family planning and the Federal Government should not be paying individuals to volunteer their time at locations that are prohibited from receiving taxpayer dollars . . . .? Foxx concluded her remarks by saying that her motion to recommit was designed to see to it ?that taxpayer dollars are not directed toward programs that are politically divisive and morally objectionable.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), a supporter of the GIVE ACT, said of the amendment: ?I am against it, but I will not oppose it.? He explained that he believed most of the instructions in the motion to recommit were ?already covered in statutes, regulations and the grant agreements . . . making sure that people who get these grants don?t engage in activities that they should not be. So we (in the majority) plan to accept this amendment . . . and I would ask that (Members) feel free to vote for the motion to recommit.?

The motion to recommit the bill and add the noted language passed by a vote of 318-105. One hundred and seventy-four Republicans and one hundred and forty-forty Democrats voted ?aye?.  All 105 ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including most progressives. As a result, language was added to the GIVE Act prohibiting volunteers in the programs it funded from discussing or promoting abortions, and from engaging in lobbying, union organizing, political activity, voter registration or religious teaching.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Encouraging Voluntary National Service
Y N Lost
Roll Call 138
Mar 18, 2009
On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1388

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Description: This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Titus (D-NV) to the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (?GIVE Act?), which provided federal funds for local community service organizations and volunteer efforts. The amendment added funds to create a new National Service Reserve Corps, to be composed of experienced volunteers who are former members AmeriCorps and volunteer programs. They will be assigned to situations in which their experience will enable them to respond quickly.

Rep. Titus argued on behalf of her amendment that thousands of Americans have volunteered for these organizations in the past and ?already have the training that communities need (that) can be deployed quickly and effectively.? She said that this organization will enable these past volunteers ?to be identified and called upon in time of natural disasters and emergencies to start the relief and rebuilding process post haste. . . By creating a National Service Reserve Corps, we will create an organized deployment system for those citizens who are ready to serve and are trained to do so.?    

The Republicans had made an unsuccessful effort previously to limit all future funding authorized by the GIVE ACT, but did not relate the increased funding issue to the creation of a National Service Reserve Corps. There was no opposition voiced to this amendment.

Rep.Titus? amendment passed by a vote of 339-93. Two hundred and fifty-six Democrats and eighty-three Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety-two Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, language providing funds for a National Service Reserve Corps was added to the GIVE Act. 


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Encouraging Voluntary National Service
Y Y Won
Roll Call 137
Mar 18, 2009
(H.R. 1388) On the Markey of Colorado amendment to increase funding for AmeriCorps and other national service organizations

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Markey (D-CO) to the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (?GIVE Act?), which provided federal funds for local community service organizations and volunteer efforts. The amendment increased funding for AmeriCorps and other national service organizations.

In support of her amendment, Rep. Markey noted that AmeriCorps ?offers 75,000 opportunities for adults of all ages and backgrounds to serve through a network of partnerships with local and national nonprofit groups . . . Currently, organizations receive only $600 to support the individuals who are enrolled in full-time national service positions. This small amount helps to pay for operational and member support costs, including a living allowance. My amendment proposes an increase to that amount. In today's economy, these organizations are struggling. ?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who favored the amendment, said it ?will help such grantees as the Boys and Girls Club of America, the Student Conservation Association, and so many other organizations that are responsible for covering this cost. This will help them out in that effort. They clearly are putting their own resources into this program. This is the Federal Government (increasing its share) as a good partner . . . .?

The Republicans had made an unsuccessful effort to limit future funding authorized by the GIVE ACT, but did not renew their concerns about increased funding during deliberation of the Markey Amendment.

Rep. Markey?s amendment passed by a vote of 283-145. Two hundred and fifty-three Democrats and thirty Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and forty-three Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, funding was increased for designated local community service organizations including AmeriCorps. 


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Encouraging Voluntary National Service
Y Y Won
Roll Call 135
Mar 18, 2009
(H.R. 1388) On the Roe of Tennessee amendment that would have kept 2010 fiscal year funding for local community service and volunteer efforts at its fiscal year 2008 level

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Roe (R-TN) to the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (the ?GIVE Act?), which provided federal funds for local community service and volunteer efforts.  The amendment would have capped the authorization level in the GIVE ACT for fiscal year 2010 at the fiscal year 2008 level. Rep. Matsui (D-CA), who opposed the amendment, described the GIVE Act as ?bipartisan legislation . . . that strengthens our communities helps educate our future generations, teaches our youth to prepare for and respond to unthinkable tragedies and fosters the growth of respect and compassion throughout our entire society.? 

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who led the Republican minority on this legislation, supported the substance of the bill and said that he was ?pleased that the Committee on Education and Labor, worked in a bipartisan manner . . . to make the programs more effective and efficient, responding to State and local needs . . . .?

Rep. Roe began his remarks in support of his amendment by saying that ?the majority of the programs (supported by the GIVE ACT) are performing well.? He then pointed to ?the fact (that) we are in a recession and face record deficits.? Roe  argued that his amendment would not prohibit the program from growing and: ?(I)f our economy gets back on track and revenues increase, which we all are hoping will happen, I think it's perfectly reasonable in the future years to increase the funding for the program. At least for this year, however, when our focus should be on tightening our belts to lower our deficits, (we should limit the authorizations) . . . .? Roe concluded his remarks on behalf of the amendment by saying:? I have a basic philosophy . . . The government should spend less than it takes in. . . I'm not blaming Republicans or Democrats, because it has occurred under the watch of Presidents of both parties. But now is our chance to do something about it.?

Rep. Andrews, (D-NJ), who opposed the Roe Amendment, said it would replace ?carefully reasoned consideration of the growth of the program with an arbitrary standard.  I'm quite sympathetic to the author's concern that no program grow more quickly than it should . . . What the bill before us does is to set a maximum limit, an authorization limit, for how much money can go into these programs (and) . . .  each year the Appropriations Committee will consider, among competing priorities for the public funds, how much money this program should receive.?

Rep. Roe?s amendment failed by a vote of 175-256, along almost straight party lines. One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?.  Two hundred and fifty-three Democrats and three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the 2010 fiscal year funding for local community service and volunteer efforts was not moved back to its fiscal year 2008 level.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Encouraging Voluntary National Service
N N Won
Roll Call 134
Mar 18, 2009
(H.R. 1388) On the Loebsack of Iowa amendment providing additional funds to strengthen local faith-based and other volunteer organizations

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Loebsack (D-IA) to H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (the ?GIVE Act?). H.R. 1388 provided federal funds for local community service and volunteer efforts. The amendment authorized additional grants, above those that were already in the bill, for nonprofit groups, including faith-based organizations, and to States, to increase the supply of volunteers, and to strengthen volunteer infrastructure organizations throughout the country.

Rep. Loebsack said his amendment would add funding to the bill for grants to groups that will coordinate volunteers.  He described the additional funding as a ?modest but critical Federal investment in a new volunteer generation fund that builds capacity and access for millions of new volunteers (that will) leverage billions of dollars in volunteer services to some of the country's neediest citizens.?

Rep. McKeon (R-CA) stated the reason for the Republican opposition to the amendment. He said: ?(M)embers on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to strike a balance on this legislation. We have produced a major reorganization and renewal of national service programs, and we've done so without layering on unnecessary new programs.? McKeon characterized the amendment as ?redundant? and noted: ?The purpose of this amendment is to generate volunteers, which is the purpose of the whole bill . . . Rather than creating a new program, which this amendment does, we should work to achieve the goal of generating volunteers under the existing programs authorized in this legislation.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 261-168. Two hundred and fifty Democrats and eleven Republicans voted ?aye?.  One hundred and sixty-three Republicans and five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, additional funds to generate and coordinate volunteers and to strengthen volunteer organizations were added to the GIVE Act.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Encouraging Voluntary National Service
Y Y Won
Roll Call 132
Mar 18, 2009
(H. Res. 250) A bill providing funds for AmeriCorps, faith-based organizations, and many other local community service and volunteer efforts - - on approving the resolution setting the terms for its debate

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (the ?GIVE Act?) provided federal funds for local community service and volunteer efforts. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for its debate.  Those terms included a designation of which amendments could be offered during considering of the measure. The rule permitted only eleven specified amendments to be offered during deliberation of the legislation. Rep. Matsui (D-CA), described the GIVE Act as ?bipartisan legislation . . . that strengthens our communities helps educate our future generations, teaches our youth to prepare for and respond to unthinkable tragedies and fosters the growth of respect and compassion throughout our entire society... The legislation emphasizes the critical role of service in meeting the national priorities of emergency and disaster preparedness . . .  .?

Rep. Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was responsible for setting the strategy on the bill for the Republicans, supported the substance of the legislation and said that he was ?pleased that the Committee on Education and Labor, worked in a bipartisan manner . . . to make the programs more effective and efficient, responding to State and local needs . . . .?

The GIVE ACT was being considered by the House just after press reports surfaced about multimillion bonuses going to executives of AIG. The federal government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out AIG, and news of these bonuses created protests in Congress. The Republicans wanted to act immediately and attach an amendment to The GIVE Act, since it was the pending matter in the House, which would require the Treasury Department to implement a plan to recoup the bonuses and to monitor future bonuses. The rule being considered allowed for only eleven specified amendments to be offered to the GIVE Act, none of which related to AIG bonuses.

The Democrats wanted to pass The GIVE Act without any AIG-related amendment, and announced a meeting for later in the day to develop a legislative response to the AIG bonus issue. Rep. Matsui had outlined the Democratic position when she said ?both sides of this aisle are absolutely outraged about what happened (at AIG).And we will be taking action immediately. But let's get the GIVE Act through. Let's do the rule on this and move forward (after that to deal with the AIG bonus issue).?  Rep. LaTourette-(R-OH). reflected the position of the Republicans when he said he would vote ?no? even though ?I don't have any big problem with the rule, (because) it is my understanding that Mr. Diaz-Balart will, if it is defeated, offer an amendment to the rule that will address (the AIG bonus issue) . . . .?

Under House procedures, before a bill can be considered, the House must first approve a resolution containing the ?rule? for that bill. The rule passed by a vote of 248-172 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?.  Two other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the rule was approved; the House moved to debate the GIVE Act and the amendment relating to AIG bonuses was prevented from being offered to that bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Encouraging Voluntary National Service
Y Y Won
Roll Call 131
Mar 18, 2009
(H. Res. 250) A bill providing funds for AmeriCorps, faith-based organizations, and many other local community service and volunteer efforts - - on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate of the measure

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (the ?GIVE? Act) provided federal funds for local community service and volunteer efforts. This was a vote on ?ordering the previous question?, or bringing to an immediate vote, the ?rule? setting the terms of debate of the legislation. Rep. Matsui (D-CA), described the GIVE Act as ?bipartisan legislation . . . that strengthens our communities helps educate our future generations, teaches our youth to prepare for and respond to unthinkable tragedies and fosters the growth of respect and compassion throughout our entire society... The legislation emphasizes the critical role of service in meeting the national priorities of emergency and disaster preparedness . . .  .?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was responsible for setting the strategy on the bill for the Republicans, supported the substance of the legislation and said that he was ?pleased that the Committee on Education and Labor, worked in a bipartisan manner . . . to make the programs more effective and efficient, responding to State and local needs . . . .?

The bill was being considered by the House just after press reports surfaced about multimillion bonuses going to executives of AIG. The federal government was spending hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out AIG, and news of these bonuses created protests in Congress. The Republicans wanted to act immediately and attach an amendment to The GIVE Act, since it was the pending matter in the House, which would require the Treasury Department to implement a plan to recoup the bonuses and to monitor future bonuses. The rule for H.R. 1388 that was being considered allowed for only a limited number of amendments to be offered to the GIVE Act, none of which related to AIG bonuses. The Democrats wanted to pass the GIVE Act without any AIG-related amendment, and announced a meeting for later in the day to develop a legislative response to the AIG bonus issue.

In response to the Republican opposition to ordering the previous question and voting on the rule, Matsui said ?both sides of this aisle are absolutely outraged about what happened (at AIG). And we will be taking action immediately. But let's get the GIVE Act through. Let's do the rule on this and move forward.? 

If the vote to order the previous question had failed, it would effectively have meant that the House was not going to approve the rule. The consequence of a negative vote would have been that the Republicans could have offered the AIG amendment to the GIVE Act. The motion to order the previous question passed by a vote of 221-182. All 221 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eight other Democrats joined 174 Republicans in voting ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule to the GIVE Act which prevented the amendment relating to AIG bonuses from being offered to that bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Encouraging Voluntary National Service
Y Y Won
Roll Call 123
Mar 12, 2009
(H.R.1262) On passage of The Water Quality Investment Act of 2009, authorizing billions of dollars for water projects.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on House passage of H.R. 1262, a bill authorizing billions of dollars to help states and local governments with wastewater treatment facilities, alternative water resource projects, and sediment remediation efforts. Rep. Oberstar (D-MN), who led the support for the bill, said: ?(O)ur responsibility is to care for the water we have. . . We have to manage it well, make sure that we use it properly (and) that we return (it) to the streams and lakes and estuaries of the Nation in clean condition. This legislation will move us in that direction.? Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said she supported the measure because ?approximately 40 percent of the rivers, lakes and coastal waters do not meet state water quality standards, and the problem is getting worse.?

No opposition to the general intent of the legislation was voiced during the debate. The primary concern expressed about the bill related to the inclusion of language requiring that ?prevailing wages and benefits? be paid to all who worked on the projects funded by the Act. Republicans called that language ?fiscally irresponsible? and a concession to organized labor that would increase the costs of the funded projects. An effort to have the language deleted during consideration of the bill was unsuccessful. Rep. Boozman (R-AR) was a strong supporter of the measure, but said including language that requires ?prevailing wages and benefits? to be used for all projects funded by it ?will make clean water projects cost more.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 317-101.  All 244 Democrats and 73 Republicans voted ?aye?. All 101 ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, the House passed and sent to the Senate the bill authorizing billions of dollars to help states and local governments fund water projects.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 122
Mar 12, 2009
(H.R. 1262) On the Mack of Florida amendment to eliminate the requirement that local governments using federal water project funds pay workers ?prevailing wages and benefits?.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Mack (R-FL) that would have eliminated language in a water project funding bill, which required workers on the projects to be paid ?prevailing wages and benefits?. The legislation to which the amendment was offered authorized billions of dollars for water treatment facilities, storm and sewer systems and sediment remediation projects. The language that the amendment sought to delete, originally mandated in a seventy year old measure known as the Davis-Bacon Act, has been included in many bills providing federal funds for construction projects. The requirement regarding wages and benefits has long been a source of disagreement between Democrats who have generally supported it and Republicans who have generally opposed it. 

Rep. Mack (R-FL) began his statement in support of the amendment by saying that he generally supported the water project funding bill. He then added that he found it ?hard to believe the majority would include the job-killing Davis-Bacon Act requirements in it.? Mack argued: ?With Davis-Bacon the Democratic leadership is telling big labor that they are open for business and it is time to cash in on the backs of hardworking American taxpayers. As Members of Congress, one of our jobs is to make certain that our country has safe, accessible and modern infrastructure, (but it is also) our responsibility as legislators to foster a competitive environment that enables businesses to hire the workers they need and to meet these goals.?  He described The Davis-Bacon language as ?fiscally irresponsible (and) basically a federally mandated super-minimum wage provision that . .  . ensures that wages are artificially set by bureaucrats, not by the free-market forces.? 

Rep. Oberstar (D-MN), who was leading the support for the measure, responded that the Davis-Bacon language ?has not killed jobs in over 70-some years.? Rep. Bishop (D-NY) also opposed the Mack Amendment and said: The Republicans are fighting (to) impose a wage rate that consigns some workers in low wage states to live under the Federal poverty level. . . And we want to ensure, frankly, that we don't give opportunity to unscrupulous contractors who will not be bound by Federal prevailing-wage requirements . . . .?

Rep. Miller (R-MI), who opposed the amendment, said: ?(S)ome might say that Davis-Bacon is nothing more than a giveaway to unions, but nothing in Davis-Bacon actually requires government contractors to hire union labor. All Davis-Bacon actually does is to require that a local prevailing wage be paid to employees who do work on government infrastructure projects.?

The amendment failed by a vote of 140-284.  One hundred and thirty-nine Republicans and one Democrat voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-nine Democrats and thirty-five Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the requirement that local governments using federal water project funds pay workers ?prevailing wages and benefits? remained in the legislation.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 117
Mar 11, 2009
(S.32 ) On passage of legislation designating the Sequoia and Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Areas, the Snake River Conservation Area, and more than 100 other new wilderness areas, scenic rivers, heritage and preservation initiatives, and water projects

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the usual House rules and pass S.22, which combined into one measure more than 160 proposals designating new wildernesses, wild and scenic rivers, hiking trails, heritage areas, water projects, and historic preservation initiatives. Among those were the Sequoia and Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Areas, the Mt. Hood (OR) Wilderness Area, the Snake River Conservation Area, and several additions to the National Trail System.

Rep. Rahall (D-WV), who was leading the support for the legislation, described it as legislation that ?protects our pristine public lands, the clear running streams and rivers, the wide open spaces, and the unique history that make this Nation great.? Rahall also said that the language of the bill clarifies that the measure ?will not affect existing state authority to regulate hunting, fishing, and trapping on the lands in this package?, and emphasized that the language in the measure ?was negotiated with the National Rifle Association and has the NRA's full support.?

Rep. Hastings (R-WA), who was leading the opposition to the bill, first argued that it ?costs $10 billion at a time when taxpayers and the economy simply can't afford it.? He said it ?contains 19 provisions to block American-made energy production, locking away hundreds of millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. . . and new jobs won't be created when Americans desperately need them in these times.? He also said that the bill would ban recreational access to millions of acres of public lands and would make it ?more difficult for the Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies to secure the southern border.?

A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill is a procedural mechanism that is usually employed to gain approval for measures that the House leadership deems to be not very controversial. There is a limited time period for debate.  Amendments cannot be offered. A two thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. Rep. Hastings argued that the bill was too important to be passed under the suspension of rules procedure. He said that ?the Democrat leaders are shutting down everyone from offering amendments, including Democrats who have publicly been outspoken about wanting to remove entire provisions from S. 22.?

Hastings went on to argue that the suspension process ?should be reserved for noncontroversial bills with little or no cost to the taxpayers. He characterized the use of the rules suspension mechanism in an attempt to pass the bill as ?an extreme abuse of the process . . . .?  Rahall responded that over 90 of the individual measures combined into S.22 had been reviewed by the House Committee on Natural Resources. Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), the chair of that committee?s Subcommittee on National Parks, added his support by arguing: ?After too many years, during which the condition of our national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges were totally ignored . . . S. 22 is a long overdue recommitment to the protection and the preservation of our natural and cultural resources . . . .? Grijalva also contested Rep Hastings? claim about the cost of the legislation by noting that the Congressional Budget Office ?has stated this package is budget neutral.?
 
The legislation was defeated, even though a strong majority supported its passage, by a vote of 282-144. That was because a two thirds vote was required for passage under the procedure used here, in which the House rules were suspended during debate. Two hundred and forty-eight Democrats and thirty-four Republicans voted ?aye.? One hundred and forty-one Republicans and three Democrats voted ?nay?. Although this large public lands management bill was defeated here, the Democratic majority was able to pass it at a later date under regular House procedure that required only a majority vote for passage.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 113
Mar 10, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 108
Mar 06, 2009
(H.J. Res. 38) On a motion to send back to committee a bill providing funds to keep the federal government operating in fiscal year 2009

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on whether to recommit (send back) to the Appropriations Committee a bill to provide funds that would keep the federal government operating for a short period in fiscal year 2009, pending Congressional approval of a longer-term funding bill. The Congress and the Bush Administration had never reached an agreement about funding levels for the 2009 fiscal year, which began on October 1, 2008. The government was funded after September 30, 2008 with a series of resolutions that kept departments operating at their levels for the previous fiscal year. The House was scheduled to complete its work on a major funding bill that covered most of fiscal year 2009. The resolution that the motion would recommit was designed to allow the government to keep operating until the longer-term 2009 appropriations bill was passed and became law. A motion to recommit is a procedural tactic to delay or modify legislation.

Rep. Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, opposed the motion and explained that the resolution ?simply keeps the government open . . . .? The Republican minority used the debate on the motion to recommit as an opportunity to criticize both the spending levels in the pending longer-term 2009 funding bill and the manner in which the Democrats had managed that legislation.  

Rep. Lewis (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, claimed that the delay in passing 2009 appropriations was caused by the House Democratic leadership, which had not permitted the members of the committee to participate in the process. Lewis argued: ?Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, liberal or conservative, your rights as a duly elected Member of this body have been belittled by a majority leadership that believes absolute power flows from the top . . . each of us recognizes that extending a Congressional Resolution one more time is an admission of our failure to complete our work on time . . . this is simply doing our work in the worst possible way.?

Lewis then focused on the substance of the longer- term 2009 appropriations bill, noted that it increased federal spending by 8% over 2008, and said:?This represents the largest annual Federal Government spending increase since President Carter served in 1978 . . . Wall Street, auto makers, and the line of folks with their hands out continue to grow.?  Rep Boehner, the House Minority Leader, supported Lewis? remarks by suggesting that spending for fiscal year 2009 should be frozen at 2008 levels.  Rep. Dreier (R-CA), echoing what had been the primary Republican argument against the major funding bill, said that what the economy needed was a series of tax reductions, not ?massive increases in spending?.

Rep. Obey first responded to the Republicans by suggesting that they were advocating the same kinds of policies Herbert Hoover adopted during The Great Depression. He went on to say: ?I find it strange to be lectured by folks . . .who did such a ?brilliant? job of running this institution and in running this economy and in running this country for the last 8 years. I find it interesting to be lectured on fiscal responsibility by people who borrowed $1.2 trillion in order to pay for tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest people in this country, all on borrowed money.?

Obey then said that the pending longer-term fiscal year 2009 funding bill has ?a lot of money until you compare it to the $200 billion that this economy has already lost because of its shrinkage just in the last 3 months of last year, and . . . the $200 billion more that we expect to have seen the economy shrink by in the first 3 months of this year. . . .? Obey concluded that: ?In the end, the passage of this resolution is necessary in order to keep the government open.?

The motion to recommit failed by a vote of 160-218. One hundred and fifty-two Republicans and eight Democrats votes ?aye?. All 218 ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, the House was able to move to an immediate vote on final passage of the funding resolution to keep the government operating.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 105
Mar 05, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 104
Mar 05, 2009
(H.R.1106) On passage of a bill designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of H.R. 1106, legislation that, among other things, gave bankruptcy judges the ability to modify mortgages on principal residences, allowed the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Agriculture and the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee and insure mortgage loans that are modified, protected companies servicing loans that engage in loan modifications against civil claims, and made permanent what had been a temporary increase in the level of FDIC deposit insurance. The primary disagreement regarding this measure focused on its provision allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages on principal residences.

Rep. Conyers (D-MI), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, was leading the effort on behalf of the bill. He said that the legislation would limit what he called ?an anomaly in the Bankruptcy Code which prohibits judicial modifications of principal residences, even though every other class of asset . . . is eligible for such treatment.? Conyers said the change would protect ?honest Americans struggling to keep their homes in the midst of a once in a lifetime economic calamity? and would also ?limit the downward cycle of foreclosures that are now damaging our neighborhoods, while, at the same time, protecting financial intermediaries and ensuring that judicial modification is considered only after every reasonable effort has been taken to achieve voluntary modification outside of the bankruptcy.?

Rep Smith (R-TX), the Ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and one of the leaders of the Republican opposition to the expanded bankruptcy provision, acknowledged that the ?serious economic recession . . . is worsened by the foreclosure crisis. Until we address the rising number of foreclosures, it will be difficult for the economy to recover.? He also agreed that ?some of what is in this bill will be helpful.? Smith then went on to summarize the reason the Republicans were opposing the bill by saying: ?This bankruptcy provision not only will fail to solve the foreclosure crisis, but also will make the crisis deeper, longer and wider. Allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages will increase the overall cost of lending. Lenders and investors will hesitate to put up capital in the future if they fear that judges will rewrite the terms of their mortgage contracts. Less available capital and increased risk means that borrowers will pay higher interest rates in the future. Allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages will also encourage borrowers to file for bankruptcy. ?

Rep. Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) responded to Rep Smith by referring to the proposed change in the bankruptcy law as a ?lifeline? that must be thrown to homeowners. She said the current system of ?voluntary modification? of mortgages ?is just not working, and our current bankruptcy laws fail our families.? She added that she knew ?some well-meaning opponents believe families will rush headlong into filing for bankruptcy. We all know, however, that the grave consequences of filing for bankruptcy means it will always be a last resort.?

The bill passed by a vote of 234-191. Two hundred and twenty-seven Democrats and seven Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-seven Republicans and twenty-four Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate the bill designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 103
Mar 05, 2009
(H.R. 1106) On a motion to send back to committee a bill designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit (send back) to committee H.R. 1106, a bill designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit. The motion included instructions that language be added to the bill that would prohibit assistance to any borrower who lied about his/her income on the mortgage application, and to any lender who failed to follow proper underwriting standards. It also included instructions that language be added to prohibit funds from being used as incentives to lenders to rework certain loans unless the President submits a plan that provides ?equitable treatment of all mortgage holders.?

The motion was made by Rep. Price (R-GA), who had been leading the Republican opposition to the bill. Price and other Republicans claimed during the debate on the bill that it would punish home buyers ?who have lived within their means and acted prudently by forcing them to subsidize those (home buyers) who made irresponsible choices.? Price said the instructions were intended to prevent home owners ?who made irresponsible choices? from receiving any federal money to help them deal with their mortgage problems.

Price began his argument in support of the motion by calling the bill under consideration ?shortsighted, untimely, unfair, and counterproductive . . . .? Then, referring to the instructions in the motion to recommit, he said that they would remedy a problem with the legislation that ?leaves the door open to reward irresponsible actors . . . .? 

Rep. Frank (D-MA), who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, responded by saying that the language in the instructions to recommit is so broad that it would prevent mortgage assistance from being provided ?to any borrower, responsible or not, no matter what the cause. ? Frank also said that Price and the Republicans were opposed to the entire bill because it permitted bankruptcy courts to adjust home mortgages. He then went on to argue that the effect of the motion to recommit with instructions, if successful, ?would be (to) cripple the (legislative) effort to reduce mortgage foreclosure . . . (which would) cripple the effort to get out of the economic slump we are in.?

A motion to recommit with instructions is a procedural technique to delay or modify legislation. If successful, it sends the measure back to the committee that developed the bill and orders it to make specified changes before the measure can be returned to the full House for reconsideration.

The motion failed by a vote of 182-242. One hundred and seventy-four Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?aye?. All 242 ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, the House was able to move forward to a vote on passage of a bill designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Won
Roll Call 101
Mar 05, 2009
(H.R. 1106) On the Price of Georgia amendment, which would have allowed lenders on mortgages that were reduced in a bankruptcy to be repaid the reduced amount when the house was sold.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have allowed a lender on a mortgage that had been reduced in a bankruptcy proceeding to recover the amount of the reduction if the home were later sold at a profit. The amendment was offered by Rep Price (R-GA) to a bill which was designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit. That bill included language which, for the first time, would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce the principal amount of a home mortgage of a debtor.

Rep. Price, in support of his amendment, first made the overall argument that had been put forward by the Republicans against the entire bill - - that it punishes home buyers ?who have lived within their means and acted prudently by forcing them to subsidize those (home buyers) who made irresponsible choices.?  He also said that the bill had only limited features to prevent home owners that had declared bankruptcy from later profiting from the sale of a house they were irresponsible in originally buying, and said that that ?no one should be able to profit off of a bankruptcy proceeding.?  Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA) supported the amendment because, he claimed, it will serve as a disincentive for many homeowners to ?game the bankruptcy system . . . and make sure that we don't have a run on the bankruptcy courts . . . ..?

Rep. Lofgren (D-CA), speaking against the amendment, first argued that the bill already had language that would limit a homeowner whose mortgage was reduced from selling the property and ?a responsible provision for lenders who have had their mortgages adjusted in (bankruptcy) to recover on a graduated basis, should property values appreciate at sale.? Lofgren said she opposed the Price Amendment because its effect would be to ?gut the bill, damage communities and damage home values.? Lofgren also argued that the amendment, by more severely limiting the ability of a homeowner who declared bankruptcy from later selling the house at a profit ?would have the effect of making it practically impossible for a family to move to pursue another job. Families would not only keep their homes, they would be trapped there.? 

The amendment failed by a vote of 211-218. One hundred and seventy-four Republicans and thirty-seven Democrats voted ?aye?.  All 218 ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, language allowing lenders to recover the amount mortgages were reduced in bankruptcy was not added to the bill designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
N N Won
Roll Call 100
Mar 05, 2009
(H.R. 1106) On the Lofgren of California amendment to expand the ability of bankruptcy judges to adjust home mortgages, which was offered to a bill designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Lofgren (D-CA) containing a number of changes that the Democratic majority and The Obama Administration wanted made in a bill designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit. The amendment allowed a bankruptcy court to consider lowering the mortgage interest in accordance with a plan the Administration had just developed. The plan required, among other things, that the debtors demonstrate they had made good faith attempts to modify the mortgages through voluntary agreements with lenders.

Rep. Lofgren, arguing in support of the amendment and of the underlying bill, said that homeowners ?who engage in bad faith, such as filing for bankruptcy when they could really afford to pay their mortgages, will be disqualified for assistance . . . and (the amended bill) achieved a balanced reform that will bring meaningful help to families in genuine need without costing taxpayers a dime. The bill is not going to usher in a rash of bankruptcy filings. In fact . . . it is designed to keep more families out of bankruptcy and out of foreclosure.?

Rep. Smith (R-TX), speaking in opposition, said ?this amendment does little to change the fact that the bankruptcy provisions in this legislation will fail to solve the foreclosure crisis . . .  . Meaningful change would have meant a true requirement for bankruptcy petitioners to exhaust other options before going to bankruptcy court . . . . (The) amendment does not do that. Rather, it merely requires that judges consider whether the lender offered the borrower a loan modification when determining whether to approve the borrower's bankruptcy plan. . . Meaningful change also would have meant substantially narrowing the class of loans eligible for bankruptcy modification.?

Most mortgage lenders had opposed the legislation. However, Rep Welch (D-VT), a proponent of the bill, noted that Citigroup supported it ?because they understand that we have to stabilize home values in order to begin the recovery, and they need a tool to accomplish it.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 263-164. Two hundred and fifty-three Democrats and ten Republicans voted ?aye?.  All 164 ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, provisions expanded the ability of bankruptcy judges to adjust home mortgages were added to the bill designed to prevent mortgage foreclosures.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 97
Mar 05, 2009
(H. Res. 205) Legislation intended to reduce the number of mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit - - on passage of the resolution setting the terms for debate of the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1106 was a bill intended to slow foreclosures and revive the housing market during the severe economic downturn of 2008 and 2009.  It gave bankruptcy judges the ability to modify mortgages on principal residences, allowed the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Agriculture and the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee and insure mortgage loans that are modified in bankruptcy, protected loan servicing companies that engage in loan modifications from civil claims, and made a permanent increase in the level of FDIC deposit insurance. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? on H.R. 1106, which set the terms for House consideration of the bill, including the amendments that could be offered to it.

The debate on the rule for the legislation focused more on the merits of the bill than on the specifics of the rule itself. Rep. Hastings (D-FL), who was leading the effort for the rule, said the legislation would help revive the declining housing market, lessen home foreclosures and put the economy back on track. Referencing the provision of the legislation that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify loans on a homeowner's principal residence, he noted that some opponents of the measure have argued that the provision ?will lead to a sudden slew of bankruptcy filings, will cause massive losses to financial institutions, and will increase the cost of borrowing for other homeowners.? He countered their argument by noting that, to be eligible for the reduction, homeowners would have to meet specified stringent requirements.

Hastings also argued that bankruptcy judges will have to determine that the homeowner acted responsibly, had a meritorious claim and had exhausted all options before they can adjust the mortgage. He said the new bankruptcy provision was important to enact because it ?will maximize, not lessen, the value of troubled mortgages for lenders, and will avoid the continuous decline in property values in neighborhoods with foreclosed properties.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), who was leading the opposition to the rule, argued that the legislation? is not going to stop the problem that we have in the housing market . . . (it is actually) going to make it worse . . . (and it) is going to drive up the cost of loans in the future and . . . hurt people who have played by the rules.? Foxx said: ?House Republicans support responsible homeowners who live within their means, who make honest representations on their loan applications, who pay their debts, and who work hard to achieve the American dream.? She then argued that the legislation does the opposite by rewarding what she termed ?bad behavior?, and that the result of allowing bankruptcy judges to adjust existing home mortgages will be more expensive future mortgages. Among those opposing the legislation were the banking and mortgage lending industry and The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Rep. Lofgren (D-CA) responded to Rep. Foxx? arguments by noting that bankruptcy judges were already permitted to adjust the balances on most other types of loans.

The rule passed by a vote of 239-181. All two hundred and thirty-nine ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Seven other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debate on the bill intended to reduce the number of mortgage foreclosures and increase the availability of mortgage credit.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 89
Feb 26, 2009
(H.Res. 190) Legislation designed to slow home foreclosures and revive the housing market during the severe economic downturn - - on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House consideration of legislation aimed at slowing foreclosures and reviving the housing market during the ongoing severe economic downturn. That legislation provided bankruptcy judges with the ability to modify mortgages on principal residences, allowed the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Agriculture and the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee and insure mortgage loans that are modified, extended protections against civil claims to companies servicing loans that engage in loan modifications, and made permanent what had been a temporary increase in FDIC deposit insurance.

The debate on the rule for the legislation focused more on the merits of the bill than on the rule itself. Rep. Castor (D-FL), a supporter of the legislation, said it ?throws a lifeline to families . . . during this economic crisis . . . (and helps) ensure that if you work hard and you play by the rules, the tools and resources will be available to help you stay in your home.? After noting that ?many in the banking industry do not like this bankruptcy provision that allows bankruptcy judges to modify home loans?, she claimed that bankers ?brought this (legislation) on themselves to a great extent? by not being responsive to distressed homeowners.

Castor acknowledged that the legislation ?won't help everyone?, but claimed that ?it will (be) a prod, an incentive to these banks to refinance these loans. It's fair and equitable to allow home loan modifications because right now, in bankruptcy, every other (non-residential) asset can be worked out.? She added: ?Many of these banks have received billions in taxpayer dollars. And I know that President Bush did not include a condition that these banks should refinance or sit down with folks and begin a discussion, but that must be a requirement now, or else foreclosures and the continued deterioration of all of our property values will continue.?

Rep. Hastings (D-FL), also speaking in support of the rule and the underlying bill, first acknowledged that he shared the concern of some who have criticized permitting mortgage loan modifications because they could cause ?massive losses to financial institutions, increase the cost of borrowing for other homeowners or lead to a sudden surge of bankruptcy filings.? He then added that he thought these would not occur because bankruptcy judges will make their decisions based on whether a borrower had acted responsibly and whether the claim had merit. 

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), who opposed the legislation, claimed that the Democratic majority ?is bringing back the old welfare system? with this legislation. She said: ?We don't have to ask people to work to draw welfare payments. No . . . Let's extend the payments . . . Let's put more people on welfare. That's exactly what this bill does . . . . ? She added that ?the majority of the American people who are paying their mortgages, who are playing by the rules, who are going to work every day, and who are doing their jobs are getting sick and tired of the increase in the welfare system again.? Foxx claimed that the legislation will only excuse and help those people who did not do the right thing.

Foxx also expressed her concern that ?while this bill claims not to be needing a lot more money eventually our (Democratic) colleagues . . . are going to come back asking for more money to deal with this issue.? She further argued against the rule itself because it limited the amendments that could be offered to change the legislation.

The vote on the rule was 224-198. All 224 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-six other Democrats joined with all one hundred and seventy-two Republicans present and voted ?nay?. As a result the House was able to begin debating legislation aimed at slowing home foreclosures and reviving the housing market.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 88
Feb 26, 2009
(H.Res. 190) Legislation designed to slow home foreclosures and revive the housing market during the severe economic downturn - - on the motion to bring the resolution setting the terms for considering the legislation to an immediate vote

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was on a motion to bring to an immediate vote the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms under which the House could consider the legislation aimed at slowing home foreclosures and reviving the housing market.

The legislation was developed during a severe economic downturn. It provided bankruptcy judges with the ability to modify mortgages on principal residences, allowed the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Agriculture and the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee and insure mortgage loans that are modified, extended protections against civil claims to companies servicing loans that engage in loan modifications, and made permanent what had been a temporary increase in FDIC deposit insurance.

The debate on the motion to have the House immediately consider the rule for the legislation focused more on the merits of the bill than on the rule itself. Rep. Hastings (D-FL), spoke in support of the bill. He first acknowledged that he shared the concern of some who have criticized permitting mortgage loan modifications because those modifications could cause ?massive losses to financial institutions, increase the cost of borrowing for other homeowners or lead to a sudden surge of bankruptcy filings.? He then said that he thought these events would not occur because bankruptcy judges would make their decisions based on whether a borrower had acted responsibly and whether the claim had merit.

Hastings also said that the bill ?will maximize, not lessen, the value of troubled mortgages for the lender, and avoid the decline in property values in neighborhoods where homes have been foreclosed on.? He dismissed suggestions that there will be widespread voluntary bankruptcies as a result of the legislation, and argued that the bill is actually designed to project those ?who played by the rules and acted responsibly (and) are now finding themselves under water through no fault of their own.?

Rep. Sutton (D-OH), who also supported the bill, claimed: ?Millions of families are in danger of losing their homes. And the foreclosures crisis has had and will have a rippling effect all across the country. As foreclosures go up, surrounding home prices go down, tax revenue for vital public services falls, financial institutions are saddled with losses, access to credit shrinks and our economy grinds to a halt. This legislation helps put a stop to this deadly spiral.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), who led the opposition to the measure, first expressed her concern that ?while this bill claims not to be needing a lot more money eventually our (Democratic) colleagues . . . are going to come back asking for more money to deal with this issue.? She then noted that ?94 percent of the people in this country are now paying their mortgages and paying them on time?, and that the bill will only excuse and help those people who did not do the right thing.

Rep. Foxx went on to criticize the rule setting the terms for considering the legislation because it permitted the combination of one bill from the Financial Services Committees, which she said Republicans ?could probably support?, and another from the Judiciary Committee, which she said they could not support.

Foxx also criticized the rule because it limited the amendments that could be offered to the legislation. She claimed that the Democratic chairman of the Financial Services Committee ?told us that he was willing to accept some of the amendments that had been offered.  We (Republicans) had 20 amendments . . . but only one of those amendments was (allowed by the rule) to be offered today, and it looks like we may have a problem with that amendment . . . .? Foxx further argued that ?what this bill is going to do is it is keeping us from being bipartisan . . . .?

The vote on the rule was 238 -183. All two hundred and thirty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eleven other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-two Republicans present and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating legislation aimed at slowing home foreclosures and reviving the housing market.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 87
Feb 25, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 86
Feb 25, 2009
H.R.1105 A measure that combined nine fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills covering most of the federal departments and agencies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. The Act was a compilation of nine appropriation bills covering the operations of most federal departments and agencies, other than those related to defense, for the 2009 fiscal year ending on September 30, 2009. Total funding in the Act was $410 billion. The previous Congress and President Bush were unable to reach an agreement on these nine appropriations bills by October 1, 2008, the beginning of fiscal year 2009, and Congress had previously extended funding so these department and agencies could continue to operate at their fiscal year 2008 levels. In addition to providing funding for fiscal year 2009, The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 made a few policy changes including no longer allowing Mexican trucks to operate widely in the U.S., making it easier for American citizens to visit immediate relatives in Cuba, stopping a plan to double the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and extending the use of E-Verify, an Internet system that uses Social Security registration and other data bases, which employers can access to verify the employment eligibility of workers. It also included congressionally-directed spending, or earmarks, totaling about $7.7 billion. With respect to those earmarks, Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-WI), who was managing the measure on the House floor, said that the earmark process followed in this Omnibus Act was far more transparent than ? in the so-called ?good old days.??? In addition, the Act also rejected a cost of living increase for House Members.

The Omnibus Act was considered by the House shortly after Congress had passed a separate $787 economic stimulus and recovery act. Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey said the Omnibus Act ?provides the base funding for programs that are funded in the recovery act, without which the additional recovery funding could not succeed?, and it ?also funds numerous critical programs not funded in the recovery act.? He noted that the recovery act had no additional funding for 75 percent of government accounts and ?so we simply provided those funds in this bill.?

Republicans opposed the 2009 Omnibus Act. They pointed to the fact that the Act increased spending for fiscal year 2009 by $32 billion, or more than 8% over the equivalent 2008 fiscal year spending levels. They contended that, given the large federal deficit and the increased spending in the stimulus package, the 2009 appropriations for the covered departments and agencies should be frozen at 2008 levels to demonstrate that Congress was taking the deficit very seriously. They also noted that they had previously asked Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and House Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD) to post the text of the Omnibus Act immediately after its final drafting, including all of the earmark and spending projects, but that the text of this very lengthy spending bill was posted only a day and a half before the vote on the Act. The Republicans claimed that this was not adequate time for a proper review.

The vote on the Act was 245 ayes and 178 nays. Two hundred and twenty-nine Democrats and sixteen Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and thirty-eight Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, this $410 billion spending bill was approved by the House.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 83
Feb 25, 2009
(H.Res. 184) Legislation containing nine separate funding measures amounting to over $400 billion for the 2009 fiscal year - - on a procedural vote to determine whether the House should take up the resolution setting the terms for debating the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1105 contained nine separate funding measures amounting to over $400 billion for the 2009 fiscal year. This was a procedural vote on whether the House should consider the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H. R. 1105. When the rule for H.R. 1105 was brought up, Rep. Flake (R-AZ) raised a point of order against it. He said that the rule violated the Congressional Budget Act because it allowed for the House to consider H.R. 1105, even though the bill contained ?unfunded mandates? - - a term that refers to language in any piece of federal legislation that requires states to spend money on a program without providing the money to pay for the program. The decision on the point of order was to be determined by the outcome of the vote on H. Res. 184 - - an affirmative vote would override the point of order and allow the House to debate the funding bill; a negative vote would mean the point of order prevailed, and the ?unfunded mandates? would have to be removed from the funding bill before the House could debate it.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), speaking for the Democratic majority, said that ?(T)echnically, the point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and ultimately the underlying bill. But we all know that it's really about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the merits of the legislation itself. McGovern added that ?(T)he underlying bill . . . (contains) important funding . . . for health care, for education, for transportation, to help move our economy forward (and those) who oppose the bill can vote against it on final.? He also said, ?as far as I know, there are no unfunded mandates in this bill.? Flake?s retort was:? As far as I know, there might be, there may not be.  But I can tell you, when you have a bill this large that we got just 48 hours ago, we simply don't know.?

Before a bill can be considered on the House floor, the House must debate and approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the framework under which the bill is to be considered. This resolution often includes provisions enumerating the amendments that may be offered to the bill, and whether certain points of order that would ordinarily prevail would be waived.

Rep. Flake was a consistent opponent of what he deemed to be wasteful federal spending and of mandates. Referring to the fact that the bill was very long and was available less than 48 hours prior to its consideration, he said ?we have no idea whether this contains unfunded mandates or not. It . . . is a combination of nine bills, only three of which went even through the Committee on Appropriations.? He also said that funding bills typically come to the House floor under a rule that has no restrictions.

Rep. McGovern responded by arguing that there had been more transparency in the funding process since the Democrats took control of the Congress in 2006. McGovern also claimed that the measure represented a bipartisan effort and that: ?(I)f we delay, I think it will have a negative impact on our economy.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 234-177. Two hundred and thirty-three Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the legislation containing nine separate funding measures amounting to over $400 billion for the 2009 fiscal year. 


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 76
Feb 24, 2009
(H.R. 80) On passage of legislation that extended the coverage, to include primates, of existing federal controls on the interstate transportation and sale of certain animals

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 80, the Captive Primate Safety Act, which prohibited the importation, export, transportation, sale, receipt, acquisition or purchase of primates in interstate or foreign commerce. It amended legislation knows as the Lacey Act Amendments of 198l, which had previously applied those restrictions to a number of other wild animals. This bill expanded the coverage of the Lacey Act to certain nonhuman primates, including monkeys and chimpanzees.

Del. Bordallo (D-Guam), who led the support for the measure, referred to a recent widely-publicized incident in which a chimpanzee attacked a woman and inflicted very serious injuries, and said that the incident ? reminds us all too clearly that (primates) are wild animals and that they can become extremely dangerous.? Del. Bordallo then pointed to an estimate by The Humane Society of the United States that ?about 15,000 monkeys and other primates are in private hands in the United States, and in recent years, there have been dozens of incidents of nonhuman primates injuring people.?

Rep. Bishop (R-UT) led the opposition to the measure. His opposition was based on the argument that the ?issue clearly falls under the jurisdiction of State fish and wildlife agencies.? He claimed that ?40 states already prohibit ownership of monkeys or require a license or permit in order to own a monkey, . . . (and) this is not within the realm of where national government needs to spend its time.? He went on to say ?. . . it is amazing, at a time when we are suffering economic pain - -  we are again debating an issue that . . . addresses the ownership of monkeys.?

Bishop also claimed that the legislation was not actually addressing a serious problem because ?(I)n the decade from 1995 to 2005, there were only 132 documented incidences between captive primates and humans. He went on to note that ?(T)here is, though, a cost to this legislation. Regardless of the fact that the . . . problem is minimal, the problem could easily be handled on a state-by-state basis, we will still appropriate to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . . . $4 million to hire additional staff to conduct interstate inspections and investigation to enforce this law. ? Bishop concluded by asking Members ?to resist this effort to try to make sure that everything in life is always fair and equal and controlled from these hallowed Halls of Washington . . .  .?

Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR), a supporter of the bill responded to Rep. Bishop by saying ?(H)ow we treat these animals in our community reflects a lot on our own values and who we are.?  In reference to Bishop?s arguments that states should be handling the problem with which the bill dealt, Rep. Blumenauer noted that Congress had not given responsibility to the states for other wild animals when it passed the Lacey Act Amendments. 

The legislation passed by a vote of 323-85. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and seventy-six Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety-three Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate a bill expanding the coverage, to include primates, of federal controls on the interstate transportation and sale of certain animals.


ENVIRONMENT Humane Treatment of Animals
Y Y Won
Roll Call 73
Feb 23, 2009
(H.R. 44) On passage of a bill increasing compensation for natives of Guam for their suffering during World War II.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote to suspend the usual House rules and approve H.R. 44, a bill titled the Guam Recognition Act. The bill implemented the recommendations of the Guam War Claims Commission, which had recommended additional compensation for natives of Guam who suffered injury during the Japanese occupation of the island during World War II. The Commission  was established in 2003 to examine whether there was parity in the World War II damage claims that had been paid to the natives of Guam compared with United States citizens or nationals. The Commission was also charged, if it found there has not been parity, to advise the Congress on changes required to compensate the natives of Guam equally. After its work was completed, the Commission recommended increases in the levels of compensation that had been paid to the natives who were injured and to the descendants of those who had been killed.  The additional compensation was to cost $131 million.

Delegate Bordallo (D-Guam) led the support for the motion. She said that it ?would fulfill (a) moral obligation on the part of our national government to . . .  the people of Guam, most of whom were indigenous Chamorros who bore the burden of a brutal occupation. ? She argued that Congress did not originally provide for war claims for the people of Guam in the same manner as were afforded to others, even though the people of Guam carried what she called ? a disproportionate burden of the war?.  She characterized the prior disparity in compensation as ?a tragic injustice of history? and said that the people of Guam ?just want to receive the same restitution that other Americans received.?

A law had been enacted at the end of the war making payments to all residents of Guam, including U.S. citizens and nationals, as well as natives of Guam for claims for damages they suffered during the occupation.  Those claims were for death, personal injury, forced labor, forced march, and internment. Questions had been raised over the years about whether the original Act, as implemented, adequately compensated the natives as compared with U.S. citizens and nationals. In response to those questions, The Claims Commission reviewed events that occurred during and after the war, and heard testimony from some of those who had experienced the occupation.

A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill is a procedural mechanism that is usually employed to gain approval for measures that the House leadership deems to be not very controversial. There is a limited time period for debate.  Amendments cannot be offered. A two thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.
 
The legislation received generally bipartisan support. Rep. Foxx (R-NC), articulated the limited opposition to the measure. She first agreed that ? certainly we want to honor the people who have fought to help keep this country free?. Foxx then added, in a reference to the major economic stimulus bill Congress had recently approved, that she was going to vote against passage of the Guam Recognition Act because she was ?very concerned about the expenditure of another $131 million in addition to the (billions we recently committed).?

The bill passed by a vote of 299-99. Two hundred and thirty-one Democrats and sixty-eight Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety-seven Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent to the Senate a bill providing for additional compensation to the natives and descendants of Guam who suffered during the Japanese occupation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 72
Feb 23, 2009
H.R.911 To establish the first set of national standards for private and public teenage residential treatment programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The vote was on a motion by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) to suspend the regular House rules and pass ?The Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act.? This legislation established the first set of national standards for private and public residential programs that are intended to help teenagers with behavioral, emotional, mental health, or substance abuse problems.  There are 20,000 to 30,000 teenagers enrolled in these programs, which include therapeutic boarding schools, wilderness camps, boot camps, and behavior modification facilities. There had been no national federal standards for these facilities. Many states also had not set their own minimum treatment standards or methods of accountability for them, or had regulated only the publicly funded programs. The Government Accountability Office, which undertakes investigations for Congress, had issued a report in 2007 that found there had been thousands of allegations of child abuse and neglect at these teenage residential programs since 1990. It also found evidence of ineffective management," and "reckless or negligent operating practices" at many of the facilities. This legislation was intended to prevent these problems from occurring in the future.

The measure established the first set of national standards for a basic level of care that all such programs must provide and for their methods of operation. It contained language designed to prevent these facilities from physically, mentally, or sexually abusing children in their care. These new standards specifically prohibited the facilities from denying essential water, food, clothing, shelter, or medical care to their residents, and required that they provide the teenagers with reasonable access to a telephone. It also required that they train their staffs in what constitutes child abuse and neglect and how to report it. The legislation gave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to assess civil penalties up to $50,000 against a facility for each legal violation. It further required HHS to create a web site listing every residential treatment program for youth, their licensing, and reports of participants' injury or death.

The measure excluded state-sponsored foster programs, juvenile-justice programs for delinquent youth, and programs that exclusively treat psychological disorders or substance abuse in a hospital setting. However, it encouraged states to develop their own oversight of these programs and provided grants to states that develop licensing standards and active oversight. In addition, the measure contained language barring deceptive marketing practices by these teenage residential treatment programs, and requiring them to inform parents of the qualifications, roles, and responsibilities of all staff and of substantiated reports of child abuse or violations of health and safety laws at the facility.

The bill was supported by The American Psychiatric Association, The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and The Coalition Against Institutionalized Child Abuse. Some Republican House members opposed the measure on the ground that the Government Accountability Office report was based on anecdotal evidence that made an emotional appeal to Congress, but was not a sufficient basis for the changes made by the bill.

The vote on the motion was 295 ayes and 102 nays.  Two hundred and thirty-one Democrats and sixty-four Republicans voted ?aye?.  One Hundred and one Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved the first set of legislatively-imposed national standards for private and public teenage residential programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
Y Y Won
Roll Call 70
Feb 13, 2009
(H.R. 1) On passage of the legislation funding the economic stimulus package developed in response to the severe economic downturn of 2008-2009.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on House passage of the legislation funding the economic stimulus package developed in response to the severe economic downturn. The stimulus measure was developed to deal with what was generally considered to be the deepest economic crisis faced by the United States since the Great Depression. Republicans and Democrats generally agreed that an economic stimulus package was needed. However, most Democrats wanted the bill to be devoted primarily to spending increases, while Republicans wanted the emphasis to be on tax reductions.

Supporters of the conference report said it would create and save jobs, help state and local governments, prevent deep cuts in health, education, and law enforcement services, reduce taxes for working families and small businesses, and invest in the long-term health of the economy. During the debate on previous roll call votes associated with the conference report, Rep. Obey (D-WI), who chairs the Appropriations Committee and was managing the report on the House floor, said that ?(T)he forecasters at the Congressional Budget Office, Moody's conomy.com, Macroeconomic Advisors, and the Obama Administration have all estimated that enactment of this legislation could create or save 3 to 4 million jobs.?

Among the areas to which spending was targeted by the measure were infrastructure, housing, alternative energy sources and retrofitting, environmental cleanup, transportation, health services and facilities, nutrition, education and training, law enforcement, and science. The liberal-leaning Brookings Institute  said it found the measure to be ?well-designed to stimulate spending quickly, because it focuses on low- and moderate income people.? 

House Republicans had argued against the bill because they claimed that, while it contained tax reductions, it inappropriately emphasized increased spending increases. Their position was that tax reductions would create more jobs, would work faster, and was more likely to stimulate economic growth. They also said the emphasis on spending would significantly increase the deficit, federal borrowing, and inflation.

Rep. Lewis (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, was leading the opposition to the conference report. He argued that ?. . . funding for roads, highways, flood control measures, and other job creating infrastructure projects were downsized in order to increase the size and scope of (non job-producing) government programs.? Lewis also said that: ?(T)here are Members on both sides of the aisle who would support reasonable transportation and infrastructure projects as well as reasonable tax reform, but that is not what is before us today.?

Lewis also complained that the conference report was being considered too hastily and that ?. . . no one in the Congress has any idea what is really in this legislation . . . it became available to Members and the public on a web site at 12:30 a.m. this morning, less than 12 hours ago. . .  The House should not vote on the largest spending bill in the history of the United States when no one on either side of the aisle has any real idea of what's in it.?

The economic stimulus package passed by a vote of 246-183. All 246 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Seven other Democrats, along with one hundred and seventy-six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed the stimulus package, sent it to the Senate, which passed it the same day and forwarded it to the President who signed it into law.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 69
Feb 13, 2009
(H.R.1) Legislation funding the economic stimulus package developed in response to the severe economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 - - on a motion to send the legislation back to committee and add language allowing for a deduction of both the sales tax on new auto purchases and interest on new auto loans

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The legislation funding the economic stimulus package was developed in response to the severe economic downturn the country was experiencing. This was a vote on a motion to recommit (send back) the legislation to committee, with instructions to add language allowing for a tax deduction for the sales tax on new auto purchases and for the interest paid on new auto loans. Rep. Miller (R-MI), who made the motion, represents a district in Michigan in which a number of auto assembly plants and suppliers are located. It had been hit very hard by the economic crisis. It was estimated that the language that Miller proposed by added would have cost approximately thirteen billion dollars in federal revenue.

A ?motion to recommit with instructions? is a procedural technique to modify or delay legislation. If the motion is successful, it sends the measure back to the committee that developed the bill and orders the committee to make specified changes before the measure can be sent back to the full House for reconsideration.

The vote on the motion failed by a vote of 186-244. One hundred and seventy-two Republicans and fourteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty Democrats and four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no language was added to the bill allowing for a tax deduction for the sales tax on new auto purchases and for the interest paid on new auto loans, and the House moved to a vote on passage of the economic stimulus package.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Automobile Industry
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
N N Won
Roll Call 68
Feb 13, 2009
(H.R. 1) Legislation funding the economic stimulus package developed in response to the severe economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 - - on a procedural vote to determine whether the House should take up the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The economic stimulus package was developed to deal with the deepest economic crisis faced by the United States since the Great Depression. This was a vote forced by a procedural effort by the Republican minority to try to prevent the House from taking up the legislation funding the package.

Supporters of the legislation claimed it would create and save jobs, help state and local governments, prevent deep cuts in health, education, and law enforcement services, reduce taxes for working families and small businesses, and invest in the long-term health of the economy. During the debate, Rep. Obey (D-WI), who chairs the Appropriations Committee and was managing the bill on the House floor, said that ?(T)he forecasters at the Congressional Budget Office, Moody's Economy.com, Macroeconomic Advisors, and the Obama Administration have all estimated that enactment of this legislation could create or save 3 to 4 million jobs.?

Among the areas to which spending was targeted by the measure were infrastructure, housing, alternative energy sources and retrofitting, environmental cleanup, transportation, health services and facilities, nutrition, education and training, law enforcement, and science. The liberal-leaning Brookings Institute said it found the measure to be ?well-designed to stimulate spending quickly, because it focuses on low- and moderate income people.? 

House Republicans argued against the bill because they claimed that, while it contained tax reductions, it inappropriately emphasized increased spending increases. Their position was that tax reductions would create more jobs, would work faster, and was more likely to stimulate economic growth. They also said the emphasis on spending would significantly increase the deficit, federal borrowing, and inflation.

Rep. Lewis (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, was leading the opposition to the economic stimulus conference report. He argued that that ?. . . funding for roads, highways, flood control measures, and other job creating infrastructure projects were downsized in order to increase the size and scope of (non job-producing) government programs.? Lewis also said: ?(T)here are Members on both sides of the aisle who would support reasonable transportation and infrastructure projects as well as reasonable tax reform, but that is not what is before us today.?

Lewis went on to complain that the conference report was being considered too hastily and that ?. . . no one in the Congress has any idea what is really in this legislation . . . it became available to Members and the public on a web site at 12:30 a.m. this morning, less than 12 hours ago. . . . The House should not vote on the largest spending bill in the history of the United States when no one on either side of the aisle has any real idea of what's in it. ?
 
The question of whether the House should take up the legislation passed by a vote of  232-195. All 232 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Nineteen other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-six Republicans and voted ?nay?.  As a result, the House was able to take up the legislation funding the economic stimulus package developed in response to the severe economic downturn.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 67
Feb 13, 2009
(H. Res, 168) Legislation funding the economic stimulus package developed in response to the severe economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 - - on the rule providing for the terms under which the House could debate the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The legislation had been developed in response to the severe economic downturn the country was experiencing. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms under which the House could debate the legislation funding the economic stimulus package. Under House procedures, before a bill or can be debated, the House must first approve a resolution containing the ?rule? setting the terms for its consideration. The Republicans opposed the motion on several grounds. Their opposition was based partly on the substantive argument that the economic stimulus legislation was flawed and they had a better alternative. It was also based on the fact that the House was not being given adequate time to review the measure.

Rep. Dreier (R-CA), who was leading the opposition to the resolution, said: ?(W)e had a copy of the bill placed before us in the Rules Committee very late last night. . . . Procedure rules are important because they are placed there for a reason. . . . It is unconscionable that we would vote on a 1,000-page bill without at least reading the bill. But we didn't get 48 hours.?  He referred to a previous House vote calling for 48 hours to be provided to Members to see legislation before voting on it

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), speaking for the Democrats, focused on the substance of the conference report and said: ?When economists said there should be money for transportation and infrastructure, my Republican friends said `no.' When economists said there should be money for unemployment and for aid to States for school construction, my friends on the other side of the aisle said `no.? It is not enough to say `no' . . . . People have had it with the failed economic policies of George W. Bush . . .  that is not what the American people want, and that is not what the American people voted for in the November elections. ?

The resolution setting the terms for debate passed by a vote of 231-194. All 231 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-one other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-three Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the legislation authorizing the funds for the economic stimulus package.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 66
Feb 13, 2009
(H.Res. 168) Legislation funding the economic stimulus package developed in response to the severe economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 - - on the procedural question of whether the House should immediately vote on the resolution permitting it to debate the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The legislation funding the economic stimulus  package had been developed in response to the severe economic downturn the country was experiencing.This was a vote on ?ordering the previous question?, or bringing to an immediate vote H.Res. 168, the resolution? setting the terms under which the House could debate the legislation.

The Republicans opposed the motion on several grounds. Rep. Dreier (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, first raised a point of order because the resolution permitting debate on the conference report contained ?unfunded mandates?, which violate the Congressional Budget Act. An unfunded mandate is a provision requiring states to spend money on a program without providing federal money to pay for the program. The decision on the point of order was determined by the outcome of the vote on H. Res. 168.

Dreier then claimed that House Members only learned what was in the 1,000 page stimulus package ?after midnight (of that day) . . .? He referred to a previous House vote calling for 48 hours to be provided to Members to see legislation before voting on it. Dreier argued that ?. . . unfortunately, there was virtually no time provided . . . And it is my understanding that the online measure at that point . . . actually omitted three sections of the bill and that it was not placed online . . . (again until) after midnight.? Dreier added that: ?(I)t is unconscionable that we would vote on a 1,000-page bill without at least reading the bill . . . we don't know what is in here.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO), who was leading the Democratic effort to bring the stimulus package to a vote, argued that ?(T)echnically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider the rule and ultimately the underlying bill. But we know what it is really about, and that is about trying to block the bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation itself. . .  Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass this (legislation) . . . . It is not a time for delay.? 

Dreier responded that he wanted to ?disabuse any of my colleagues of this notion that we want to do nothing. We very much want to work diligently to ensure that we can get our economy back on track?, and then referenced the Republican alternative stimulus package.

The motion passed by a vote of 234-194. All 234 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eighteen other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventh-six Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on the resolution permitting it to debate the legislation funding the economic stimulus package.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 63
Feb 12, 2009
H. Res. 157. Procedural vote allowing the House to suspend the rules and pass resolutions honoring designated achievements. Feb. 11, 2009.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote to allow the House to suspend its regular rules of operation and pass four resolutions honoring individuals and organizations. There were four non-controversial resolutions that the House leadership wanted to pass on Thursday, February 12, 2009. They included honoring the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, recognizing the Pittsburgh Steelers for winning the Super Bowl, supporting American Heart Month, and naming a post office in Georgia after a local official. Before the House could take up any of these, it had to pass a separate resolution permitting the rules to be suspended on a Thursday. This was a vote to do so.

Separately, the House and Senate conferees had just completed work on the final version of the large stimulus package. Consideration of this traditionally non-controversial resolution regarding suspending the rules therefore became an opportunity for the Republican minority to voice its disagreements over the stimulus package, and to express its opposition to the way the majority Democrats were running the House.     

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), a member of the Rules Committees, said that Republicans ?have no objections to honoring the legacy of President Abraham Lincoln and the Pittsburgh Steelers for winning the Super Bowl,? but then added that ?there are more important things that we should be dealing with and . . . I will recommend to my colleagues that we vote against . . . .? Rep. Kingston (R-GA), in supported of Rep. Foxx?s argument, said that ? . . . while unemployment is at an all-time high . . . we're going to spend time and tax dollars congratulating the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Republican alternative has twice the jobs created at half the cost . . . (as the Democratic plan) . . . .? He also complained about the final version of the stimulus package not being available in time for Members to examine it adequately, and noted that Congress would soon be taking ?the largest single vote in terms of expenditure in the history of the United States . . . with little or no time to review it.?

The House often passes formal resolutions to honor events, individuals and achievements. The votes on these types of resolutions are typically not controversial and often approved, as a matter of convenience, by suspending the House rules relating to its formal procedures. The House can normally only suspend its rules to pass such resolutions on Monday through Wednesday.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO), who is also on the Rules Committee, first responded by noting that the matter under formal consideration was about conducting the House?s business and voting on four non-controversial resolutions. However, he did go on to say that the purpose of the Democratic stimulus package is to rejuvenate this economy and to get it back on track.

The resolution passed on an almost straight party line vote of 248 ayes to 174 nays. All two hundred and forty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Two other Democrats joined with all the Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to suspend its rules the following day and consider the four non-controversial questions. 


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 60
Feb 11, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 57
Feb 10, 2009
We?ve chosen not to post a description for this vote because it wasn?t truly an ideologically polarized vote and we limit our vote description database to votes that are.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Y Y Won
Roll Call 52
Feb 04, 2009
The Digital Television Delay Act (S.352)/On Passage.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on whether to delay the date to convert to all-digital television from February 17, 2009 to June 15, 2009. The change to all-digital television broadcasting had been recommended by the September 11 Commission.

During the debate on whether the extension should be implemented, Rep. Boucher (D-VA), the chairman of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, cited a very recent Nielsen study that found more than six million households, which had only analog television reception, were ?totally unprepared for the transition.? Boucher argued that, if this many households lost television service, it would be a greater threat to public safety than delaying the use of the spectrum by first responders. He also pointed to the support the delay had received from major organizations of first responders, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Association of Public Safety Communication Officers. Boucher also pointed to the support for the extension from Consumers Union, the FCC Chairman, and the large telecommunications companies that had spent billions of dollars purchasing portions of the analog spectrum that was not to be used by first responders.

Rep. Barton (R-TX), led the opposition to the legislation that would extend the conversion date. He first argued against the delay because it had been known for more than two years. Rep Stearns (R-FL), supporting Rep Barton, argued that changing a date that had been in place for so long would generate ?confusion and distrust of the government.?  Barton and other Republicans further argued that the delay would impose a financial hardship on individual television stations that would have to pay additional costs, including energy costs. This point was echoed by Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA), who said this burden would be ?anti-stimulus? in a time of economic decline.

There was also disagreement between Democrats and Republicans about whether those who had not yet made the switch to digital could acquire the necessary conversion boxes by the February 17 date. The Republicans argued that they could easily purchase the boxes and send their receipts to the government for reimbursement. Rep Stupok (D-MI), who represents a rural district, countered by saying that the boxes were not always readily available outside of major cities.

The vote on passage of the legislation was 264 ayes to158 nays. Two hundred and forty-one Democrats and 23 Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and forty-eight Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. The bill had previously passed the Senate, and, with House passage, was sent to the president for his signature, which extended the conversion date to June 15 2009.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Broadcast Media
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media
Y Y Won
Roll Call 51
Feb 04, 2009
The Digital Television Delay Act (S.352)/Motion to recommit with instructions to retain the effective date for conversion to all-digital television for the portion of the broadcasting spectrum in or near that to be used by first responders.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to maintain the scheduled date for converting to all-digital television for the portion of the broadcast spectrum designated for use by public safety officials. The conversion had been recommended by the September 11 Commission. The motion was made during House consideration of legislation, which would delay the date of conversion of all digital television broadcasting from February 17, 2009 to June 15, 2009. Rep. Barton (R-TX) had moved to send the bill back to the Commerce Committee with instructions to maintain the original conversion date for the first responder spectrum.

Rep. Boucher (D-VA), the chairman of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, was leading the effort to delay the conversion date. He cited a very recent Nielsen study that found more than six million households still had only analog television reception and were ?totally unprepared for the transition.? Boucher argued that if millions of households lost television service, it would be a greater threat to public safety than delaying the use of the spectrum by first responders. He also pointed to the support the delay has received from major organizations of first responders, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Association of Public Safety Communication Officers. Boucher further pointed to support for the delay from the major networks, and from AT&T and Verizon, which had spent billions purchasing portions of the broadcasting spectrum to be freed up by the switch to all-digital.

Rep. Barton (R-TX) first argued generally against the delay because Americans had known the conversion date for more than two years, and said that any delay of a designated date is a bad idea for the federal government to enact. Barton also disagreed with the estimate of six million unprepared households, claiming the figure was really only 800,000. He further claimed that the majority of those who had not converted were already on the waiting list to be converted.  Barton and other Republicans also argued that pushing back the date would put a significant financial burden on individual television stations.

In an effort to prevent the bill as written from being voted on, or alternatively to limit its impact, Barton made a procedural motion to have it sent back to the Commerce Committee with certain instructions from the House. These instructions were that the Committee should revise the bill to exclude from the conversion date extension those stations that broadcast on, or adjacent to, the portion of the spectrum designated for use by public safety officials. Boucher argued against this motion on the ground that very few public safety agencies would even be prepared by the original February 17 date to begin using the portion of the spectrum designated for them.

The vote on the motion to send the bill back to the Commerce Committee with the noted instructions failed on a vote of 180 ayes to 242 nays. One hundred and sixty-five Republicans and fifteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-six Democrats and six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to a vote on the passage of the legislation to delay the date for converting the entire broadcast spectrum to all-digital television.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Broadcast Media
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Equal Access to the Airwaves/Broadcast Media
N N Won
Roll Call 50
Feb 04, 2009
The Children?s Health Insurance Program-SCHIP (H.R.2)/Vote to agree to accept amendments the Senate made in the bill which expands insurance coverage to children and pregnant women.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The State Children?s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was originated in the 1990?s to help states provide health insurance to lower income families with children. The program was designed to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are modest, but too high to qualify for Medicaid.  Studies had shown that the number of uninsured children had risen even after SCHIP was enacted. This legislation was designed to expand the program to cover far more children and pregnant women, including legal immigrants without a waiting period. Previous legislative attempts to expand funding for the program had passed, but they did not become law because former President Bush vetoed them. President Obama had promised to sign the legislation if it passed.

The House leadership had made the expansion of SCHIP a major priority. The House passed a bill in January of 2009 that modified the rules of the program to allow an estimated 4.1 million additional children to be covered. It also would allow legal aliens to participate without a waiting period. Rep. Waxman (D-CA), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee which drafted the previously-passed House bill, described it as being ?. . . short of our ultimate goal of health reform?, but he called it ?an essential start?. He also noted that the $33 billion in additional federal spending to cover the program expansion would be paid for over five years by a 62 cent increase in the federal cigarette tax imposed by the bill.

The bill passed in January was sent on to the Senate, which made some changes in it and returned it to the House. Rep. Waxman described the Senate bill as ?very similar? to the one the House had passed. This vote was to decide whether the House should accept the Senate version of the previously passed bill. If accepted, the measure would then be sent to President Obama for his signature.

While there was some opposition from House Republicans to this bill to increase coverage, it was not universal. Rep. Sessions (R-TX), represented the Republican opposition when he argued that the program changes in the measure will greatly increase federal spending in a way that will generate ?terrible financial circumstance for the future?.  Sessions also claimed that the majority of the additional 4.1 million children that would  be covered  as a result of the bill were already being covered by private health insurance plans, and that the bill would enable illegal aliens to enroll fraudulently in SCHIP and in Medicaid.

The vote on the legislation was 290 ayes to135 nays. Two hundred and fifty Democrats and forty Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and thirty-three Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the bill passed and was sent to the President. With his signature, the changes in SCHIP became law.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Won
Roll Call 46
Jan 28, 2009
H.R. 1 Economic stimulus /On passage of the legislation providing more than $800 billion in stimulus spending and tax reductions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on House passage of the legislation containing the spending increases and tax cuts in the economic stimulus package. The measure was developed to deal with what was generally agreed by all parties to be the deepest economic crisis faced by the United States since the Great Depression. The supporters of the measure said it would create and save jobs, help state and local governments, which were experiencing widespread budget shortfalls, prevent deep cuts in health, education, and law enforcement services, reduce taxes for working families and small businesses, and invest in the long-term health of the economy. Among the areas to which spending would be targeted by the measure were infrastructure, housing, alternative energy sources and retrofitting, environmental cleanup, transportation, health services and facilities, nutrition, education and training, law enforcement, and science.

Republicans and Democrats generally agreed that an economic stimulus package was needed. However, most Democrats wanted the bill to be devoted primarily to spending increases, while Republicans wanted the emphasis to be on tax reductions. The liberal-leaning Brookings Institute supported the bill and its emphasis on increased spending as ?an insurance policy? to mitigate its severity of the recession. It found the measure ?well-designed to stimulate spending quickly, because it focuses on low- and moderate income people.?  House conservatives argued that tax reductions would create far more jobs than spending increases, worked faster, and were more likely to stimulate economic growth. They also pointed to the significant increase in the deficit and resulting federal borrowing that would result from the spending increases, and predicted inflationary consequences. In response to the Republican arguments, Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) said that the policies behind the tax reductions which Republicans had been promoting during the debate on the measure represented the kind of ?failed policies? that led to the economic crisis.

The vote on the legislation was 244 aye? and 188 nays, primarily along party lines. All 244 aye votes were cast by Democrats; eleven other Democrats joined with all 177 Republicans in voting nay. As a result, the House approved the large economic stimulus package.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 45
Jan 28, 2009
H.R.1. Economic stimulus /Motion to recommit with instructions to add $60 billion in additional highway and water project funding, and to eliminate $164 billion in other funding.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion by Rep. Lewis (R-CA) to send the legislation containing the economic stimulus package back to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to add $36 billion in highway spending and $24 billion in Army Corps of Engineer water construction projects, and to eliminate $164 billion of other new spending that was in the bill.

Rep. Lewis is the senior Republican member of the House Appropriations Committee, and was among the Republicans who led the opposition to the economic stimulus bill on the House floor. His motion was supported by Rep. Mica (R-FL), who is the senior Republican member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which has jurisdiction over highway and water projects.

Lewis described the highway and water funds that would be added by the instructions as ?. . . immediate job-producing activities . . . (that) are absolutely ?shovel-ready? infrastructure investments that will put Americans back to work now.? He described those programs in which his amendment would cut funding as ?. .  . untested, newly authorized or newly funded programs . . . that will not be available until fiscal year 2010, and later . . . (and) the most questionable job-creating programs . . . .? Among the funding that would be cut or eliminated by the instructions proposed by Lewis were those for increased rural broadband, for the National Science Foundation, and for energy retrofitting of federal buildings.  Lewis claimed that the adoption of his motion would create a bill that was more balanced between spending increases and the greater tax cuts that Republicans favored.

Rep. Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, opposed the motion by first noting that the Republicans had been criticizing the stimulus legislation based on the idea that Democrats were ?just throwing money at the problem. That it can't possibly be spent.?  He then said: ?Yet, they would add some $25 billion to the Corps (of Engineers) budget, despite the fact that the Corps has told us that they can only push out the door about $4 billion in new projects. . . . (The Republicans) have criticized us . . . because they said that we had money in here for infrastructure that couldn't possibly be spent out in the next 2 years. And now they are adding $36 billion more.? Obey went on to argue that the funding cuts included in the motion?s instructions would eliminate programs that would put hundreds of thousands of people to work. He also pointed to the fact that the instructions would cut job training and displaced workers funds, and added: ?We should be doubling those funds, not cutting them.

A ?motion to recommit with instructions? is a procedural technique to delay or modify legislation. It can only be used by a House member who opposes a measure being considered on the House floor. If the motion is successful, it sends the measure back to the committee that developed the bill and orders it to make specified changes before the measure can be sent back to the full House for reconsideration.?

The vote on the motion was 159 ayes and 270 nays, largely along party lines. Most of the aye votes were cast by House Republicans. However, 31 Republicans joined most of the Democrats in opposing it. The bill was not recommitted and the large proposed spending changes were not made in the stimulus package.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 44
Jan 28, 2009
Amendment to H.R.1, the stimulus package proposed by the Democrats. The amendment would substitute the proposed Republican stimulus package that added income tax rate deductions for the bottom two income tax brackets, alternative minimum tax relief, small business deductions and expensing, expanded carry back of net operating losses, improved home buyer credit, unemployment benefit tax exemption, health insurance premium deduction, repeal of the 3 percent withholding requirement for government contractors, extension of unemployment benefits, and a Sense of Congress statement against tax increases to offset outlays.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would have effectively substituted the alternative developed by the House Republicans to H.R.1, the $787 billion dollar economic stimulus package of spending increases and tax cuts that the Democrats had developed. The amendment was co-sponsored by Rep. Camp (R-MI), the most senior Republican member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee and Rep. Cantor (R-VA), the second ranking member of the House Republican leadership. The Republicans argued that their amendment ?preserves some of the best features of the (Democratic stimulus package), but eliminates hundreds of billions in wasteful spending.? The Republicans also claimed that it met the three basic elements that President Obama had said were needed in a stimulus package:
Strengthening the social safety net; providing tax relief for working families and small businesses; and accelerating infrastructure with permanent benefits.

The Camp-Cantor Amendment focused primarily on tax reductions, rather than increased spending. Among its provisions were changes that gave a tax deduction to those who paid their own health insurance costs rather than having it provided by their employers, and increased tax deductions targeted specifically to small businesses. It also provided for expanded use of net operating losses against tax liabilities. Rep. Henserling (R-TX), speaking on behalf of the Republican position, said ?what is needed is an economic stimulus bill, not a big government stimulus bill.? Rep. Camp noted that the amendment was targeted primarily to tax cuts because a Congressional Budget Office study had concluded that tax cuts impact the economy faster than does new spending. Rep Rangel (D-NY), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, countered that the amendment would remove tax benefits for low and middle class Americans and the working poor, deny funds and food stamps to those who needed them, and prevent the development of infrastructure necessary for modern technology.  Rep. Pomeroy (D-ND), in his statement opposing the amendment, argued that it is ?the same Republican policy that has done harm? to all but the richest Americans.

The vote on the amendment was 170 ayes and 266 nays, largely along party lines. One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and two Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-seven Democrats and nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the Republican alternative to the stimulus package proposed by the Democrats.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 43
Jan 28, 2009
On Agreeing to the Flake of Arizona amendment that would have cut all additional funding for Amtrak from the economic stimulus package.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment to the economic stimulus legislation, which would have deleted Amtrak funding. The economic stimulus legislation included an additional $800 million in funding for Amtrak, beyond the annual funding it had been receiving. Rep. Flake (R-AZ), who has been an active opponent of federal spending that he considers wasteful, offered an amendment to the economic stimulus legislation to remove the additional $800 million.

Flake argued against the additional funding on two grounds: The first was that the $800 million was what he described as a ?subsidy for a program that continually does not work.? He noted that less than 1% of intercity travelers rely on Amtrak and said that its ridership has been consistently low. Flake added that, despite years of federal assistance, ?(E)very time a passenger steps aboard an Amtrak train, the Federal taxpayer spends an average of $210 in subsidy for that passenger. . . Yet here we say Amtrak needs more.? His second ground for opposing the additional funding was that the money would not help stimulate the economy, and that there are many better ways to spend $800 million to stimulate it.

Rep. Olver (D-MA) led the opposition to the Flake Amendment.  Olver pointed to the record-setting ridership levels Amtrak had been experiencing. He argued that many jobs ?will be created immediately nationwide? by the additional funding, including those that repair infrastructure and renovate stations. Rep. Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee echoed those arguments. Oberstar noted that at least five billion dollars in "shovel ready" Amtrak projects had been identified. Rep. Brown (D-FL), the chair of the Commerce Committee?s Subcommittee on Railroads, also opposed the amendment. In response to Rep. Flake?s reference to the fact that the taxpayer subsidizes every Amtrak rider, she argued that, in real economic terms, ? (T)here is no form of (U.S.) transportation that pays for itself, none whatsoever, whether we are talking about rail, airlines or cars, none of it. We subsidize all of it.?

Rep. Flake received only limited support from the Republican side. Rep. Mica (R-FL), the senior Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee actually argued against the amendment. He noted that there had been a lengthy bipartisan effort to reform Amtrak and said why Congress should not block ready to go rail projects that require funding.

There was limited activity regarding the amendment among interest groups. The, AFL-CIO did issue a statement in opposition to it.

The vote on the Flake Amendment was 116 ayes to 320 nays and it was defeated. All of the 116 ?aye? votes were cast by Republicans. Sixty-one other Republicans joined all of the Democrats in voting ?nay?. As a result, the $800 in additional Amtrak funding remained in the stimulus package.


ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
N N Won
Roll Call 42
Jan 28, 2009
Neugebauer of Texas amendment that would cut all new spending from the economic stimulus package/On agreeing to the amendment.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Neugebauer (R-TX) to the legislation containing the economic stimulus package. The amendment was designed to eliminate $355 billion of discretionary programs in the legislation. Rep. Neugebauer acknowledged that he and all other Members of Congress were concerned about the number of Americans who had lost their jobs. He then said that, despite this concern, he objected to the new appropriations in the stimulus package because they would require the government to spend money it does not have.

Neugebauer put forth a number of other arguments in support of his amendment, including the fact that several of the new spending programs established in the bill had not gone through the regular committee process and had not had much oversight. He argued that ?(W)e don't even know for some of these projects how much money we are going to spend in 2009 (or 2010) because Congress has not finished its (appropriations) business for the current fiscal year.? In addition, Neugebauer said, the bill would spend $275,000 for each job it created. He also argued that the majority of the funds would not be spent until 2010, 2011 and 2012.  He claimed the majority of Americans think that, rather than increasing federal spending, ?the best way to stimulate the economy (is) with tax cuts for businesses and individuals.?

Rep. Obey (D-WI), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, in speaking in opposition to the amendment acknowledged that the stimulus package would cost a lot of money. He then asked: ?How much will it cost us if the credit markets totally freeze up? How much will it cost us if we lose employment opportunities for another 3 to 4 million Americans? How much will it cost us . . . if we don't do something to stave off economic disaster??

Obey characterized the Neugebauer Amendment as reflecting the kind of thinking in which Herbert Hoover engaged during the Great Depression. He said that the amendment does not recognize the reality of modern conditions, and is ?primitive economically?.  Obey argued that ?this economy is in mortal danger of absolute collapse. We are trying to avoid that by injecting consumer spending into the economy (and) . . . the cost of doing nothing would be astronomical.? He also pointed out that voting for the amendment would eliminate additional funding in the stimulus package for a broad range of programs including education, science, infrastructure, energy transmission and rural broadband expansion.

The vote on the Neugebauer Amendment was134 ayes to 302 nays and it was defeated. All the134 aye votes were cast by Republicans. Forty-three other Republicans joined with all the Democrats and voted ?nay?. As a result, the additional discretionary spending remained in the economic stimulus package.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 41
Jan 28, 2009

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: S 328 To postpone the DTV transition date.
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 40
Jan 28, 2009
Outlining rules for debate (H. Res. 92) on the economic stimulus legislation /On adoption of the resolution. Jan. 28, 2009.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on the ?rule? setting the terms for House consideration of the legislation containing the large economic stimulus package. The rule, among other things, allowed only eleven designated amendments to be offered. Various House members had asked The Rules Committee, which drafted the rule, for a total of 206 amendments to be made in order.

Most of the debate over the rule related to the merits of the stimulus legislation, rather than the merits of the rule itself. Rep. Slaughter, the chair of the House Rules Committee, said: ?If nothing is done, our economy will continue this downward spiral, and we must take action . . . . The stimulus package is a critical and necessary investment that will create and save 3 to 4 million jobs, will jump start our economy . . . with $550 billion in carefully targeted priority investments (and provide) immediate, direct tax relief . . . .?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA), the most senior Republican on the House Rules Committee acknowledged ?(I)t is a very, very difficult time. And on that, Democrats and Republicans are in total agreement.? He went on to say, with reference to the stimulus legislation, ?(U)nfortunately the way it was handled in the House Rules Committee, and the way that we are considering this measure on the floor, it appears that there is very little focus on the merits and that most of the attention is focused on politics.? He also argued that the stimulus package should emphasize the increased tax reductions that Republicans favored.

Under usual House procedures, before it can consider a piece of legislation, the House must first approve a resolution containing the rule for that bill. The rule sets the terms under which the legislation will be considered. Those terms generally include such things as whether only specifically enumerated amendments may be offered to the legislation, and the time that will be allotted to the Democrats and to the Republicans for debating the legislation.

Dreier characterized the rule as being ?very unfair? and ?badly flawed?. He pointed to the fact that only a few of the 206 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee could be considered under its terms. He also criticized House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) for what he said was her inaccurate claim that the process associated with the stimulus legislation was ?bipartisan, open and transparent.?

The House voted 243 ayes to 176 nays, primarily along party lines. All 243 ?aye? votes were cast by Democratic Members. Nine other Democrats joined with all the Republican Members and voted ?nay?. The ?yes? vote on the rule allowed the House to take up consideration of the economic stimulus legislation.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 39
Jan 28, 2009
Economic Stimulus/Procedural vote to allow the House to consider the resolution which outlines the rules for debate of the bill containing the economic stimulus package. Jan. 28, 2009.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on whether to take up the ?rule? setting the terms for consideration of the economic stimulus package developed by the House Democrats. Republicans opposed the stimulus package because it emphasized spending increases over tax reductions, and were using procedural tactics to delay moving the bill through the legislative process. Forcing a roll call vote on the resolution approving the taking up of the rule on the stimulus bill was one such tactic.

During the debate, Rep. Stearns (R-FL) raised a point of order. He argued that the terms of the rule violated the Congressional Budget Act because it allowed for consideration of the stimulus package legislation even though the legislation contained a prohibited ?unfunded mandate?. An unfunded mandate is a provision in any federal legislation that requires states to spend money on a program, without providing federal money to pay for that program. In this case, the unfunded mandate noted by Rep. Stearns was a provision of the stimulus package that would require the states to spend additional amounts for unemployment insurance. The chair ruled that the decision on the point or order would be made by the House when it voted on the question of whether or not the rule should be considered.

Rep. Slaughter (D-NY), the chair of The House Rules Committee, responded to Rep. Stearns? point of order by saying that ?(T)echnically this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and ultimately the underlying (stimulus) bill. In reality, it?s about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation itself.  I think that is wrong and hope we (can) consider this important legislation on its merits and not kill it on a procedural motion.?  She referred to the point of order as ?dilatory? and a ?red herring?, and argued that ?(T)hose who oppose (the stimulus bill) can vote against it on final passage.?

Under usual House procedures, before a bill such as that containing the economic stimulus package can be considered, the House must first approve a resolution containing the ?rule? for that bill. The rule provides the terms under which the legislation will be considered. Those terms include such things as whether only specifically enumerated amendments may be offered to the legislation, and the time that will be allotted to the Democrats and to the Republicans for debating the legislation. Prior to the House taking up the rule, there is a procedural vote on whether the rule itself should even be considered. That vote is often a formality. That was not the case in this instance.

During the debate, Stearns also made a substantive argument against consideration of the rule, based in part on the fact that 206 amendments that had been proposed to the legislation, but the rule permitted only eleven to be offered on the House floor. Stearns noted that House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) had characterized the process of developing a stimulus package as ?bipartisan, open and transparent?, but he then claimed that many Republican-supported amendments were dropped ?arbitrarily? and ?capriciously?, and ?(S)o this . . .  package is not bipartisan.?

The vote on whether to consider the rule that would set the terms for the debate on the economic stimulus legislation was 240 ayes and 174 nays, primarily along party lines. All 240 ?aye? votes were cast by Democratic Members. Five other House Democrats joined with all the Republican Members and voted ?nay?. The ?yes? vote allowed the House to take up the rule setting the terms for consideration of the economic stimulus legislation.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 38
Jan 27, 2009
Economic Stimulus/Procedural vote on whether to take up the economic stimulus legislation (H.R.1) despite the fact that its expenditures violated the Congressional ?pay-as-you-go? rule. Jan. 27, 2009.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on whether the House should begin to consider H.R.1, the legislation that contained the multi-billion dollar stimulus package of spending increases and tax cuts the Democrats had developed in response to the economic downturn.  The bill did not identify sources of additional revenue to pay for those spending increases and tax cuts, as is normally required by the House ?pay-as-you-go? rule. Under that rule, if a bill that increases spending or reduces taxes does not identify the required source of compensating revenue, the measure can only be considered if it contains language stating that the bill deals with an emergency. Even then, a majority of the House must still vote to consider the bill.

The legislation containing the stimulus package did include the required language that designated it as an emergency measure to avoid the regular pay-as-you-go requirement. When the stimulus package came to the floor for consideration, the chair announced that H.R. 1 contained the necessary emergency designation, and put the question to the House, as is required under its rules, whether the bill should be considered. There was no debate permitted on the question.
 
The Republican minority in the House and some conservative Democrats Members agreed on the need for a stimulus package, but took the position that it should focus primarily on tax reductions. They opposed the large spending increases in the stimulus legislation. The Republicans, in particular, were using procedural tactics to delay moving the stimulus package through the legislative process. Forcing a roll call vote on approval of the question of whether to consider the bill was one of those tactics.

The vote on the question of consideration of H.R. 1 was 224 ayes and 199 nays, primarily along party lines. All 224 ?aye? votes were cast by Democratic Members. Twenty-seven other House Democrats joined with all the Republican Members and voted ?nay?. The ?yes? vote allowed the House to begin to consider the bill.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 37
Jan 27, 2009

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 181 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 36
Jan 27, 2009
S 181. (Wage discrimination) Motion to send the bill back to the Education and Labor Committee for reworking/On the motion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on whether to send a bill that would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to extend the time limit in which workers can file employment discrimination lawsuits back to the Education and Labor Committee for a complete rewrite. 

Buck McKeon, R-Calif., made the motion, saying the committee had not had a hearing on the bill and that it is ?so sweeping in scope? that it needs to be debated in a ?comprehensive fashion.?
?There has not been a full and fair debate, regular order has not been followed, and it needs to be. As I noted in my remarks, we have not entertained, in the three times that this bill has been brought to the floor, a single Republican amendment,? McKeon said.

George Miller, D-Calif., said the motion is a ?desperate attempt? to keep the bill from passing.  Miller said the House had passed the bill earlier in the session and that the Senate has passed similar legislation.  He noted that last year, hearings were held in two committees, including Education and Labor, and just two amendments were offered in markup session.  ?They could have offered more. They chose not to,? Miller said.

The bill in question would, in effect, nullify a Supreme Court decision from 2007 setting out a timeframe in which workers who believe they were victims of wage discrimination must file a suit.  The case required that suits be filed within 180 days of when the alleged bias had first occurred.  The decision was brought to light in Congress by a woman named Lily Ledbetter, an Alabama tire company employee who discovered that she had been paid less than men doing the same work, but only after 20 years of employment, making her ineligible for filing suit.  The bill in question would extend that time limit significantly thus making it much easier to bring wage discrimination lawsuits.

Republicans have complained bitterly that the change would invite a host of new discrimination lawsuits by lawyers eager to collect fees.  Democrats counter that claim, saying the law will only restore what was in place prior to 2007.

By a vote of 176-250, the motion was rejected.  All but one Republican present voted for the motion (Bill Cassidy of Louisiana).  All but two Democrats present voted against the motion.  The end result is that the House turned back a motion that would have allowed lawmakers to completely overhaul a bill that would make it easier to bring wage discrimination lawsuits.  This overhaul process, which takes place at the committee level, can mean the bill never has a chance to come back to the House floor for final passage.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Women?s Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Won
Roll Call 35
Jan 27, 2009
H Res 88. (Economic stimulus) Providing for consideration of a bill that would provide $815.8 billion for tax cuts and other economic stimulus spending (HR 1)/On passing the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on passing a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a bill that would provide $815.8 billion in tax cuts and additional spending to stimulate the economy. 

These types of resolutions, drafted by the House Rules Committee (and typically favorable to the majority party, in this case Democrats), set the rules for debate for bills on the House floor, including how long the bill will be debated and what, if any, amendments may be offered.

Lawmakers spent very little time discussing the rule itself, and mostly used the time to begin debate on the economic stimulus bill early.  Republicans argued that the package spent too much money, that it does not allocate the money in the most efficient way to create jobs, that it does not do enough to address the housing crisis, and that the tax cuts in the bill should be changed to be across the board. 

Democrats largely countered that Bush-style tax cuts for the rich and more corporate loopholes are not what the economy needs.

By a vote of 235-191, the rule was adopted.  Every Republican present voted against the rule.  Of Democrats present, 235 voted for the rule and 16 voted against it.  The end result is that the House passed a rule governing floor debate for an economic stimulus bill.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 34
Jan 27, 2009
H Res 88. (Economic stimulus) Providing for consideration of a bill that would provide $815.8 billion for tax cuts and other economic stimulus spending (HR 1)/On ordering the previous question

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a bill that would provide $815.8 billion in tax cuts and additional spending to stimulate the economy. 

These types of resolutions, drafted by the House Rules Committee (and typically favorable to the majority party, in this case Democrats), set the rules for debate for bills on the House floor, including how long the bill will be debated and what, if any, amendments may be offered.

This particular vote was a procedural motion known as the ?previous question,? which effectively ends debate and is often used by the minority party as a last gasp attempt to amend bills that otherwise might not be amendable in the way in which they want.  However, in this case, Republicans did not attempt to bring up any amendments and there was no debate on the procedural vote itself, though Republicans did complain about being shut out of the amendment process on the rule itself.

By a vote of 244-183, the motion was agreed to.  Every Republican present voted against the motion.  All but eight Democrats present voted for the motion.  The end result is that the motion was adopted, thus ending consideration of the rule governing floor debate for an economic stimulus bill.  Then the House proceeded to a vote on the rule itself.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 33
Jan 27, 2009
H Res 87. (Wage discrimination) Providing for consideration of a bill modifying time limits for filing wage discrimination lawsuits (S 181)/On passing the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on passing a bill outlining the rules for floor debate on a measure that would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to extend the time limit in which workers can file employment discrimination lawsuits.

These types of resolutions, drafted by the House Rules Committee (and typically favorable to the majority party, in this case Democrats), set the rules for debate for bills on the House floor, including how long the bill will be debated and what, if any, amendments may be offered.
Republicans mostly spent their time complaining that the rule would not allow them to offer the sort of amendments they wanted.  Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., said the rule ?clearly contradicts the majority's pledge to the American people to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle.?

?Every Member of this House will be forbidden from offering any amendments to it. And what makes this act even more unfortunate is that this bill did not make its way through the committee process during this Congress, thereby abandoning the critical committee vetting and amendment process. In effect, what the majority is doing is sidelining the legislative process,? he said.

Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, said the bill the rule governs is identical to one passed last year and that lawmakers have had plenty of time to change the measure.

?I have also heard several arguments from my esteemed colleague from Florida. And I just want to remind him that when this bill was debated during the last session of Congress in the Education and Labor Committee where there were ample opportunities to bring amendments, those people in opposition only brought two amendments. So this is not a bill where there is tremendous disagreement,? Pingree said.

The rule was adopted by a vote of 252-174.  Every Republican present voted against the measure, while every Democrat present voted for it.  The end result is that the House adopted a bill outlining the rules governing floor debate of a measure that would extend the time limits in which someone may file a lawsuit for employment discrimination.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Women?s Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Won
Roll Call 32
Jan 27, 2009
H Res 87. (Wage discrimination) Providing for consideration of a bill modifying time limits for filing wage discrimination lawsuits (S 181)/On ordering the previous question

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a bill that would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to extend the time limit in which workers can file employment discrimination lawsuits.

These types of resolutions, drafted by the House Rules Committee (and typically favorable to the majority party, in this case Democrats), set the rules for debate for bills on the House floor, including how long the bill will be debated and what, if any, amendments may be offered.

This particular vote was a procedural motion known as the ?previous question,? which effectively ends debate and is often used by the minority party as a last gasp attempt to amend bills that otherwise might not be amendable in the way in which they want.  However, in this case, Republicans did not attempt to bring up any amendments and there was no debate on the procedural vote itself, though Republicans did complain about being shut out of the amendment process on the rule itself.

By a vote of 252-175, the motion was agreed to.  Every Republican present voted against the motion, while every Democrat voted for it.  The end result is that the motion carried, debate on the rule ended and the House proceeded to a vote on passing the rule itself.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Women?s Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Won
Roll Call 27
Jan 22, 2009
H J Res 3. (Resolution nullifying part of the financial bailout money) On passing a resolution that would prevent the release of $350 billion in financial bailout money/On the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on passing a resolution that would prevent the Treasury Department from releasing $350 billion provided under the 2008 financial industry bailout law.  This $350 billion is the second installment of funding in a total $700 billion package intended to help rescue the faltering U.S. economy by injecting capital into banks and investment markets and purchasing toxic mortgage assets.

But consideration of the resolution was part political cover and part venting mechanism since it had no hope of becoming law, as the week prior the Senate rejected a similar resolution.  
?There?s a certain futility to what we are doing today because the Senate has already defeated the Senate version of this; so no matter what happens in the House today, the program goes forward,? said Barney Frank, D-Mass. ?Today we have a vote in which Members will express their opinion on whether or not the $350 billion should go forward. It is simply an expression of opinion. It?s kind of a big public opinion poll for the House, because the Senate has already defeated the bill.?
Still, it gave lawmakers a chance to express their dissatisfaction with the way the financial bailout money has been handled without any fear of actually affecting the way the monies are being spent.
?This legislation remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the costs along to the American people,? said Mike Pence, R-Ind.  ?I did not come to Washington to expand the size and scope of government. I did not come to Washington to ask working Americans to subsidize the bad decisions of corporate America. Therefore, I did not support the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act last fall, and I cannot support the legislation before the Congress that would send good money after bad. As I said then, while this bill promises to bring near-term stability to our financial markets, I ask my countrymen, at what price??
By a vote of 270-155, the resolution was adopted.  All but four Republicans present voted for the resolution.  Of Democrats present, 99 voted for the resolution and 151 voted against it, including the most progressive members.  The end result is that the House passed a resolution that would prevent the second $350 billion raft of financial bailout money from being released.  However, since the Senate rejected a similar measure it was a symbolic vote.


HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Lost
Roll Call 26
Jan 21, 2009
HR 384. (Mortgage-backed securities buyout conditions) On passing a bill to set certain conditions on the use of $350 billion allocated to buy certain mortgage assets/On passing the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on passing a bill that would set additional conditions on the use of the second $350 billion installment of funding provided by a 2008 law.  The law, which doled out a total of $700 billion in two increments, was originally intended to help stabilize business and credit markets by purchasing troubled mortgage assets, thereby taking them off the accounting books of banks and businesses.  But Bush administration Treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. soon shifted the focus to making massive direct investments in banks without the sort of restrictions lawmakers said were needed to ensure taxpayers? money was wisely spent; this bill was in part an attempt to impose some of those restrictions on the funds that had already been spent, as well as any future bailout funding.

The measure would require the Treasury Department to spend between $40 billion and $100 billion for helping mitigate the effects of home foreclosures.  It also would authorize Treasury to use portions of the approved funding to help domestic automobile manufacturers.  Additionally, it stipulates that executive compensation restrictions can be applied retroactively to businesses that have already received assistance under the program.  It also institutes a number of reporting requirements that were not previously in place.

Barney Frank, D-Mass., said the bill was largely symbolic because he did not believe the Senate will pass it.  However, he said the measure sets a marker of House sentiment, and will ?strengthen our hand in making sure that Treasury does what we think is necessary ? even if it doesn?t become law.? 

Republicans spent much of the time railing against the 2008 bailout law and making unsuccessful attempts to divert the money to other programs, or defund what was left. 

By a vote of 260-166, the House passed the bill.  Of Republicans present, 18 voted for the bill and 156 voted against it.  Of Democrats present, 242 voted for the bill and 10 voted against it.  The end result is that the House passed a bill that would set new conditions on $350 billion in financial bailout money and sent it to the Senate for its consideration.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 25
Jan 21, 2009
HR 384. (Mortgage-backed securities buyout conditions) Motion to rewrite a mortgage bailout bill to add language requiring a plan to be developed to repay all assistance provided under the bill/On the motion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to send a bill back to the Financial Services Committee to add language that would require the Treasury Department to develop a plan to repay the money provided under a 2008 law intended to purchase certain devalued or problematic mortgage assets.  The motion was offered to a bill that would create new conditions on the use of some $350 billion in funding to purchase certain ?toxic? mortgage assets weighing down the balance books of banks and companies.

Gresham Barrett, R-S.C., who made the motion, said he voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bill, which at the time was put forward by and characterized by the Bush administration as urgently needed to help prevent a precipitous economic freefall.  But he said now is time to step back and reflect on whether or not that money was spent responsibly.

?I have not yet seen that there was a credible plan in place to assure the taxpayer money was spent effectively and efficiently. I appreciate the fact that we are facing an unprecedented emergency economic situation, but trial and error, Madam Speaker, is simply not an acceptable strategy for spending taxpayers? hard-earned dollars,? Barrett said.

Barney Frank, D-Mass., said he was surprised that Republicans were attacking a bill pushed by former President Bush and his administration.

?Basically, we are told that President Bush drove the car so recklessly that we have to junk it. That because President Bush so misused these tools, we have to deny them to a new President,? Frank said.  ?The criticisms made of the Bush administration, wholly irrelevant to what the Obama administration will do.?

Frank also complained that Republicans were wasting the House?s time by repeatedly attempting to do the exact same thing and failing each time.

?This motion today is a motion to end the program. Guess what we will vote on tomorrow? A motion to end the program,? Frank said.

By a vote of 199-228, the motion was rejected.  All but two Republicans present voted for the motion.  Of Democrats present, 27 voted for the motion and 226 voted against it.  The end result is that a motion to change the bill so that it requires a plan and timetable for repaying TARP funds was defeated.


HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Won
Roll Call 24
Jan 21, 2009
HR 384. (Mortgage-backed securities buyout conditions) Motion to kill an attempt to appeal the chairman?s ruling on whether a bill should be rewritten to add language transferring money into Social Security trust funds/On the motion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was essentially the culmination of a battle of competing procedural maneuvers over whether to send a bill back to the Financial Services Committee to add language that would transfer certain funds to the Social Security Trust Fund.  The motion was offered to a bill that would create new conditions on the use of some $350 billion in funding to purchase certain ?toxic? mortgage assets weighing down the balance books of banks and companies.

Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, first made a motion attempting to send the bill back to the committee to add language that would have directed $350 billion into the Social Security trust fund, as well as to create a two-month tax holiday.  Barney Frank, D-Mass., then made his own motion objecting to Gohmert?s move as violating the rules of the House because the language being sought was not related (or ?germane?) enough to the subject of the bill at hand.  The officer presiding over the House ? a Democrat, since that party is in the majority -- then ruled in Frank?s favor, finding that because the underlying bill itself is not related (or ?germane?) to Social Security, Gohmert?s procedural motion was in violation of House rules and therefore considered defeated.  Gohmert then asked for a vote on appealing the chairman?s ruling, and Frank countered with a motion to kill Gohmert?s appeal, which is what this vote was on.

Gohmert in essence argued that because the underlying bill directs the Treasury Secretary to take certain actions, and because his motion also directs the Treasury Secretary to take certain actions, that it should not be ruled defeated as non-germane.

?The bill itself attempts to direct the Treasury Secretary to take certain actions and to be more accountable, whereas [my motion] directs the Treasury Secretary in a different direction and says he must put the $350 billion back in the Treasury and allow a 2-month tax holiday so the American taxpayer can bail out the economy, not a Treasury Secretary,? Gohmert said.

Frank said Gohmert?s argument does not hold water.

?The argument is that because the bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to do certain things that are within the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee, it is therefore allowed if you want to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to do anything. Now, it might, I suppose, be that the Secretary of Treasury could declare war on somebody under that theory, except my colleagues there don?t believe having any check on the executive power to declare war; so they wouldn?t vote that. There is a clear violation here of the rules,? Frank said.

By a vote of 251-176, Frank?s motion to kill Gohmert?s appeal was agreed to.  Every Republican present voted against Frank?s motion.  All but one Democrat present voted for Frank?s motion (Henry Cuellar of Texas).  The end result is that Frank?s motion was agreed to, meaning that ultimately Gohmert?s attempt to redirect mortgage rescue money to the Social Security trust fund failed.


HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 21
Jan 15, 2009
HR 384. (Mortgage-backed securities buyout conditions) Bachmann of Minnesota amendment that would eliminate proposed changes to and additional funding for a homeowners program/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., that would have eliminated certain proposed changes to and additional funding for the program known as Hope for Homeowners.  Hope for Homeowners was enacted in July 2008 and provides Federal Housing Administration guarantees and refinancing help for qualifying families who are at risk of losing their home due to rising mortgage rates. The amendment was offered to a bill that would create new conditions on the use of $350 billion enacted to enable the government to purchase certain ?toxic? mortgage assets weighing down the balance books of banks and companies.

Specifically, Bachmann?s amendment would have erased portions of the underlying bill that change some of the premiums, income level requirements and government profit-sharing amounts in the Hope for Homeowners Program.  All of these changes are intended to make it easier for homeowners to qualify for the program.

Bachmann said the program has not worked as promised and should be eliminated, not made easier to qualify for.

?With a little over 300 applications in the pipeline, it?s clear that this program has been an enormous waste of time, of energy, of money and of other taxpayer resources.?  She added that the program was advertised as being able to help 400,000 families, but that as of her amendment it had only helped 13 families refinance their mortgages.   ?So what will the majority do? How far will they go to prove that their failing program is a success and not a boondoggle??
Barney Frank, D-Mass., agreed that many think the program hasn?t worked, but that is largely because it has been too difficult for people to qualify for it, not because it is inherently flawed or a poor idea.

?Members have pointed out that the Hope for Homeowners Program has not worked, and we are disappointed.  It hasn?t worked because, I think, we have tightened it up excessively. What we are trying to do here is relax it,? Frank said. 
By a vote of 142-282, the amendment was rejected.  Every Democrat present voted against the amendment.  Of Republicans present, 142 voted for the amendment and 31 voted against it.  The end result is that the amendment failed and the measure went forward with language easing eligibility requirements for the Hope for Homeowners program intact.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Won
Roll Call 20
Jan 15, 2009
HR 384. (Mortgage-backed securities buyout conditions) Hensarling of Texas amendment that would remove the authority for the Treasury Department to attend meetings of the board of directors of institutions receiving bailout money /On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, that would remove the authority of the Treasury secretary to send an observer to board of directors meetings of institutions receiving bailout funds.  The amendment was offered to a bill that would create new conditions on the use of some $700 billion in funding to purchase certain ?toxic? mortgage assets weighing down the balance books of banks and companies.  This ?bailout? money is intended to help ease a credit crunch that is stifling business across the nation.

?I?ve been around here for a few years and although I have no doubt that everybody is well-meaning in the legislation that they bring to the floor, my fear is that today?s ?may? shall turn out to be tomorrow?s ?shall.? And my fear is that today?s ?observer? will become tomorrow?s ?suggester? and next week will become ?the mandator.? I think this is a terrible, terrible precedent. I think it bespeaks of industrial policy run by the government. I think it puts, again, one more of those slippery stones on that slippery slope to socialism,? Hensarling said.

Barney Frank, D-Mass., said he was ?struck by the implicit endorsement of this amendment that I received from my friend from Texas. He opposed the amendment by talking not about what it does, but what might happen later on in a way very different from it. He did not appear to have much objection to the amendment itself. He is talking about, if we do this, it might lead to something else. Well, at that point object to something else.?

By a vote of 151-274, the amendment was defeated.  All but three Democrats present voted against the amendment.  Of Republicans present, 148 voted for the amendment and 25 voted against it.  The end result is that the measure went forward without language that would have removed the Treasury Department?s authority to send observers to board of directors meetings of institutions receiving bailout funding.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Won
Roll Call 19
Jan 15, 2009
HR 384. (Mortgage-backed securities buyout conditions) Frank of Massachusetts amendment that would require some bailout money to be committed for foreclosure mitigation/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Barney Frank, D-Mass., that would require the Treasury Department to commit between $40 billion and $100 billion to ensure renters living in a building being foreclosed upon would be protected.  The amendment was offered to a bill that would create new conditions on the use of some $700 billion in funding to purchase certain ?toxic? mortgage assets weighing down the balance books of banks and companies.  This ?bailout? money is intended to help ease a credit crunch that is stifling business across the nation.

The amendment also would allow Treasury to apply the bill?s executive compensation restrictions retroactively to institutions that have already received assistance under the program.

Republicans spent most of their time assailing the $700 billion in bailout funding in general, rather than Frank?s amendment.  Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, complained that the money allows Congress to pick winners and losers.

?Now, I don?t want to see the auto companies fail. Nobody in America does. But name me an industry in America that isn?t struggling. Is Congress so wise that they can decide which industries are deserving the taxpayer bailout and which aren?t?? Hensarling said.  ?And if it?s the auto industry today, is it the airlines industry tomorrow? Who is it next week? Again, how can everybody who?s struggling bail out everybody else who?s struggling??
Frank said Hensarling is simply wrong.

?Now, it doesn?t get specific as to institutions. It shouldn?t. We don?t pick institutions here. We empower them and direct them, in some cases, to deal with the whole economy and with classes of institutions. There is no selection here by Congress of this or that company or even line of business,? Frank said, then suggested that it was the Bush administration that decided where the first raft of funding should go, including to automakers.

?It becomes clear that for many in the minority this is an opportunity to punish Barack Obama for the mistakes made by George Bush,? Frank said.

By a vote of 275-152, the amendment was adopted.  All but 10 Democrats present voted for the amendment.  Of Republicans present, 33 voted for the amendment and 142 voted against it.  The end result is that the measure went forward with an amendment that would provide funding for foreclosure mitigation for renters and apply executive compensation restrictions retroactively.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 17
Jan 14, 2009
H Res 53. (Mortgage-backed securities buyout conditions) Providing for consideration of a bill that would set new conditions on the use of money to purchase mortgage assets (HR 384)/On passing the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a bill that would create new conditions on the use of some $700 billion in funding to purchase certain ?toxic? mortgage assets weighing down the balance books of banks and companies.  This ?bailout? money is intended to help ease a credit crunch that is stifling business across the nation.

These types of resolutions, drafted by the House Rules Committee (and typically favorable to the majority party, in this case Democrats), set the rules for debate for bills on the House floor, including how long the bill will be debated and what, if any, amendments may be offered.

As is typical with these kinds of rules, the minority party (in this case Republicans) complained that the rule is too restrictive and that it does not afford them enough of a chance to offer amendments.  In this case, the rule allowed only for debate, and no amendments at all, whether by Democrats or Republicans.

David Dreier, R-Calif., chastised Democrats for not allowing any amendments, saying there had been some 70 filed already.

?This rule is simply going to allow for general debate. Right now the Rules Committee is hearing proposed amendments to this measure, and I know that in excess of 70 amendments have been submitted to the committee. But I will say that regardless of how those turn out, the fact that we have ignored completely the committee structure, the deliberative process that should be used for this, leads me to urge my colleagues to oppose this measure,? Dreier said.

By a vote of 235-191, the House passed the bill.  Every Republican present voted against the bill.  Of Democrats present, 235 voted for the bill and 15 voted against it.  The end result is that the House passed a bill providing for floor debate for a measure setting conditions on spending $700 billion in bailout money.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 16
Jan 14, 2009
HR 2. (Children?s health insurance) On passing a bill that would authorize the State Children?s Health Insurance Program at $60 billion/On passing the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on passing a bill to reauthorize the State Children?s Health Insurance Program over 4.5 years.  The SCHIP program ? funded primarily through taxes on tobacco products -- helps low income families with children afford health insurance, and currently covers about 6 million kids.

The measure would allocate $60 billion for the program, which represents a $35 billion expansion.  The bill would pay for the expanded spending by increasing the cigarette tax from $.61 cents to $1 per pack.  It also would allow states to offer SCHIP coverage to pregnant women and the children of legal immigrants.  It also would set limits on eligibility for the SCHIP program to families earning three times the poverty level or less.  It also would require states to stop coverage of childless adults by October 2010.

This bill is a dramatic expansion of the SCHIP program and very similar to measures put forward by Democrats for the past few years that were repeatedly vetoed by President Bush.  Emboldened by new Democratic majorities in Congress and President Obama?s election, Democrats decided to place this bill at the top of their agenda.

?This is a new day in Washington. Soon we will have a new President who has committed himself to reforming our Nation?s health care system so every American can access affordable and quality health care. The bill we are considering today makes a down payment on that promise by putting the health and well-being of our children first,? said Frank Pallone, D-N.J.  ?This bill will make critical improvements to CHIP. There will be more resources for States to enroll eligible children. There will be better benefits. As a result, there will be 11 million children who will have access to the quality health coverage they need and deserve.?

Fiscal conservatives have traditionally bristled at such large raises in SCHIP, believing it is nothing more than an attempt to expand government-run health care. Progressives, on the other hand, see the program as vital to ensuring the health and well-being of low-income children achieved by taxing a social vice with severe health impacts (cigarette smoking). 

Republicans complained that the bill would expand the program beyond the very poorest children to cover those who might otherwise be able to obtain health care on their own, and have suggested that it will cause people to flee from health care plans available through their employers to SCHIP.  Republicans also suggested that the bill does not contain enough safeguards to ensure that illegal immigrants are not benefiting from SCHIP and in the process edging out a needy American child.

?Poor kids first, poor children first being served was the reason to have SCHIP, for children whose families couldn?t afford insurance. This bill doesn?t require the States to meet any kind of threshold standard that would ensure that States were doing everything they could to find kids who needed insurance before they begin to spend money to find kids who may not have the same need,? said Roy Blunt, R-Mo. 

The House passed the bill by a vote of 289-139.  All but two Democrats present voted for the bill.  Of Republicans present, 40 voted for the bill and 137 voted against it.  The end result is that the House passed a bill that would reauthorize and significantly expand the State Children?s Health Insurance Program.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Won
Roll Call 15
Jan 14, 2009
HR 2. (Children?s health insurance program) Motion to rewrite a State Children?s Health Insurance Program bill to authorize the program for longer but require more eligibility hurdles for certain applicants/On the motion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to send a bill reauthorizing the State Children?s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) back to the Energy and Commerce Committee for a rewrite (known as ?motion to recommit?).  Nathan Deal, R-Ga., wanted the committee to add language that would expand the bill to seven years, and require states to insure 90 percent of children in families with incomes under 200 percent of the poverty level before the program could be expanded to cover families with higher levels of income than are currently eligible.  Deal also wanted the committee to stiffen eligibility restrictions for both legal and illegal immigrants, as well as paying for the $60 billion expansion by making some changes to the corporate tax code. 

The language offered by Deal was identical to that contained in an amendment that he had sought to offer to the bill, but could not.

?Unlike the bill that is under consideration ? the motion to recommit puts poor children first by holding States accountable for not finding and enrolling their low-income, uninsured children,? Deal said. 

Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said Deal?s motion would undermine the entire essence of the SCHIP bill by cutting out those of moderate income whose health care costs have risen so astronomically that they also can barely afford care for their kids.

?Unfortunately, the reality of today is that these moderate income families who would be excluded under this motion are struggling to make ends meet, too. Health costs have been rising much faster than income over the past decade. A family at 300 percent of poverty, for example, earning $52,800 a year?these so-called rich folks, according to Republicans?now spend an average of 19 percent of their income on premiums for employer-sponsored coverage if they even have access to it. Ten years ago, that same family was only spending 11 percent of income on premiums for their employer plan,? Pallone said.

By a vote of 179-247, the motion was rejected.  All but three Republicans present voted for the motion.  All but five Democrats present voted against the motion.  The end result is that the motion to change the bill to require more eligibility hurdles except for the poorest of families was rejected.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Won
Roll Call 14
Jan 14, 2009
H Res 52. (Children?s health insurance program) Providing for consideration of a bill that would provide funding for the State Children?s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) (HR 2)/On passing the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a resolution outlining the rules for floor debate on a bill that would dole out $60 billion for the State Children?s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) over a time period of 4.5 years.  The SCHIP program ? funded primarily through taxes on tobacco products -- helps low income families with children afford health insurance, and currently covers about 6 million kids. 

These types of resolutions, drafted by the House Rules Committee (and typically favorable to the majority party, in this case Democrats), set the rules for debate for bills on the House floor, including how long the bill will be debated and what, if any, amendments may be offered.

As is typical with these kinds of rules, the minority party (in this case Republicans) complained that the rule is too restrictive and that it does not afford them enough of a chance to offer amendments.

Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., complained that the rule would not allow him to offer an amendment to close loopholes that allow people to unfairly take advantage of SCHIP. 

?I had such an amendment that was not made in order by the Rules Committee. My amendment would have addressed a very important problem with current law,? Gingrey said.  ?However, we are not going to get the chance, unfortunately, or any other thoughtful amendments that were offered by my Republican and Democratic colleagues, because the Democratic majority leaders wish to contradict the bipartisan spirit that they touted only a week ago.?

Democrats did not directly address Republicans? complaints about the rule being too restrictive, instead talking mostly about the merits of the SCHIP bill itself.
?Today?s legislation would reauthorize and approve the CHIP program to protect and continue coverage for 6.7 million children, plus an additional 4 million children that are eligible but are currently uninsured,? said Bart Stupak, D-Mich.  ?I support this legislation and urge all my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.?

By a vote of 244-178, the House adopted the rule.  Every Republican present voted against the rule.   All but three Democrats present voted for the rule.  The end result is that the House passed a rule governing floor debate for a bill that will increase funding for the State Children?s Health Insurance Program.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Won
Roll Call 9
Jan 09, 2009
HR 11. (Wage discrimination) On passing a bill that would extend the time in which employees could sue for wage discrimination/On passing the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a bill that would allow employees to file suit for wage discrimination within 180 days of the time they received their last paycheck. It also would stipulate that employees who won a discrimination suit are entitled to up to two years of back pay.

The bill would, in effect, nullify a Supreme Court decision from 2007 setting out a timeframe in which workers who believe they were victims of wage discrimination must file a suit.  The case required that suits be filed within 180 days of when the alleged bias had first occurred.  The decision was brought to light in Congress by a woman named Lily Ledbetter, an Alabama tire company employee who discovered that she had been paid less than men doing the same work, but only after 20 years of employment, making her ineligible for filing suit.

?This is our moment to fight for economic freedom and to eliminate the systemic discrimination faced by women workers. Because what we know is at stake, had the Paycheck Fairness Act been the law of the land when Lilly Ledbetter decided to go to court, she would have had a far better opportunity to receive just compensation for the discrimination that she endured,? said Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.

"For years, Lilly Ledbetter was paid less than her male counterparts just because she was a woman, but she was unable to know that because she could not discuss her pay with any of the other supervisors, the people in the place of employment. That is wrong. They should be allowed to do that," said George Miller, D-Calif.  "Such policies silence workers and allow employers to hide discriminatory pay practices. Employees should feel free to discuss their pay. It is often the only way that they can discover discriminatory pay practice and seek to rectify them."

Republicans complained bitterly that the change would invite a host of new discrimination lawsuits by lawyers eager to collect fees.  Democrats counter that claim, saying the law will only restore what was in place prior to 2007.

"This bill isn?t needed to protect women from wage discrimination. Such protections are already included in the law. No, this bill is about something entirely different.  Rather than addressing the real concerns of working families, issues like job training, health care, or a lack of workplace flexibility, this bill invites more and costlier lawsuits," said Buck McKeon, R-Calif.

By a vote of 247-171, the House passed the bill.  All but three Republicans present voted against the measure.  All but five Democrats present voted for the measure.  The end result is that the House passed a bill that would make it easier for employees to file pay discrimination lawsuits against employers.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Women?s Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 8
Jan 09, 2009
HR 12. (Pay equality) On passing a bill that would make it easier for workers to challenge wage discrimination/On passing the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on passing a bill that would make it easier for workers to challenge wage discrimination in court.  It would require any employer seeking to justify unequal pay to prove that the disparity was job-related and required by some necessity of their business.  It also would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who disclose salary information with their co-workers.  It also would allow workers who won wage discrimination cases to collect compensatory and punitive damages.

Republicans complained bitterly that the change would invite a host of new discrimination lawsuits by lawyers eager to collect fees. 

It "will breed litigation in other ways as well, from encouraging class action lawsuits to expanding liability," said Buck McKeon, R-Calif.

By a vote of 256-163, the House passed the bill.  All but 10 Republicans present voted against the bill.  All but three Democrats present voted for the bill.  The end result is that the House passed a bill that would make it easier for workers to sue employers for wage discrimination.  It was later paired with a related wage discrimination bill (see vote 9).


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Women?s Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 7
Jan 09, 2009
HR 12. (Pay equality) Motion to rewrite a pay equality bill to stipulate that employers found liable of pay discrimination would not have to compensate certain legal fees/On the motion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on sending a pay equality bill back to the Education and Labor Committee to add language stating that employers found liable of pay discrimination would not have to compensate more than $2,000 per hour in lawyers fees in court cases.  This "motion to recommit" was offered to a bill that would make it easier for workers to challenge wage discrimination.

Tom Price, R-Ga., who offered the motion, said the bill is a "boondoggle for trial lawyers" and that this motion would help prevent them from collecting "unlimited damages."

"That?s why this motion is a simple, commonsense change that caps reasonable, reasonable attorney?s fees at $2,000 per hour. Now, surely we can agree on that," Price said.  "This cap on attorneys? fees will ensure that victims of discrimination are protected with appropriate incentives. Without a cap, this bill will have a detrimental effect on labor markets. Increasing lawsuits and unlimited damages will discourage hiring and may further segregate employment preferences for one gender in favor of another."

George Miller, D-Calif., called the motion "a little bit unbelievable" and suggested it was too vague.

"It suggests that we should be setting the attorneys? fees, even though the amount that the gentleman is asking us to set far exceeds what would be ordinary hourly wages fees in these kinds of cases across the Nation. At the same time, it makes no differentiation for geography, complication of cases, number of attorneys necessary in a case or even the number of firms that may be. We don?t know if this applies to all of the attorneys in the case with multiple plaintiffs; whether this applies across the firm if multiple attorneys in a firm are on a single case if it?s a complicated case and, in many cases, these are very complicated cases because they go in to business practices that are disguised in terms of trying to justify unequal pay in the name of equal pay," Miller said.

By a vote of 178-240, the motion was rejected. All but one Republican present voted for the motion (Tim Johnson of Illinois).  Of Democrats present, all but nine voted against the motion.  The end result is that a motion that would have sent the bill back to committee to establish caps on lawyer fees associated with wage discrimination cases was defeated.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Women?s Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 4
Jan 06, 2009
H Res 5. (House organizing resolution) On adopting a resolution setting out the House rules for the 111th Congress/On the motion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on adopting a resolution setting for the rules of the House for the 111th Congress.

The rules remove the current term-limit system for chairmen of committees.  Prior to the resolution's adoption, chairmen were limited to six-year terms in that position.  It also would change the "motion to recommit" system so that it is only possible to direct a committee to change a bill and then send it back to the floor "forthwith" rather than "promptly." 

In the unusual language of the House, if a motion is to be reported ?forthwith,? that means the change in question is executed on the floor of the House, and consideration resumes immediately.  If it is to be reported ?promptly,? the bill actually is in fact sent back to committee, where the bill can die easily.  The bill under consideration would remove promptly as an option during recommittal motions; Dreier wanted that language removed.   In the past year, Republicans have repeatedly attempted to use this parliamentary maneuver, much to the dismay of the Democratic leadership of the House, who argue it is just a delaying tactic.

David Dreier, R-Calif., complained that the change was draconian and would shut out the minority from any real chance to change bills on the floor.

"The Democratic leadership is no longer content to shut down debate on an ad hoc basis. They are making it official with this rules package. The underlying resolution contains a host of new procedural gimmicks to stifle debate and to perpetuate partisanship. This resolution changes the rules of the House to formally limit, to formally limit, the motion to recommit. This limitation prevents any bill from being returned to committee for further deliberation," Dreier said.

Barney Frank, D-Mass., said nothing in the change would diminish the minority's ability to offer an alternative. 

"They are fully able to offer an alternative as an amendment. What they will be losing here is a legislative Ponzi scheme in which you pretend to be something you are not," Frank said.  "Here's the way it works: If the minority wants under any bill to offer a motion to recommit, as the rule will now read if this passes, they can offer a motion to recommit with a germane amendment that is binding, and if it is adopted, the bill is amended on the spot. But they often don?t want to do that. Often their amendments are really disguises for opposition to the bill in general. So they take an amendment that would pass virtually unanimously because it is so popular and say it should be done in a way that sends the bill back to committee rather than to amend the bill."

The measure also would allow exceptions to the House rule against increasing the deficit for certain types of spending, such as those designated emergency spending.

By a vote of 242-181, the resolution was adopted.  Every Republican present voted against the resolution.  Of Democrats present, 242 voted for it and 6 voted against it.  The end result is that the House adopted a resolution outlining rules that will govern the body in the 111th Congress, including removing a parliamentary tactic the minority was once able to use to kill bills.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Won
Roll Call 3
Jan 06, 2009
H Res 5. (House organizing resolution) Motion to change a resolution outlining the House of Representatives' committee structure to preserve term limits for chairmen/On the motion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to send a bill outlining the rules of the House and its committee structure in the 111th Congress to a select committee for a rewrite (known as a "motion to recommit").  David Dreier, R-Calif., who made the motion, wanted the bill rewritten to remove a provision that lifts a six-year cap on how long someone can serve as chairman of a committee.  Dreier also wanted to remove a provision in the bill that directs that any motions to recommit made in the future must be reported back "forthwith" rather than "promptly."

In the unusual language of the House of Representatives, if a motion is to be reported ?forthwith,? that means the change in question is executed on the floor of the House, and consideration resumes immediately.  If it is to be reported ?promptly,? the bill actually is in fact sent back to committee, where the bill can die easily.  The bill under consideration would remove promptly as an option during recommittal motions; Dreier wanted that language removed, which would have kept it as an option for killing legislation.   In the past year, Republicans have repeatedly attempted to use this parliamentary maneuver, much to the dismay of the Democratic leadership of the House, who argue it is just a delaying tactic.

"We?ve repeatedly had academics quoted here over the past hour about the use of ?promptly? and the fact that it kills legislation. Time and time again from the Chair, the Speaker of the House has ruled that a measure that is recommitted to a committee promptly is not killing the bill. Until the Chair says that, it is not killing the bill," Dreier said.

Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said motions to recommit were not intended to be used in the manner in which Republicans have chosen.

"The motion to recommit was not designed for this purpose. It was designed to be a tool for legislating, not a political weapon. Repeatedly, the Democratic majority attempted to work with the Republican minority on their motions to recommit, but every time we offered to accept their motion in return for not killing the bill, the Republican minority refused. They chose talking points over accomplishments. They chose to be the party of obstructionism, not offering alternatives, but instead trying to derail the entire process for political gain. It?s a cynical way to do business," McGovern said.

By a vote of 174-249, the motion was defeated along party lines.  Every Republican present voted for the motion, while every Democrat present voted against it.  The end result is that the motion to rewrite the bill to preserve the ability to report a bill "promptly" rather than "forthwith" was defeated, and therefore made it more difficult for the minority party to kill legislation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Won
Roll Call 690
Dec 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 7321 Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 688
Dec 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1534 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7321, to authorize financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 687
Dec 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1534 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7321, to authorize financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 685
Dec 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1533 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of Rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 684
Dec 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1533 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of Rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 681
Oct 03, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments: H R 1424 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments

Y Y Won
Roll Call 680
Oct 03, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1525 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 1424, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 679
Oct 03, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1525 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 1424, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 677
Oct 02, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: S 3641 To authorize funding for the National Crime Victim Law Institute to provide support for victims of crime under Crime Victims Legal Assistance Programs as a part of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 674
Sep 29, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Concurring in Senate Amendment With An Amendment: H R 3997 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes
On Concurring in Senate Amendment With An Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 672
Sep 29, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 440 Provding for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 671
Sep 29, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1517 Rule providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 670
Sep 29, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1517 Rule providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 667
Sep 28, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1514 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 666
Sep 28, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1514 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 663
Sep 27, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 6707 Taking Responsible Action for Community Safety Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 662
Sep 27, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 7081 United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Lost
Roll Call 660
Sep 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 7110 Making supplemental appropriations for job creation and preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 658
Sep 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1507 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7110, making supplemental appropriations for job creation and preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 657
Sep 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1507 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7110, making supplemental appropriations for job creation and preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 655
Sep 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1503 Rule waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 654
Sep 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1503 Rule waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 652
Sep 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1500 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 651
Sep 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1500 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 649
Sep 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 7060 Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 648
Sep 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 7060 Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 646
Sep 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1502 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7060, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 645
Sep 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1502 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7060, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 640
Sep 25, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1501 Proceedings on Roll Call 640 were vacated by unanimous consent.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 638
Sep 25, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1490 Same Day Rule
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 637
Sep 25, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1490 Same Day Rule
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 631
Sep 24, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: S 3001 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 630
Sep 24, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1488 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security FY 2008
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 629
Sep 24, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1488 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security FY 2008
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 628
Sep 24, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 1488 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security FY 2008
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 623
Sep 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5244 Credit Cardholders? Bill of Rights Act of 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 622
Sep 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5244 Credit Cardholders? Bill of Rights Act of 2008
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 620
Sep 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1476 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5244, Credit Cardholders? Bill of Rights Act of 2008
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 619
Sep 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1476 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5244, Credit Cardholders? Bill of Rights Act of 2008
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 614
Sep 18, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3036 No Child Left Inside Act of 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 613
Sep 18, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3036 No Child Left Inside Act of 2008
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent N Won
Roll Call 611
Sep 18, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1441 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3036, to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding environmental education, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 610
Sep 18, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1441 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3036, to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding environmental education, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 609
Sep 18, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 1460
On Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 608
Sep 18, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6604 Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 607
Sep 18, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6604 Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 606
Sep 18, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1449 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6604, to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to bring greater transparency and accountability to commodity markets, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 605
Sep 18, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1449 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6604, to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to bring greater transparency and accountability to commodity markets, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 601
Sep 17, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6842 National Capital Security and Safety Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 600
Sep 17, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 6842
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 599
Sep 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6899 Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 598
Sep 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6899 Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 597
Sep 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1434 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 596
Sep 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1433 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6899, Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 595
Sep 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1433 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6899, Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 593
Sep 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 1433 Rule for H.R. 6899, the Energy Bill
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 588
Sep 11, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Won
Roll Call 583
Sep 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3667 Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 582
Sep 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 3667 Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 580
Sep 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 3667 Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Won
Roll Call 577
Sep 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1419 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3667, Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 576
Sep 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1419 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3667, Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 566
Aug 01, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Won
Roll Call 562
Aug 01, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 6599 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriation, FY 2009
On Motion to Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 561
Aug 01, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 6599
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 559
Aug 01, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 6599
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 558
Aug 01, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 6599
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 556
Jul 31, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1338 Paycheck Fairness Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 555
Jul 31, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1338 Paycheck Fairness Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 551
Jul 31, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1338
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 550
Jul 31, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1384 Providing for consideration of H. R. 6599, Military Consruction and Veterans? Affairs Appropriations, FY 2009
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 549
Jul 31, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1384 Providing for consideration of H. R. 6599, Military Consruction and Veterans? Affairs Appropriations, FY 2009
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 548
Jul 31, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1388 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 547
Jul 31, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1388 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 546
Jul 31, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 1396
On Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 542
Jul 30, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1108 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Won
Roll Call 540
Jul 30, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 6604 Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 537
Jul 30, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 398 Adjournment Resolution
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 532
Jul 24, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1368 Relating to the House procedures contained in section 803 of the Medicare Presciption Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 531
Jul 24, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Concur in the Senate Amendment: H R 5501 Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act
Concur in the Senate Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 529
Jul 24, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3999 National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 527
Jul 24, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 6578 Consumer Energy Supply Act of 2008
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 526
Jul 24, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1362 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 5501) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 525
Jul 24, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1367 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 524
Jul 24, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1367 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 523
Jul 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1344 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3999, to improve the safety of Federal-aid highway bridges, to strengthen bridge inspection standards and processes, to increase investment in the reconstruction of structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 522
Jul 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1344 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3999, to improve the safety of Federal-aid highway bridges, to strengthen bridge inspection standards and processes, to increase investment in the reconstruction of structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 521
Jul 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H R 6545 National Energy Security Intelligence Act of 2008
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 519
Jul 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Concur in Senate Amendment with House Amendment: H R 3221 Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008
Concur in Senate Amendment with House Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 517
Jul 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1363 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221, to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 516
Jul 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1363 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221, to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 511
Jul 17, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6515 Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act of 2008
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 510
Jul 17, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1350 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 509
Jul 17, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1350 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 507
Jul 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 415 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 506
Jul 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 415 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 503
Jul 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 415
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 502
Jul 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5959 Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 500
Jul 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5959
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 498
Jul 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1339 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 415) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 497
Jul 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1339 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 415) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 496
Jul 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1343 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5959) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 495
Jul 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1343 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5959) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 493
Jul 15, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5803 To direct the Election Assistance Commission to establish a program to make grants to participating States and units of local goverment to carry out a program to make backup paper ballots in the case of the failure of a voting system or voting equipment
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 492
Jul 15, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Refer: H RES 1345 The Kucinich Resolution
On Motion to Refer

Y Y Won
Roll Call 483
Jul 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1286 Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Close Vote Absent N Won
Roll Call 481
Jul 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1317 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1286) to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 480
Jul 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1317 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1286) to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 477
Jul 09, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5811 Electronic Message Preservation Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 475
Jul 09, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1318 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5811, The Electronic Message Preservation Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 474
Jul 09, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1318 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5811, The Electronic Message Preservation Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 469
Jun 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 6251 Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 467
Jun 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6052 Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 466
Jun 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6052 Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 463
Jun 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1304 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6052, to promote increased public transportation use, to promote increased use of alternative fuels in providing public transportation, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 462
Jun 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1304 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6052, to promote increased public transportation use, to promote increased use of alternative fuels in providing public transportation, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 459
Jun 25, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6358 Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Won
Roll Call 457
Jun 25, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 2176 To provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 455
Jun 25, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6275 Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 454
Jun 25, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6275 Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 453
Jun 25, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1299 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 452
Jun 25, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1297 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6275, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 451
Jun 25, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1297 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6275, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 450
Jun 25, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1298 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2176, to provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 449
Jun 25, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1298 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2176, to provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 448
Jun 24, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 6346 Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 445
Jun 24, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 379
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 437
Jun 20, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6304 FISA Amendments Act of 2008
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 436
Jun 20, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1276 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 435
Jun 20, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1276 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 431
Jun 19, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Agree to Senate Amendment to House Amendment No. 1: H R 2642 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Agree to Senate Amendment to House Amendment No. 1

N N Lost
Roll Call 428
Jun 19, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5781 Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 427
Jun 19, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5781 Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 425
Jun 19, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5710 Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Authorization Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Won
Roll Call 424
Jun 19, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1277 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5781, to provide that 8 of the 12 weeks of parental leave made available to a Federal employee shall be paid leave
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 423
Jun 19, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1277 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5781, to provide that 8 of the 12 weeks of parental leave made available to a Federal employee shall be paid leave
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 420
Jun 18, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6063 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 414
Jun 17, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 2964 Captive Primate Safety Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Won
Roll Call 412
Jun 12, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5749 Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 411
Jun 12, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5749 Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 410
Jun 12, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to table the appeal: H R 5749 Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008
Motion to table the appeal

Y Y Won
Roll Call 408
Jun 12, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1265 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5749, the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 407
Jun 12, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1265 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5749, the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 406
Jun 12, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1257 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 405
Jun 12, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1257 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 403
Jun 11, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5749 Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 401
Jun 11, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Refer: H RES 1258 The Kucinich Privilege Resolution
On Motion to Refer

Y Y Won
Roll Call 400
Jun 11, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6003 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 399
Jun 11, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6003 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 398
Jun 11, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 6003
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 397
Jun 11, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 6003
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 392
Jun 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1253 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 391
Jun 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1253 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 387
Jun 05, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3058 Public Land Communities Transition Act of 2007
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 385
Jun 05, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5540 Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 384
Jun 05, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5540
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 382
Jun 05, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S CON RES 70 The Congressional Budget Resolution
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 381
Jun 05, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1233 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5540, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 380
Jun 05, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1233 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5540, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 379
Jun 04, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3021 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 378
Jun 04, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3021 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 377
Jun 04, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3021
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 374
Jun 04, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3021
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 371
Jun 04, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1234 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act?
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 370
Jun 04, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1234 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act?
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 364
May 22, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5658 Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 363
May 22, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 5658
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 362
May 22, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5658
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 361
May 22, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 5658
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 360
May 22, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5658
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 359
May 22, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 5658
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 358
May 22, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5658
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 357
May 22, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5658
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 356
May 22, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5658
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 355
May 22, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5658
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 353
May 22, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6124 To provide for the continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through the fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Won
Roll Call 352
May 22, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 1221
On Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 351
May 22, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1218 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5658, Department of Defense Authorization, 2009
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 350
May 22, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1218 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5658, Department of Defense Authorization, 2009
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 345
May 21, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1771 Crane Conservation Act of 2008
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Won
Roll Call 344
May 21, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6049 Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 343
May 21, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6049 Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 342
May 21, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1214 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 70, the Congressional Budget Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 341
May 21, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1214 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 70, the Congressional Budget Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 340
May 21, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1213 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5658, National Defense Authorization, 2009
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 339
May 21, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1212 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6049, Energy Production and Conservation and Individual Income Tax Relief
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 338
May 21, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1212 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6049, Energy Production and Conservation and Individual Income Tax Relief
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 335
May 20, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1464 Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2007
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Won
Roll Call 334
May 20, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 355 Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 330
May 15, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 3: H R 2642 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 3

Y Y Won
Roll Call 329
May 15, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 2: H R 2642 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 2

Y Y Won
Roll Call 328
May 15, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 1: H R 2642 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 1

N N Won
Roll Call 324
May 15, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1197 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 323
May 15, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1197 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 321
May 14, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: S CON RES 70 The Congressional Budget Resolution
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Won
Roll Call 318
May 14, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1190 Providing for the adoption of the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 70, the Congressional Budget Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 317
May 14, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1190 Providing for the adoption of the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 70, the Congressional Budget Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 314
May 14, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
Recommit Conference Report with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 311
May 14, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1189 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 310
May 14, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1189 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 309
May 14, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 1189 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 305
May 08, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Cantor Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
On Cantor Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Won
Roll Call 304
May 08, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Flake Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
On Flake Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Won
Roll Call 303
May 08, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment with Amendment No. 3: H R 3221 Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment with Amendment No. 3

Y Y Won
Roll Call 301
May 08, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment with Amendment No. 1: H R 3221 Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment with Amendment No. 1

Y Y Won
Roll Call 299
May 08, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5818 Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 298
May 08, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5818 Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 296
May 08, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION
Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 295
May 08, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5818
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 293
May 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5818
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 292
May 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion That The Committee Rise: H R 5818 Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008
On Motion That The Committee Rise

N N Won
Roll Call 290
May 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1174 Providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 5818, to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make loans to States to acquire foreclosed housing and to make grants to States for related costs
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 289
May 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1174 Providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 5818, to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make loans to States to acquire foreclosed housing and to make grants to States for related costs
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 288
May 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1174 Providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 5818, to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make loans to States to acquire foreclosed housing and to make grants to States for related costs
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 287
May 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1174 Providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 5818, to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make loans to States to acquire foreclosed housing and to make grants to States for related costs
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 284
May 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1175 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221.
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 283
May 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1175 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 282
May 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1175 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221.
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 281
May 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1175 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 278
May 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H R 5937 To facilitate the preservation of certain affordable housing dwelling units
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 275
May 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1113 Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother?s Day
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 270
May 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1166 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding provocative and dangerous statements and actions taken by the Government of the Russian Federation that undermine the territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 266
May 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1155 Honoring the recipients of the El Dorado Promise scholarship
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 264
May 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1168 Congratulating charter schools and their students, parents, teachers, and administrators across the United States for their ongoing contributions to education, and for other purposes
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 259
May 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 258
May 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 257
May 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: S 2929 To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 254
May 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1109 Honoring the memory of Dith Pran by remembering his life?s work and continuing to acknowledge and remember the victims of genocides that have taken place around the globe
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 252
May 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H CON RES 317 Condemning the Burmese regime?s undemocratic constitution and scheduled referendum
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 250
May 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H R 3658 To amend the Foreign Service Act of 1980 to permit rest and recuperation travel to United States territories for members of the Foreign Service
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 248
May 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 247
May 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Won
Roll Call 243
May 05, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 1011 Calling on the United States Government and the international community to promptly develop, fund, and implement a comprehensive regional strategy to protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian operations, contain and reduce violence, and contribute to conditions for sustainable peace and good governance in Chad
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 241
May 05, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table motion to reconsider: H RES 952 To establish a National Teacher?s Day
Table motion to reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 238
May 01, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y N Won
Roll Call 236
May 01, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1167 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 235
May 01, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1167 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 233
Apr 30, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5522 Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 232
Apr 30, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5522 Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 231
Apr 30, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5522
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 228
Apr 30, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1157 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5522, the ?Combustable Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act?
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 227
Apr 30, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1157 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5522, the ?Combustable Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act?
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 226
Apr 29, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2739 Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Won
Roll Call 222
Apr 24, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2830 Coast Guard Authorization for 2008
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 219
Apr 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1126 Providing for the consideration of H. R. 2830, Coast Guard Authorization Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 218
Apr 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1126 Providing for the consideration of H. R. 2830, Coast Guard Authorization Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 216
Apr 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5819 SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 212
Apr 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1125 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5819, to amend the Small Business Act to improve the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 211
Apr 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1125 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5819, to amend the Small Business Act to improve the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 201
Apr 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair: H R 2537 Beach Protection Act
Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 199
Apr 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2634 Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Collection Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 198
Apr 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2634 Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Collection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Lost
Roll Call 195
Apr 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1107 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5715, Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 194
Apr 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1107 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5715, Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Close Vote Absent Y Won
Roll Call 193
Apr 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1103 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2634, Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Collection Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 192
Apr 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1103 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2634, Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Collection Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 190
Apr 15, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5719 Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 189
Apr 15, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5719 Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 188
Apr 15, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5036 Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 187
Apr 15, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1102 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 5719
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 186
Apr 15, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1102 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 5719
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 182
Apr 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2537
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 181
Apr 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1092 Relating to the consideration of the bill H.R. 5274 to implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 179
Apr 10, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1083 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2537, Beach Protection Act of 2007.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 174
Apr 09, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2016 National Landscape Conservation System Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 173
Apr 09, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2016 National Landscape Conservation System Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 172
Apr 09, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2016
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 170
Apr 09, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2016
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 169
Apr 09, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2016
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 168
Apr 09, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2016
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 165
Apr 09, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1084 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 2016, to establish the National Landscape Conservation System, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 164
Apr 09, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1084 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 2016, to establish the National Landscape Conservation System, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 159
Apr 03, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4847 United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 158
Apr 02, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5501 Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 157
Apr 02, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5501 Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 155
Apr 02, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1065 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5501, Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 154
Apr 02, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1065 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5501, Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 145
Mar 14, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Agree to the Senate Amendment with an Amendment: H R 3773 To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purpoes
Agree to the Senate Amendment with an Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 144
Mar 14, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1041 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 143
Mar 14, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1041 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 141
Mar 13, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 312 Revising the congressional Budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2010 through 2013.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 140
Mar 13, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 312
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 138
Mar 13, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 312
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 137
Mar 13, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 312
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 135
Mar 13, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION
On Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 132
Mar 12, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 316 Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 131
Mar 12, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5563 Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 130
Mar 12, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1036 Providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 312, Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2009
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 129
Mar 12, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1036 Providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 312, Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2009
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 128
Mar 12, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Resolution: H RES 1040
On Motion to Table the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 125
Mar 12, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Resolution: H RES 1039 Resolution Raising a Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 122
Mar 11, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1031 Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 895) establishing within the House of Representatives an Office of Congressional Ethics, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 121
Mar 11, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1031 Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 895) establishing within the House of Representatives an Office of Congressional Ethics, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 120
Mar 11, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

N N Won
Roll Call 117
Mar 11, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding: H R 2082 The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008
Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 116
Mar 11, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair: MOTION
On Motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 107
Mar 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 2857 Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education ?GIVE? Act
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 106
Mar 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2857
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 105
Mar 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2857
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 104
Mar 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1015 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2857, to reauthorize and reform the national service laws
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 103
Mar 06, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1015 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2857, to reauthorize and reform the national service laws
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 101
Mar 05, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1424 Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 100
Mar 05, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1424 Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 99
Mar 05, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 1424 Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 96
Mar 05, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1014 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1014, Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 95
Mar 05, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1014 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1014, Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 94
Mar 05, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 1014 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1014, Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 84
Feb 27, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5351 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 83
Feb 27, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5351 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 82
Feb 27, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 5351 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008
Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 81
Feb 27, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1001 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5351, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 80
Feb 27, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1001 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5351, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 78
Feb 27, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 1001 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5351, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 77
Feb 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 3521 Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act
On Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 74
Feb 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 974 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3521) to improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 73
Feb 26, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 974 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3521) to improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 60
Feb 14, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 982 Providing for the adoption of H. Res. 979 and H. Res. 980, contempt of Congress resolutions.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 56
Feb 13, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 293
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 54
Feb 13, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5349 To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days.
On Passage

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 53
Feb 13, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 5349 To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days.
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 51
Feb 13, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 976 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5349, to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 50
Feb 13, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 976 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5349, to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 49
Feb 13, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 976 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5349, to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 48
Feb 13, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 976 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5349, to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 39
Feb 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4137 To amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 38
Feb 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4137
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 37
Feb 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4137
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 36
Feb 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4137
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 33
Feb 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 956 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 32
Feb 07, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 956 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 28
Jan 29, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1528 New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 27
Jan 29, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1528 New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 22
Jan 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding: H R 3963 Children?s Health Insurance Program Extension and Improvement
Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 21
Jan 23, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H R 3963 Children?s Health Insurance Program Extension and Improvement
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 18
Jan 17, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3524 HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 16
Jan 17, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3524
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 15
Jan 17, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3524
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 14
Jan 17, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3524
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 13
Jan 17, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3524
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 11
Jan 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 4986 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Lost
Roll Call 10
Jan 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2768 S-MINER Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 9
Jan 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2768 S-MINER Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 8
Jan 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2768
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 5
Jan 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2768
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 2
Jan 16, 2008

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 918 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2768, to establish improved mandatory standards to protect miners during emergencies, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1186
Dec 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Agree to Senate Adt to House Adt to Senate Adt: H R 2764 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations for FY 2008
Agree to Senate Adt to House Adt to Senate Adt

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 1177
Dec 18, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to Senate Adt to House Adt to Senate Adt: H R 6 Energy Independence and Security Act
On Agreeing to Senate Adt to House Adt to Senate Adt

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1175
Dec 18, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 877 Providing for the consideration of the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 6, Energy Independence and Security Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1174
Dec 18, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 877 Providing for the consideration of the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 6, Energy Independence and Security Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1172
Dec 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to Senate amendment with 2nd House amendment: H R 2764 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations for FY 2008
On agreeing to Senate amendment with 2nd House amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1171
Dec 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to Senate amendment with 1st House amendment: H R 2764 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations for FY 2008
On agreeing to Senate amendment with 1st House amendment

N Y Won
Roll Call 1169
Dec 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 878 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2764, State, foreign operations appropriations, FY 2008
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1168
Dec 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 878 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2764, State, foreign operations appropriations, FY 2008
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1167
Dec 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 271 Sine Die Adjournment resolution of the 1st Session of the 110th Congress
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 1166
Dec 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 873 Same Day Rule
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1165
Dec 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 873 Same Day Rule
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1161
Dec 13, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair: H J RES 69 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes.
Table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1160
Dec 13, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2082 Intelligence Authorization Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1159
Dec 13, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit Conference Report With Instructions: H R 2082 Intelligence Authorization Act
Recommit Conference Report With Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 1158
Dec 13, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 859 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2082), Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1157
Dec 13, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 859 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2082), Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1156
Dec 13, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 869 Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J.Res. 69) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1154
Dec 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to postpone consideration of the veto message: H R 3963 Children?s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
On motion to postpone consideration of the veto message

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1153
Dec 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4351 AMT Relief Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1152
Dec 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 4351 AMT Relief Act
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1151
Dec 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1585 National Defense Authorization Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 1150
Dec 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4299 Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1149
Dec 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4299 Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 1148
Dec 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 861 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4351, AMT Relief Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1147
Dec 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 861 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4351, AMT Relief Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1146
Dec 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 860 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1145
Dec 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 862 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4299, Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1140
Dec 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Senate Amendments with Amendments: H R 6 Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendments with Amendments

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1137
Dec 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 846 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 6), Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1136
Dec 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 846 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 6), Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1134
Dec 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 846 Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation?s dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, & alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, & creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency & Renewable Reserve to invest in alternative enery
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1128
Dec 05, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1585 National Defense Authorization Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 1125
Dec 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2082 Intelligence Authorization Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 1122
Nov 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding: H R 3043 Making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes
Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 1120
Nov 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3773 Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1119
Nov 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3773 Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 1118
Nov 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3915 Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1117
Nov 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3915 Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 1116
Nov 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 3915
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 1115
Nov 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3915
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 1114
Nov 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3915
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 1113
Nov 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 259
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1112
Nov 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3915
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 1111
Nov 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 824 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 3773, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1110
Nov 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 824 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 3773, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1109
Nov 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 825 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3915, Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1108
Nov 14, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4156 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1107
Nov 14, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4156 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 1104
Nov 14, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 818 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4156) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1103
Nov 14, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 818 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4156) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1102
Nov 14, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3074 Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1101
Nov 14, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit Conference Report: H R 3074 Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
On Motion to Recommit Conference Report

N N Won
Roll Call 1099
Nov 14, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 817 Providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3074, Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1098
Nov 14, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 817 Providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3074, Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1097
Nov 14, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 817 Providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3074, Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1096
Nov 14, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 817 Providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3074, Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1093
Nov 14, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 817 Providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3074, Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1086
Nov 14, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 813 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1429, to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to improve program quality, to expand access, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1081
Nov 09, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3996 Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1078
Nov 09, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 809 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3996, Temporary Tax Relief Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1077
Nov 09, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 809 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3996, Temporary Tax Relief Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1076
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3093 Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 1075
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment: H R 3043 Making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1074
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3355 Homeowners? Defense Act of 2007
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1073
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3355 Homeowners? Defense Act of 2007
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 1072
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3355
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 1071
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3355
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 1070
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3355
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 1069
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3355
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 1068
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3355
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1066
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 802 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3355) to ensure the availability and affordability of homeowners? insurance coverage for catastrophic events.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1065
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 802 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3355) to ensure the availability and affordability of homeowners? insurance coverage for catastrophic events.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1063
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 806 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3222, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1062
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 806 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3222, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1061
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Will the House now consider the resolution: H RES 806 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3222, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes
Will the House now consider the resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1060
Nov 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3688 United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 1057
Nov 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3685 Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1056
Nov 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3685 Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 1055
Nov 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3685
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 1053
Nov 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 793 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3685, to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1052
Nov 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 793 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3685, to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1050
Nov 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3043 Making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1048
Nov 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 794 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and related agencies.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1047
Nov 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 794 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and related agencies.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1044
Nov 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Will the House now consider the resolution: H RES 794 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and related agecies.
Will the House now consider the resolution

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 1039
Nov 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Refer the Resolution: H RES 799 A resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House.
On Motion to Refer the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1038
Nov 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On ordering the previous question: H RES 799 A resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House.
On ordering the previous question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1033
Nov 01, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2262 Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1032
Nov 01, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2262 Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 1031
Nov 01, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2262
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 1030
Nov 01, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2262
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 1028
Nov 01, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 780 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2262, to modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the principles of self-initiation of mining claims, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1027
Nov 01, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 780 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2262, to modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the principles of self-initiation of mining claims, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1026
Oct 31, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3043 Making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Won
Roll Call 1025
Oct 31, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3920 Trade and Globalization Assistance Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1024
Oct 31, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3920
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 1022
Oct 31, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 781 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3920, Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1021
Oct 31, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 781 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3920, Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1016
Oct 30, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3867 Small Business Contracting Program Improvements Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 1013
Oct 30, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 773 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3867) to update and expand the procurement programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1010
Oct 29, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3224 Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2007
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1009
Oct 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3963 Children?s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1008
Oct 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3963 Children?s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 1007
Oct 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 774 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children?s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1006
Oct 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 774 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children?s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1004
Oct 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 774 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children?s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.
Table Motion to Reconsider

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1003
Oct 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Will the House Now Consider the Resolution: H RES 774 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children?s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.
Will the House Now Consider the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 1000
Oct 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 505 Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 999
Oct 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 505 Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 998
Oct 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 764 Providing for consideration of H.R. 505, Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 997
Oct 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 764 Providing for consideration of H.R. 505, Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 996
Oct 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1483 Celebrating America?s Heritage Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 995
Oct 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1483 Celebrating America?s Heritage Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y N Lost
Roll Call 994
Oct 23, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1011 Virginia Ridge and Valley Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Lost
Roll Call 992
Oct 23, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 765 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1483, to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 991
Oct 23, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 765 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1483, to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 990
Oct 23, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 763 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1011, to designate additional National Forest System lands in the State of Virginia as wilderness or a wilderness study area, to designate the Kimberling Creek Potential Wilderness Area for eventual incorporation in the Kimberling Creek Wilderness
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 986
Oct 23, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Resolution: H RES 767
On Motion to Table the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 983
Oct 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 189 Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Won
Roll Call 982
Oct 18, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 976 Children?s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 979
Oct 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2095 Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 977
Oct 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 724 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2095, Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 975
Oct 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 746 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3773, Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007 or ?RESTORE Act of 2007?.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 974
Oct 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 746 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3773, Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007 or ?RESTORE Act of 2007?.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 967
Oct 16, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 742 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2102, Free Flow of Information Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 966
Oct 16, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 742 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2102, Free Flow of Information Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 965
Oct 16, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 741 Providing for the consideration of H. Res. 734, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the withholding of information relating to corruption in Iraq
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 964
Oct 16, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 741 Providing for the consideration of H. Res. 734, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the withholding of information relating to corruption in Iraq
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 960
Oct 10, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3056 Tax Collection Responsibility Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 959
Oct 10, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3056 Tax Collection Responsibility Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 958
Oct 10, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2895 National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 957
Oct 10, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2895 National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 956
Oct 10, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2895
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 954
Oct 10, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 719 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3056, Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 953
Oct 10, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 719 Providing for consideration of H. R. 3056, Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 952
Oct 10, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 720 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2895, National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 951
Oct 10, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 720 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2895, National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 947
Oct 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3648 Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007.
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 946
Oct 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3246 Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007.
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 945
Oct 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3246 Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007.
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 944
Oct 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 703 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3648, Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 943
Oct 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 703 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3648, Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 942
Oct 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 704 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3246, Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 941
Oct 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 704 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3246, Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 939
Oct 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2740 MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Lost
Roll Call 938
Oct 03, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Postponing to a Date Certain: H R 976 Children?s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
On Postponing to a Date Certain

Y Y Won
Roll Call 936
Oct 03, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 928 Improving Government Accountability Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Lost
Roll Call 935
Oct 03, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 928
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 934
Oct 03, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 702 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2740, to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 933
Oct 03, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 702 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2740, to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 932
Oct 03, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 701 Providing for consideration of H.R. 928, to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 to enhance the independence of the Inspectors General, to create a Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 927
Oct 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3087 To require the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y N Lost
Roll Call 922
Sep 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3567 Small Business Investment Expansion Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 921
Sep 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3121 Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 920
Sep 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3121 Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent N Won
Roll Call 919
Sep 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3121
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 918
Sep 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 683 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3121, Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 917
Sep 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 683 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3121, Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 916
Sep 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 682 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3567, Small Business Investment Expansion Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 915
Sep 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 682 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3567, Small Business Investment Expansion Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 913
Sep 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2693 Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 912
Sep 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2693
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 910
Sep 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 52 Making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes.
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Lost
Roll Call 909
Sep 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 678 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2693) to direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue a standard regulating worker exposure to diacetyl.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 908
Sep 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 677 Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J.Res. 52) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 906
Sep 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Agree to Senate Amendments with Amendments: H R 976 Children?s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
Agree to Senate Amendments with Amendments

Y Y Won
Roll Call 904
Sep 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 675 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 976, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief for small businesses, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 903
Sep 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 675 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 976, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief for small businesses, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 902
Sep 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H RES 675
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 890
Sep 20, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2881 FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 888
Sep 20, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 664 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2881, FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 887
Sep 20, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 664 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2881, FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 884
Sep 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2761 Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 883
Sep 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2761 Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 882
Sep 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2761
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 880
Sep 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 660 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2761, Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 879
Sep 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 660 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2761, Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 875
Sep 18, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1852 Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 874
Sep 18, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1852
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 873
Sep 18, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1852
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 872
Sep 18, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 650 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1852, Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 871
Sep 18, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 650 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1852, Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 867
Sep 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3246 Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007.
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 864
Sep 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2669 College Cost Reduction Act of 2007
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 863
Sep 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1908 Patent Reform Act of 2007
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 862
Sep 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1908
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 861
Sep 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 637 Providing for consideration of conference report to accompany H.R. 2669, College Cost Reduction and Access Act.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 860
Sep 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 636 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1908, Patent Reform Act of 2007.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 858
Sep 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2786
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 857
Sep 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2786
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 856
Sep 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2786
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 855
Sep 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 633 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2786) to reauthorize the programs for housing assistance for Native Americans.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 849
Sep 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2669 College Cost Reduction Act of 2007
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 845
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 3222
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 843
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3222
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 841
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3222
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 840
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3222
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 838
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3222
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 836
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 1927 Protect America Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 835
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2776 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 833
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 623
On Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 832
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3221 New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 831
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3221 New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 830
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 3221
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 828
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3221
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 827
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3221
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 826
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 615 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3221, Energy Policy Act and H.R. 2776, to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 825
Aug 04, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 615 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3221, Energy Policy Act and H.R. 2776, to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 822
Aug 03, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 612 Resolution Raising a Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 821
Aug 03, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 3356 Improving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance to Defend the Nation and the Constitution Act of 2007
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 818
Aug 03, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 600 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 816
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3161 Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 814
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3161 Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 808
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3161
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 807
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3161
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 806
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3161
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 803
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3161
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 801
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 2272 21st Century Competitiveness Act
Recommit Conference Report with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 800
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 599 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 3161, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs, FY 2008
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 799
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 599 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 3161, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs, FY 2008
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 796
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3159 Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 795
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3159 Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 794
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 601 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3159, Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 793
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 601 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3159, Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 792
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 602 Providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2272, 21st Century Competitiveness Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 791
Aug 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 602 Providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2272, 21st Century Competitiveness Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 787
Aug 01, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3162 Children?s Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 786
Aug 01, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3162 Children?s Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 785
Aug 01, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 594 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3162, Children?s Health and Medicare Protection Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 784
Aug 01, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 594 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3162, Children?s Health and Medicare Protection Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 782
Aug 01, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 594 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3162, Children?s Health and Medicare Protection Act
On Consideration of the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 778
Jul 31, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion That The Committee Rise: H R 3161 Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
On Motion That The Committee Rise

Y Y Won
Roll Call 777
Jul 31, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Sustain the ruling of the Chair: H R 3161 Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
Sustain the ruling of the Chair

Y Y Won
Roll Call 776
Jul 31, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 3161
On Motion that the Committee Rise

N N Won
Roll Call 770
Jul 31, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2272 21st Century Competitiveness Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 769
Jul 31, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 581 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3161, Agriculture Appropriations for FY 2008
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 768
Jul 31, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2831 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 767
Jul 31, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 986 Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 766
Jul 31, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 986 Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 762
Jul 30, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 579 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2831) to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discriminaiton in Employment Act of 1967, the American With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 761
Jul 30, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 579 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2831) to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discriminaiton in Employment Act of 1967, the American With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 760
Jul 30, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 580 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 986, to designate the Eightmile River in the state of Connecticut
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 759
Jul 30, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 580 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 986, to designate the Eightmile River in the state of Connecticut
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 756
Jul 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 755
Jul 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 754
Jul 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2419
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 753
Jul 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2419
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 752
Jul 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2419
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 750
Jul 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2419
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 749
Jul 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2419
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 747
Jul 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2419
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 746
Jul 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 574 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 744
Jul 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3093 Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 743
Jul 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3093 Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 742
Jul 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 55 to H R 3093
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 741
Jul 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 54 to H R 3093
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 740
Jul 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 3093
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 739
Jul 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 51 to H R 3093
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 737
Jul 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 3093
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 734
Jul 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 3093
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 733
Jul 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 3093
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 729
Jul 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 3093
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 727
Jul 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 3093
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 723
Jul 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3093
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 722
Jul 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3093
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 721
Jul 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3093
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 720
Jul 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3093
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 716
Jul 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 562 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3093, the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 715
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3074 Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 714
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3074 Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 713
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 3074
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 712
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 3074
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 711
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 3074
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 710
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 3074
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 709
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 3074
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 708
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 3074
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 703
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 3074
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 697
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 3074
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 696
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3074
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 695
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3074
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 694
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3074
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 692
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3074
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 691
Jul 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3074
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 690
Jul 23, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 558 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3074, the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies, FY 2008
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 686
Jul 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3043 Making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 685
Jul 19, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Lewis of California motion to send the bill back to committee to add language allowing background checks on teachers and other employees/On the motion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion by Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., to send the bill back to the Appropriations Committee for a rewrite (known as a ?motion to recommit?).  Lewis wanted the committee to add language that would allow funding provided to schools and other agencies to be used to conduct background checks on teachers and other employees.   The motion was made to the fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending bill.

"Essentially for the House?s better understanding, we provide simply discretionary flexibility to school districts to use funding in these titles to make certain that they know well the backgrounds of those people who will be working with and around children," Lewis said, explaining why he made the motion.

David Obey, D-Wis., said the recommital motion would have the effect of killing the bill, because it does not set a timetable on which the bill would be returned to the floor of the House of Representatives.

"The membership should also understand that this recommit kills the bill. It is dressed up in language on fees, but in fact it calls for the bill to be referred to the committee and reported back promptly, not forthwith. And, as Members know, that is a device that kills the bill," Obey said.  In the peculiar language of the House of Representatives, if a motion is to be reported ?forthwith,? that means the change in question is executed on the floor of the House, and consideration resumes immediately.  If it is to be reported ?promptly,? the bill actually is in fact sent back to committee, where the bill can die easily.

By a vote of 206-213, the motion was rejected.  Every Republican present voted for the motion.  Of Democrats present, all but 11 voted against the motion.  Thus, the motion to send the bill back to the committee to add language permitting funding to be used for teacher background checks was defeated and debate on the bill continued.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 684
Jul 19, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Pence of Indiana amendment that would prohibit funding from going toward Planned Parenthood/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Mike Pence, R-Ind., that would prohibit funds in the bill from going toward Planned Parenthood.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008. 

Pence said that Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the country and that even though money in the bill would not go directly to funding abortions, those who dislike the practice should not have their tax money go to support such a group.

"Millions of pro-life Americans should not be asked to fund the leading abortion provider in the United States. Now, let me stipulate, I know that title X funds may not be used for abortion. And my amendment does not cut or reduce the budget for family planning in this appropriation bill; it simply prevents appropriated funds from reaching an organization that profits from the abortion trade," Pence said.

David Obey, D-Wis., said he has worked to broker a deal among both parties not to try to push through any abortion-related legislation that would upset either side, and that Pence's amendment would do just that. 

"[Pence] doesn?t like Planned Parenthood. I don?t care whether Planned Parenthood gets money or not. What I do care about is that the women who are served by Planned Parenthood get the services to which they are entitled under the Constitution. And so I would ask the gentleman, in the interest of the bipartisan neutrality that we have tried to build over the past 2 months, to consider withdrawing the amendment, and I thank the gentleman for the time," Obey said.

Pence refused.

The amendment was rejected by a vote of 189-231.  Of Republicans present, 173 voted for the amendment and 21 voted against it.  Of Democrats present, 16 voted for the amendment and 210 voted against it.   The end result is that the measure went forward without any prohibitions against sending federal funding to Planned Parenthood for services not directly related to performing abortions.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
FAMILY PLANNING Availability of Contraceptives
N N Won
Roll Call 683
Jul 19, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Campbell of California amendment that would cut spending across the board by .25 percent/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by John Campbell, R-Calif., that would cut spending in the bill by .25 percent.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.  The amendment was the last in a series of Republican attempts to cut varying amounts of money from the bill (all unsuccessful).

Campbell said his amendment is a small step toward restoring fiscal discipline and that it is necessary in a time of deficits.

"The mainstream outside of Washington wants to keep their own money to spend it on what they want. And they believe, Madam Chairman, even if the other side doesn?t, Americans believe, and they are right, that government wastes some of their tax money. And what this proposed amendment does is it would increase spending on this bill by 4.6 percent instead of 4.8 percent. It is a reduction over what is proposed by a quarter of a percent. A quarter of a percent. It still provides an increase of $6.6 billion over last year," Campbell said.  "So under this amendment if there is a government program that is scheduled to get a million dollars, it would instead have to struggle through on $997,500."

Steve Israel, D-N.Y., said Campbell and the other Republicans who sought to cut money from the bill ignored the $3 trillion in debt Republicans amassed while Congress was under Republican control.

"We won?t say anything about the 3 trillion ? in debt that part of this fringe has supported when they wanted to spend more money on Halliburton, more money on tax cuts for big oil companies, didn?t see any amendments to cut those amendments. Now we see amendments to cut or reduce the amount of spending and investment in other funds," Israel said. 

The amendment was rejected by a vote of 177-245.  Of Republicans present, 162 voted for the amendment and 34 voted against the amendment.  Of Democrats present, 15 voted for the amendment and 211 voted against it.  The end result is that the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008 went forward with its funding intact.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 682
Jul 19, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Musgrave of Colorado amendment that would cut .5 percent of spending/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., that would cut spending in the bill across the board by .5 percent.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

Musgrave said her amendment is a small step toward restoring fiscal discipline and that it is necessary in a time of deficits.

" I?m just offering the Members of Congress yet another opportunity to do the right thing, the right thing being exercising fiscal discipline, just a modicum of fiscal discipline, 1.5 percent. So the increase in this bill would go from 4.8 increase to 4.3. Now, some people would miscategorize that as a cut. It is not a cut. It is still an increase in spending of 4.3 percent," Musgrave said.

Steve Israel, D-N.Y., called the amendment a "fringe offering," and criticized Musgrave for seeking to cut spending priorities such as education and health programs.

"The solution to America?s problems is now down to .5 percent, less Pell Grant money so the kids can go to college, higher fuel bills in the winter for people who can?t pay their fuel bills. I never saw a .5 percent reduction in funds to Halliburton. I never saw a .5 percent reduction in the $13 billion in giveaways to Big Oil company executives, who are making the world?s greatest profits. But now suddenly, when it comes to reducing people?s heating bills or reducing their college costs, we want them to have another .5 percent burden because the burden they have just isn?t enough," Israel said.

The amendment was rejected by a vote of 177-245.  Of Republicans present, 161 voted for the amendment and 35 voted against it.  Of Democrats present, 16 voted for the amendment and 210 voted against it.  The end result is that the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008 went forward with its funding intact.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 681
Jul 19, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Price of Georgia amendment that would cut spending across the board by 1 percent/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Tom Price, R-Ga., that would cut spending in the bill by 1 percent. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

Price said his amendment is a small step toward restoring fiscal discipline and that it is necessary in a time of deficits.

"If you, Mr. Chairman, or I or any of our constituents find themselves in a situation where they need to save some money, then oftentimes what they will do is say we need to cut back across the board on the kinds of things that we are spending. And this amendment simply states that, out of a 1 percent cut, we ought to be able to find one penny out of every dollar to save for our children?s future. And the rationale for that is because it is not our money, Mr. Chairman, it is not Congress?s money. It is the hard-earned money of the American taxpayer. And we hear a lot about priorities, and we ought to be prioritizing. And that is what budgetary bills are, that is what appropriations bills are, making priority judgments for the hard-earned American taxpayer money. Our priority on this side is that hardworking American taxpayer," Price said.

Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., said if Republicans want to save money they should support ending the war in Iraq, instead of pushing to cut money from a bill that funds domestic social priorities.

"What we?re trying to do here in this particular bill, and in the context of our budget responsibilities, is to focus attention on the needs of the American people, what we as a Congress ought to be doing in the context of our responsibilities, serving the American people, doing what?s right for them, improving the possibility, the prospects of education, making it easier for our children to get the best possible education that they can get, making it easier for people to get the health care that they need, making it easier for people to deal with housing situations and circumstances so that people have proper housing," Hinchey said.  "You want to reduce the amount of money that is available for education, reduce the amount of money that?s available for health care, reduce the amount of money that?s available for housing and other things that are essential to the American public, while you keep wasting more and more money in Iraq."

The amendment was rejected by a vote of 165-256.  Of Republicans present, 154 voted for the amendment and 42 voted against it.  All but 11 Democrats present voted against the amendment.  The end result is that the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education Departments in fiscal 2008 went forward with its funding intact.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 680
Jul 19, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Jordan of Ohio amendment that would cut spending across the board by 4.6 percent/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, that would cut funds in the bill across the board by 4.6 percent.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

Jordan said his amendment would have the effect of reducing spending to the amount requested by President Bush in his fiscal 2008 budget.

"So my amendment is real straightforward. It says we are not going to go back to the President, we are not going to cut it, using the term ?cut? to the President?s requested level, we are going to go back to last year?s funding level, a level funding amendment, a hold-the-line amendment, whatever you want to call it. It is certainly not a cut, although that has typically been the argument made by the other side of the aisle," Jordan said.

David Obey, D-Wis., defended the bill and its spending priorities.

"I just want to say one thing: Yes, this bill spends $10 billion more on our kids, on our workers, on our obligation to provide access to health care to people who don?t have it, than the President does. I plead fully double guilty. I would do twice as much if I could. I would do three times as much if I could because the country needs it," Obey said. "This is the bill that makes the investments that will make our country stronger economically, educationally and socially not just today but for the next 10 years. That?s what this bill is about."

The amendment was rejected by a vote of 136-288.  Of Republicans present, 133 voted for the amendment and 63 voted against it.  All but three Democrats voted against the amendment (Tim Mahoney of Florida, Heath Shuler of North Carolina and Gene Taylor of Missisisippi).  The end result is that the measure went forward with all of its funding intact.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 678
Jul 19, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Campbell of California amendment that would prohibit funds in the bill from being used for the Charles B. Rangel Center in New York City/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by John Campbell, R-Calif., that would prohibit funds from going to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

Campbell said the underlying bill would provide $2 billion for the creation of this new center in honor of New York Congressman Charlie Rangel. 

"There are a few things in it I thought were troubling, because amongst the things that it says this center will have are, quote, ?a well-furnished office for Congressman Rangel.? Second, ?the Rangel Library to house its Rangel archives.? And it goes on to say, quote, ?The Rangel archivist librarian will organize, index and preserve for posterity all documents, photographs and memorabilia relating to Congressman Rangel?s career," Campbell said. 

He said he objects to it on the grounds that rules of the House of Representatives prohibit lawmakers from providing money to designate "a public work in honor of an individual" currently serving in Congress.

"Now, it?s my understanding from the Parliamentarian that this amendment does not violate the letter of that rule. I would argue, and argue to my friends in the majority, that it would violate the spirit. I really do not think this is a road we want to go down, where we, as Members, have the ability to create and name things after ourselves using public funds while we are in office," Campbell said.

Rangel himself came to the microphone to defend the earmark.  He said the City University came to him and expressed an interest in the expansion and asked if he would help raise money for it.

"They already raised $25 million, in order to do this. And all the office things that you?re talking about, when you talk about archives, it means after I leave here. And I do hope that there would be an office there, as we bring people in to encourage people to get an education, to go into public service. I cannot think of anything that I am more proud of. I wish we had more of this type of thing," Rangel said.  "And so it just seems to me, as you have seen fit to apply for an earmark here, that you understand what it is. I?ve been in office for 38 years, I don?t need any accolades. My community has given me that."

The amendment was rejected by a vote of 108-316.  All but one Democrat present voted against the amendment (Jim Cooper of Tennessee).  Of Republicans present, 107 voted for the amendment and 89 voted against it.  The end result is that the measure went forward with funding for the Charles Rangel center intact.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 676
Jul 19, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Westmoreland of Georgia amendment that would prohibit federal student aid applications forms from using any language other than English/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., that would  prohibit federal student aid applications from being provided in a language other than English.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

Westmoreland said that since anyone applying for federal student financial aid is a high school graduate and must be a legal citizen of the U.S., it's not unreasonable to expect that they be able to fill out a form in English.

"I have a higher opinion of our education system than that, and I believe a student that meets these eligibility requirements will be proficient enough in English to complete this form in English," Westmoreland said.  "Even more disturbing is the presumption that the Federal Government would be subsidizing the college education of an individual that does not have the proficiency in English to fill out the form to get free Federal assistance."

David Obey, D-Wis., said he wants every American to learn English.  But he said Westmoreland is "in effect, is asking us to pass sentence on 150,000 students who applied for student financial assistance last year using the Spanish version of the application form. Those students would automatically be denied financial aid, with no demonstrable proof that they were illegal aliens, only because they felt more comfortable applying in Spanish."

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 191-233.  Of Republicans present, 169 voted for the amendment and 27 voted against it.  Of Democrats present, 22 voted for the amendment and 206 voted against it.  The end result is that the measure went forward without a prohibition on issuing federal student aid application forms in languages other than English.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
N N Won
Roll Call 675
Jul 19, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Camp of Michigan amendment that would prohibit Medicare and Medicaid from barring enrollment in the Medicare Advantage program/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Dave Camp, R-Mich., that would prohibit the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from implementing any policy that would prohibit a current beneficiary of Medicare from enrolling in the Medicare Advantage program.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

Medicare Advantage is an HMO plan ? where a person receives comprehensive health care coverage, but must use a certain pre-approved network of doctors, hospitals and pharmacies. It is slightly more comprehensive than traditional Medicare ?fee for service? plans, but also costs more money.

Groups such as the AARP have been pushing Congress to cut funding for Medicare Advantage, which is administered by for-profit managed care companies.  Medicare Advantage, on average, receives about 12 percent more than what is paid under traditional fee-for-service care, according to the House Budget Committee.  AARP has argued that these insurance companies, not patients, benefit from the higher service costs. However, some minority groups, such as the NAACP and LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens), argue that Medicare Advantage provides greater benefits for low-income and minority patients.

"Vulnerable beneficiaries choose Medicare Advantage over traditional Medicare because it?s often cheaper and comes with better benefits than traditional Medicare, like disease management programs and preventive care. Low-income seniors are more likely to enroll in Medicare Advantage, relying on the program?s lower copayments and free preventive care. Medicare Advantage plans saved beneficiaries an average of $86 per month, compared to what they would have spent in traditional Medicare," Camp said.

David Obey, D-Wis., said this is a difficult topic that should not be handled on a bill that is meant only to spend money. 

"This is certainly not within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. It most certainly is within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. I don?t think, given the sensitivity of it, that it ought to be handled in this manner," Obey said.  "My understanding is also that the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees are both highly concerned about this amendment. And under these circumstances, I think it would be highly ill-advised for the House to adopt this amendment at this time."

By a vote of 192-228, the amendment was rejected.  All but three Democrats present voted against the amendment (Christopher Carney of Pennsylvania, Ron Klein of Florida and Tim Mahoney of Florida).  All but six Republicans present voted for the amendment.  The end result is that an amendment that would have prohibited the government from preventing Medicare beneficiaries from enrolling in the Medicare Advantage program was defeated.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 674
Jul 19, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Souder of Indiana amendment that would prohibit an employee union from being recognized if it was not chosen in a secret-ballot election/On agreeing to an amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Mark Souder, R-Ind., that would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from recognizing a new employee union if it was not chosen by a secret-ballot election.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

By law, unions may only be recognized if they are selected through a secret ballot vote, or by signing what amounts to a petition (often called a "card check"), which reveals the signatories' names to union officials and also company officials.

Souder said card check votes, which make employees' choice a matter of public record, can lead to intimidation and coercion and that they should be eliminated.

"I believe that the right to have a private vote is very important. I think the only way to have a fair election that we know that people want to form a union is to have a private ballot, and that?s the intent of this amendment, to restrict the enforcement of anything not allowing a private ballot," Souder said.

George Miller, D-Calif., said Souder's amendment would go much farther than what he described.  He said his amendment would in essence mean that the National Labor Relations Board could not enforce either party's obligation to bargain in good faith following the recognition of a union that was voluntarily agreed upon, including those that had already been established.

"An employer and an employee can get together, they can voluntarily enter into an agreement by which they have their working relationship, and if they?re down the road at some point, one of them wants to bring an action, the employer against the employees or the employees against the employer for not bargaining in good faith, the National Labor Relations Board couldn?t enforce that," Miller said.  "It doesn?t even have to be through the card check process. Any voluntary agreement, you?re suggesting that somehow these people would not be able to enforce that agreement once it was entered into. This undermines the rights of potentially millions of American workers that have already organized under voluntary recognition agreements and already engaged in a collective bargaining relationship."

By a vote of 167-255, the amendment was rejected.  Of Republicans present, 164 voted for the amendment and 32 voted against it.  All but three Democrats present voted against the amendment (Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Gene Taylor of Mississippi, and Mike McIntyre of North Carolina).  The end result is that an amendment that would have prevented unions from being formed through card check votes was defeated.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 673
Jul 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 62 to H R 3043
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 672
Jul 19, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Davis of Kentucky amendment that would prohibit funds from being used to provide cash awards for performance for certain positions in the government/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Geoff Davis, R-Ky., that would prohibit funds in the bill from being used for performance-based bonuses or cash awards to any Social Security Administration (SSA) or Medicare/Medicaid (CMS) employee who are senior executives.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

"The premise is simple. Bonus pay is for exemplary work. It is my opinion that the American people are not getting exemplary work from the SSA and the CMS. Therefore, the management of the agency, as in the private sector, should not be eligible for bonus pay and should be accountable for their performance," Davis said.

David Obey, D-Wis., said he could not understand why it would be necessary to deny employees in good standing, who have achieved exemplary personal work records, from receiving bonuses that they are due.

"The gentleman?s amendment would overturn the entire personnel policy of the agencies," Obey said.  "I?m sure that many Members have frustrations with the performance of many agencies from time to time, and I?m sure sometimes we?re pulling our hair, but that doesn?t mean that we ought to have an across-the-board policy that penalizes people across the board because someone didn?t perform up to someone else?s standards."

By a vote of 185-238, the amendment was rejected.  Of Republicans present, 165 voted for the amendment and 32 voted against it.  Of Democrats present, 20 voted for the amendment and 206 voted against it.  The end result is that the amendment that would have stopped bonuses and cash awards for performance at the senior executive levels in the Social Security Administration and Medicare/Medicaid organization was defeated.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Won
Roll Call 670
Jul 18, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Flake of Arizona amendment that would bar funds for a Kansas museum/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., that would prohibit funds from going to the Kansas Regional Prisons Museum.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

Flake said the underlying bill would allocate $100,000 to a museum in Leavenworth County, Kansas, which is one of the few, if only, locations that hosts federal, state, military and private prisons. 

"I?ve often joked that the way we splurge taxpayer funds on thousands of earmarks is a crime. But this earmark gives that sentiment a little new relevance.   All told, it appears this prison museum addition would significantly increase the overall display area of the Lansing Historical Museum from roughly 1,500 square feet to nearly 8,000 square feet of display area. Here, I think it is a pretty clear case. It may have some local relevance, but asking taxpayers across the country to pay for a prison museum is probably not a wise use of funds here," Flake said.

Nancy Boyda, D-Kan., said Flake may find projects of importance to her region a joke, but that she does not.

"It is very easy for you to go tell the people of Arizona that you are tough on crime. But let me say that it is a very difficult thing to do, and we take a great deal of pride about it in Kansas. It does take a lot more than talk to say that you are tough on crime.  The local residents are proud of their heritage and rightly so, and they see it as part of their responsibility to preserve this history," Boyda said, adding that local residents and businesses had raised $2 million of their own funding to make the museum a reality.

By a vote of 112-317, the amendment was rejected.  Of Republicans present, 108 voted for the amendment and 92 voted against it.  All but four Democrats present voted against the amendment.  The end result is that the measure went forward with funding intact for a prison museum in Kansas.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 668
Jul 18, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Flake of Arizona amendment that would block funding for a ballet project/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Jeff Flake, R-Ariz,. that would prohibit funds from being expended for the American Ballet Theatre in New York City.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

"I have an obvious love for the ballet. I am not sure if it is that obvious, but I do like culture, and I think it is good for everyone. But telling taxpayers across the country that they should pony up $150,000 for the American Ballet Theater, an organization that has over $150 million in net assets I think is just a bridge too far," Flake said, adding that the company has many corporate sponsors who can be relied upon for funding.

Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said the funding would go specifically toward helping the company bring ballet to smaller communities that have limited economic means and little access to fine arts.

"An important part of ABT?s mission is to expose as many people as possible to high quality ballet. This is at the heart of the request for studio company funding to bring ABT studio company and a host of educational and cultural programs to smaller communities that have limited economic means and access to these cultural benefits," Maloney said.  "Educational research strongly suggests that young people who learn about and participate in the arts acquire skills that help them in decisionmaking, problem solving, creative thinking, and teamwork."

By a vote of 118-312, the amendment was rejected.  All but four Democrats present voted against the amendment.  Of Republicans present, 114 voted for the amendment and 86 voted against the amendment.  The end result is that the measure went forward with funding for the American Ballet Theatre intact.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 667
Jul 18, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Hensarling of Texas amendment that would prohibit funds from being expended on the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft and Technician Training project/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, that would delete from the bill $300,000 in funding slated to go to the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft and Technician Training project at West Los Angeles College.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

The program is intended to create a first of its kind craft and technician college job training program to respond to the film and television industry's need for trained employees. 

Hensarling said that education is always a worthy goal and that he believes the program can do good in its community.  But in a time of significant deficits, he said, the country must tighten its belt.

"I really want us to focus upon the fact that although I have no doubt that good things can be done with these funds, all of government must be paid for. And so, again, I think we should use this debate as an opportunity to focus on who is paying the bill. And, again, as long as this Nation is running a deficit and it is down, thanks to the fact we are awash in tax revenues due to tax relief, we are still running a deficit. That means that any earmark, not just the gentlelady's from California, but any, is going to be raiding the Social Security Trust Fund as we continue, unfortunately, a practice from both parties of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund," Hensarling said.

Diane Watson, D-Calif., said the money would not go to the film industry, it would go to the college.  She said there are many young people in her district -- which includes the poverty-stricken South Los Angeles area - who would benefit from such a training program.  She said that technical jobs in the film industry are one of the backbones of the Los Angeles economy.
 
"The On Location program creates opportunities for Los Angeles young people while supporting the most important industry to the southern California economy. This program makes sure that kids of average means can get the technical skills they need to get good jobs working in film and television production," Watson said.

The amendment was rejected by a vote of 114-316.  Of Republicans present, 110 voted for the amendment and 90 voted against it.  All but four Democrats present voted against the amendment. The end result is that the measure went forward with funding for the job training program intact.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 666
Jul 18, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Barton of Texas amendment that would prohibit National Institutes of Health funds to be transferred through certain programs/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Joe Barton, R-Texas, that would prohibit the national Institutes of Health (NIH) from transferring its funding to Department of Health and Human Services agencies through a program known as Evaluation Tap.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

Barton said he supports robust funding for the NIH, but that a lot of its funding gets "siphoned off."

"The amendment before the body at this point in time would make sure that all of that money actually goes to the NIH. Sadly, a lot of the increase in NIH is going to be immediately siphoned off to two different funds. One is a global AIDS fund, which will take $300 million. The other is called a "tap," which takes about $600 million to another line item outside of NIH. So what this Barton amendment would do was keep that $600 million that would be siphoned off for the tap fund and keep it in the NIH," Barton said.

David Obey, D-Wis., said that money is indeed siphoned off, but that it goes primarily to a NIH-affiliated agency known as the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ). It researches what health care treatments work, what is safe for patients, and how to control costs for medical interventions, particularly those involving Medicare and Medicaid.

"Everybody loves the National Institutes of Health. I do too. But it does no good to any patient if we only concentrate on putting money in the National Institutes of Health and do not see to it that the information produced by the NIH is disseminated adequately to medical practitioners all over the country," Obey said. "It also does no good if in the process of squirreling away this money to NIH we do substantial damage to the public health programs of the United States and if we essentially wipe out the one agency which is doing the research to demonstrate to us how to produce the best treatments and how to produce cost savings that will prevent private medical care and Medicare from going bankrupt."

Some of the "tapped" money also goes to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which supports occupational and health research and researches ways to bridge the gap between laboratory discoveries and putting those discoveries into practice in the workplace.

By a vote of 181-249, the amendment was rejected.  Every Democrat present voted against the amendment.  Of Republicans present, 181 voted for the amendment and 19 voted against it.  The end result is that the measure went forward without a prohibition on allowing NIH funds to be transferred to other agencies through its Evaluation Tap program.


HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, International
HEALTH CARE Medical Research Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 665
Jul 18, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Dingell of Michigan amendment that would prohibit the deputy commissioner of Social Security from being paid until the Senate confirms his nomination/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by John Dingell, D-Mich., that would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to pay the salary of the deputy commissioner of Social Security before the commissioner has been confirmed by the Senate.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

Dingell said his amendment would have the effect of blocking the appointment of Andrew Biggs.  President Bush appointed him to the post during a time period in which Congress was in recess.  When this happens, the nominee may serve for a time period in that capacity without having to be confirmed by the Senate, as is the case for most of the very most senior positions in the government.  Recess appointments are often used as a way to circumvent the Senate confirmation process when there is a high likelihood that the Senate won't vote to confirm someone.

Dingell said he opposed Biggs' nomination because he has supported the idea of privatizing Social Security.  This would radically alter Social Security's entitlement system, removing investment decisions from the government's hands and allowing people instead to choose how they want those funds invested, potentially subjecting them to more financial risk.  Republicans often offer the privatization of Social Security as a solution to what they suggest is alooming insolvency.

"It's about protecting Social Security. It is about the fox guarding the hen roost. The fox is the new appointee who has been made Deputy Commissioner of Social Security, but who is unconfirmed by the United States Senate. The hen roost is Social Security and the care and concern of millions of Americans, retirees, orphans, widows, persons who are disabled. What we want to do is to see to it that those people who are in charge of Social Security and guard Social Security are friends to the system and not enemies," Dingell said.  "The amendment simply says no money may be spent on his salary until he has been confirmed; a simple, sensible, decent and proper protection for our retirees. Mr. Biggs has written dozens of articles in favor of privatization. He has compared Social Security to Enron and claimed that it was on the verge of imminent bankruptcy. He has argued that private accounts are the only solution to fund Social Security over the long term."

James Walsh, R-N.Y., said the amendment is "somewhat appropriate," because it was offered to an appropriations bill, which technically is only supposed to be used to expend money.

"I'm aware that this appointment is somewhat controversial, but the best way to get the Social Security Administration to perform as the Congress wishes is to pass laws and to bring them in for oversight hearings. I don't think that a rifle-shot cutting of one individual's salary is the right way to proceed," Walsh said.

By a vote of 231-199, the amendment was adopted.  All but five Democrats present voted for the amendment.  All but six Republicans present voted against the amendment.  The end result is that the bill went forward with language effectively prohibiting Biggs from serving in his new post without being confirmed by the Senate.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Preserving Social Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 656
Jul 18, 2007
Shadegg of Arizona amendment that would cut the Innovation and Improvement account by $11 million/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by John Shadegg, R-Ariz., that would cut the underlying bill's Innovation and Improvement account by $11 million. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

Shadegg said his amendment would cut funding for the Advanced Credentialing Program, which was created in 1991 to help the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, a private body, establish teacher credentialing standards.  Shadegg said that was an appropriate thing to do, but that now their task is done.

"The [group has] received more than $180 million from the Department of Education since 1991. These Federal funds supported the development and implementation of the certification standards and assessments in 24 different academic fields. That task has now been completed," Shadegg said.

David Obey, D-Wis., said the program goes beyond just establishing credentialing standard; it helps train teachers on these standards, who go back to their districts and pass on their knowledge to their peers.

"This is a program which helps teach trainers to go through rigorous certification processes. They are star teachers. They go back to their school districts, they become lead teachers in their schools, and I hardly think that that is damaging the national interest," Obey said.  "It inspires deeper learning. It improves teacher practice. It creates transformative professional development, and it helps these schools to retain teachers."

By a vote of 116-309, the amendment was rejected. Every Democrat present voted against the amendment.  Of Republicans present, 116 voted for the amendment and 83 voted against the amendment.  The end result is that the bill went forward with funding for the Advanced Credentialing Program intact.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 655
Jul 18, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Foxx of North Carolina amendment that would increase special education grants while eliminating funding for ?full service community schools?/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., that would increase by $10 million educational grants for individuals with disabilities, and would pay for the increase by cutting the same amount of money from the Innovation and Improvement account.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

Foxx said her amendment would essentially cancel a new grant program the underlying bill would create.  The grant program in the bill is for "full-service community schools," which provide students and their family with "community access to comprehensive services" such as nutrition, job training, health and dental care and other items.

"I am concerned we are moving schools away from focusing on the basics, academics. Our schools still have room for much improvement in ensuring all students are proficient in the basics of math, reading, writing, science and history. So why is the Federal Government sending money to turn schools into social, medical, educational job training hubs?" Foxx said.

David Obey, D-Wis., said the program is a modest one that is intended to help test the concept of making a school into a community center that includes academic enrichment activities as well as encouraging familial participation in a child's education. 

"It's meant to be a much more holistic educational experience than is usually found in an individual school. We believe that that deserves an opportunity to be tested," Obey said.  "Secondly, I would simply say that, lest this amendment be portrayed as an amendment that does anything significant for special education, I want to point out that this is an especially marginal amendment. The damage it does to the neighborhood school concept that we are trying to explore in the bill is far larger than the negligible impact that it has on the special education program."

The amendment was rejected by a vote of 186-241.  All but one Democrat present voted against the amendment (Nancy Boyda of Kansas).  Of Republicans present, 185 voted for the amendment and 13 voted against it.  The end result is that the amendment that would have shifted $10 million from a new community schooling grant program to special education funding was defeated.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 653
Jul 18, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Price of Georgia amendment that would increase teacher incentives funding by $21 million/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Tom Price, R-Ga., that would increase the Teacher Incentive Fund by $21 million, paid for by reducing Teacher Quality States Grants by an equal amount.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

The Teacher Incentive Fund allows states and school districts to apply for federal grants to develop and implement performance-based compensation for teachers and principals. 

"With the Teacher Incentive Fund, educators who improve student achievement in the classroom are provided with financial rewards such as bonuses and increasing salaries," Price said.  "This money can be directly given to local districts to create compensation systems and therefore recruit and reward outstanding teachers. Nothing wrong with rewarding the best and brightest when it comes to educating our children."

David Obey, D-Wis., said he was "confused" by the amendment.

"What this amendment would do is it would take the dollars in question out of a program which provides aid to all States in the Union and instead reserve that money for use in just the few States who have bought into the approach that is supported by" Price, Obey said.  "One of my favorite quotations is from Eric Sevareid, who used to be on CBS News a few years ago, and he said, 'It is important to maintain the courage of one's doubts in an age of dangerous certainties.' And I have to say that I have a lot of doubts about what is the most effective way to teach children. I don't think I have all the answers. I don't think this House has all the answers. So I don't think we ought to be dictating to States what answers they seek in their teacher quality programs."

By a vote of 149-247, the amendment was rejected. All but three Democrats present voted against the amendment.  Of Republicans present, 146 voted for the amendment and 52 voted against it.  The end result is that an amendment that would have shifted $21 million from Teacher Quality States Grants to the Teacher Incentive Fund was defeated.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 650
Jul 18, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Graves of Missouri amendment that would increase funding for individuals with disabilities/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Sam Graves, R-Mo., that would increase special education funding for those with disabilities by $125 million, and would pay for that increase by cutting the same amount of money from the National Institutes of Health's global AIDS fund. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the Labor, Health and Education departments in fiscal 2008.

"My amendment helps us fulfill our commitment to funding special education while also providing a small increase in funding to the Global Fund as was provided last year. I don't take this money from any domestic program. These funds are dedicated to an overseas program, and they still see a $1 million increase over last year," Graves said.  "My amendment sets the right priorities for our Nation's children with special needs."

David Obey, D-Wis., said cutting global AIDS funding would "undercut out standing yet again in the world."  He also argued that the bill strikes a good balance between competing needs already.

"You and I are very lucky human beings. Our souls were, thanks to God, infused in a body that lives in the United States. If they had been infused in a body that was born in Africa or in Asia or in some of the other hot spots in the world in terms of these diseases, I think we would take a look at this issue in a quite different way.  This program provides the only real leadership in the world to attack this program."

By a vote of 203-224, the amendment was rejected. Of Democrats present, 17 voted for the amendment and 211 voted against it.  Of Republicans present, 186 voted for the amendment and 13 voted against it.  The end result is an amendment that would have boosted special education funding by cutting global AIDS funding was defeated.


HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, International
N N Won
Roll Call 649
Jul 18, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health, Education spending) Barton of Texas amendment that would change the distribution formula for HIV/AIDS funding/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Joe Barton, R-Texas, that would remove language in the bill prohibiting funding under the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program from being reduced more than between 8.4 percent and 13.4 percent depending on the geographic area. The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008.

Barton said he was one of the lawmakers who helped broker the last reauthorization of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program, which distributed funding partially based on where AIDS was proliferating.  In other words, areas where the numbers of AIDS infections were growing would receive more funding.  The underlying bill changes the formulas to prevent certain areas from automatically receiving less funding when their rates of AIDS infections decline.  Barton?s amendment would remove that provision, allowing the original formulas ? which would take money away from some areas -- to take effect.

?What we were trying to do was make more funds available to those areas of the country where the epidemic was still prevalent and growing, and less funds on a discretionary basis where the epidemic had once been centered but was now thankfully not as prevalent. The pending bill before us changes that formula,? Barton said.  ?The effect of the pending legislation that I am attempting to strike, if we don?t strike it, two cities will benefit, Newark, New Jersey, and San Francisco, California. Every other city that currently receives AIDS funding and HIV funding will be disproportionately disadvantaged.?

Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., said AIDS continues to be the second-leading cause of premature death in the San Francisco Bay area.  She said the numbers would be even worse were it not for the improved treatments made possible by programs such as the one under consideration. 

?Therefore, it is not the right time for the people in the San Francisco-Bay Area to have any cuts in their AIDS/HIV programs, because it is starting to work but it isn?t working well enough,? Woolsey said.  ?This amendment will recklessly and irresponsibly put the lives of many of our constituents at risk. The very idea truly astounds me, the very idea that these lifesaving programs would be cut, that there would even be an offer to cut them while we are spending $10 billion a month to occupy Iraq just is beyond my comprehension.

The amendment was rejected by a vote of 196-230.  Of Republicans present, 186 voted for the amendment and 12 voted against it.  Of Democrats present, 10 voted for the amendment and 218 voted against it.  The end result is that the bill went forward with its language intact ensuring that funding for the Ryan White AIDS program would not drop below certain levels in certain geographic areas.


HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, Domestic
N N Won
Roll Call 648
Jul 18, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health, Education spending) Jindal of Louisiana amendment that would modify funding for nursing retention and education/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Bobby Jindal, R-La., that would increase funding for nursing retention and education by $37 million, and then immediately decrease it by the same amount.   The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008.

Jindal said because his amendment would boost funding and then immediately rescind it, it would have no net effect. ?It?s more to indicate an intent,? he said.


Jindal said that today the average age for a nurse is nearly 47, and that once those nurses begin retiring, the nursing shortage America already experiences will only increase.  ?The number of full-time nursing faculty required to fill this nursing gap is approximately 40,000. Currently, however, there are less than 17,000 full-time nursing faculty in the system,? Jindal said.


David Obey, D-Wis., said the amendment ?doesn?t do nothing to nobody, and it doesn?t do nothing for somebody.?


?The fact is that it pretends to move $37 million out of this account, and then it puts $37 million back into this account and pretends that something has been accomplished.  There is no congressional direction that I know of that?s being accomplished by this amendment. There is no consensus about what it does. It makes no changes in either the bill or the report. As a practical matter, it doesn?t do anything except let somebody pretend that they have just done something for nurses? education,? Obey said.


The amendment was rejected by a vote of 207-217.  All but nine Republicans present voted for the amendment.  Of Democrats present, 18 voted for the amendment and 208 voted against it.  The end result is that the measure went forward without an amendment that would have increased nursing funding and immediately decreased funding by the same amount.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 647
Jul 18, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor-Health-Education spending) Stearns of Florida amendment that would increase funding for certain educational programs by reducing grants to AmeriCorps/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., that would boost funding for the TRIO Talent Search and Upward Bound programs and geriatric education programs, both by $12 million.  It would pay for this by decreasing, by an equal amount, funding for grants to AmeriCorps.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008.

Stearns said the AmeriCorps program ? a national public service program where members perform jobs ranging from education to environmental cleanup ? has done a great job, and pointed out that the amount of money his amendment would take from its budget is small in comparison.  He said the TRIO programs are aimed at low-income, first-generation immigrant college students and that the country should do a better job at supporting them.
?TRIO is critical to our Nation?s commitment to advance educational opportunities at our colleges and universities and, as a result, obviously our Nation?s economic future,? Stearns said.  ?Also across many districts like mine there are geriatric programs. Included in these programs are educational centers which provide crucial physician, dental and mental health training programs for the care of our seniors.?

By a vote of 182-242, the amendment was rejected.  All but 10 Democrats present voted against the amendment.  Of Republicans present, 172 voted for the amendment and 25 voted against it.  The end result is that the amendment that would have reduced AmeriCorps funding and increased funding for immigrant college students and the elderly was defeated.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 646
Jul 17, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health, Education spending) Sessions of Texas amendment that would allow more federal jobs to be considered for outsourcing/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., that would have allowed the federal government to consider outsourcing more federal workers in the departments of Labor, Health and Education.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008.  The underlying bill contains a provision that prohibits such outsourcing pending a review by the Government Accountability Office; Sessions? amendment would have lifted that prohibition.

?While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to private sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend on their core missions when Congress takes the opportunity to use competition away from them,? Sessions said.  ?In this time of stretched budgets and bloated spending, Congress should be looking to use all of the tools it can to find taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of services that are already being provided by thousands of hardworking companies nationwide.?

David Obey, D-Wis., said there are indications that other efforts at allowing government jobs to be outsourced has not been as effective as predicted, and as a result expanding the pool of outsourced jobs has been suspended pending a review.

?Now, aside from questions about the lack of compelling evidence of cost savings or increased efficiency, there is concern about the fact that the Department is not taking proper care to assure that functions that ought to be considered inherently governmental or are otherwise unsuitable for contracting performance are excluded from these competitions,? Obey said.  ?The gentleman says that it is labor bosses who are concerned about this. The last time I looked, this was having a disproportionate impact on women and on minority workers, and we are asking the GAO to assess the impact on them.?

The amendment was rejected by a vote of 173-251.  Every Democrat present voted against the amendment.  Of Republicans present, 173 voted for the amendment and 23 voted against it.  The end result is that the bill went forward with its prohibition against expanding the outsourcing of federal jobs intact.


LABOR RIGHTS Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Won
Roll Call 645
Jul 17, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health, Education spending) Jindal of Louisiana amendment that would increase funding for the Centers for Disease Control by cutting funding for a Labor Department program/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Bobby Jindal, R-La., that would increase funding by $50 million for the Centers for Disease Control?s division dedicated to eliminating tuberculois.  It would pay for this increase by reducing the Bureau of International Labor Affairs by an equal amount.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008.

Jindal said boosting funding for tuberculoisis eradication is vital, considering that in 2006 more than 20 states reported increased cases of tuberculosis exposure.

?My home State of Louisiana, as well as most other States, have a large number of workers who travel the globe to share their expertise. Unlike tourists who stay in hotels in environments where TB exposure does not normally occur, Louisiana?s oil and gas workers spend months working and living in environments among the local population where exposure can and does occur. TB exposure in these communities can result in many fatalities,? Jindal said.

David Obey, D-Wis., said he thinks the Centers for Disease Control?s tuberculosis eradication program is a more than worthy cause, but that he cannot support increasing funding for it to the detriment of other important programs.

?My problem with this amendment is, while it seeks funds for a very worthy cause, in the process it takes away crucial funds for many other worthy causes. And sooner or later, even in the Congress of the United States, we need to think about the needs of the whole. We need to think about all of the needs that the government has to deal with, not just one concern of one Member or one concern of another,? Obey said.  ?So in the interest of responsibility, I would urge a, very regretfully, defeat of the gentleman?s amendment.?

By a vote of 183-243, the amendment was rejected.  Of Democrats present, 19 voted for the amendment and 210 voted against it.  Of Republicans present, 164 voted for the amendment and 33 voted against it.  The end result is that an amendment that would have bolstered tuberculosis funding by cutting funding for the Labor Department was defeated.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
N N Won
Roll Call 644
Jul 17, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health, Education spending) Marchant of Texas amendment that would reduce funding for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Kenny Marchant, R-Texas, that would reduce funding for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs by $58 million.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008.

The Bureau of International Labor Affairs helps promote U.S. labor policies overseas, including promoting safe, stable, economically secure work environments where the rights of women and children are respected.

Marchant said his amendment would reduce funding for the agency to the level that President Bush requested.

?The bureau was originally responsible for the Department of Labor?s overseas research projects and international labor workers? rights, primarily research and advocacy. However, in recent years the bureau has taken on grant-making activities. The bureau?s grant assistance is already provided for by the Department of State, and this amendment would restructure the bureau?s activities to advocacy and research only,? Marchant said.

David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said one of the benefits of this agency is that it helps bolster working conditions overseas, so that U.S. workers do not have to compete with the kind of prices for consumer goods that can only result from abusive labor practices.

?The purpose of this International Labor Organization is to serve as the one agency that serves as a red flag when our workers? wages are being undercut unfairly,? Obey said.  ?If you really are comfortable with the idea of just letting the wonders of the world market determine what wages are for American workers, if you are really comfortable with the idea of letting substandard wages and substandard working conditions undercut legitimate American workers? interests, then by all means vote for the gentleman?s amendment,? Obey said.

The amendment was rejected by a vote of 149-277.  All but one Democrat voted against the amendment (Gene Taylor of Mississippi).  Of Republicans present, 148 voted for the amendment and 49 voted against it.  The end result is that the bill went forward with funding for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs intact.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
N N Won
Roll Call 643
Jul 17, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health, Education spending) Platts of Pennsylvania amendment that would increase funding for the Even Start program and reduce funding for other programs/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Todd Platts, R-Pa., that would increase funding by $50 million for the Education Department?s Even Start program.  It also would reduce funding by $28 million for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $11 million for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, $11 million for administrative expenses of the Administration on Aging, and $900,000 from the Education Department?s management account.  The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008.

Platts said his amendment would provide much needed funding to the Even Start program, which helps boost literacy for children and their parents as well.

?Literacy skills are the cornerstone of our education system. I think that we can all agree that students who struggle with reading face challenges in all subject areas in school.  Unfortunately, children of parents who themselves have difficulty reading English are even more likely to perform at low literacy levels,? Platts said.  ?Through this program parents receive the necessary skills to become a teacher to their children and to improve their lives.?

David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the Even Start program is laudable and that he supports it.  He also noted that President Bush tried to eliminate the program in his budget request for fiscal 2008.  ?But I cannot support the idea of adding the additional money the gentleman proposes because he takes it from a very damaging place,? Obey said.

He said the Bureau of Labor Statistics puts out the Consumer Price Index, which is a very important statistic for quantifying the economy?s health, and for that reason alone he opposed the amendment.

The amendment was rejected by a vote of 174-250.  Of Republicans present, 150 voted for the amendment and 45 voted against it.  Of Democrats present, 24 voted for the amendment and 205 voted against it.  The end result is that the amendment that would have boosted Even Start funding and reduced funding for certain Labor Department programs was rejected.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
N N Won
Roll Call 642
Jul 17, 2007
HR 3043. (Fiscal 2008 labor, health, education spending) Kline of Minnesota amendment that would increase employment standards funding/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by John Kline, R-Minn., that would boost funding for the Labor Department?s Office of Labor and Management Standards (OLMS)  by $2 million and reduce funding for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs by $3 million.  OLMS was created in 1959 to enforce the provisions of the law that ensures that labor unions adhere to ?basic standards of democracy and fiscal responsibility.?

The amendment was offered to the bill that funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in fiscal 2008.

Kline said without his amendment, OLMS will have to cut its staff and that this could hurt labor union memers who want to know how their union dues are being spent.

?Rank-and-file union members deserve the right to know how their unions were spending and investing their members? dues money; that their unions? books were clean; and that elections for union officers would be fair and free of intimidation or scandal,? Kline said.  ?OLMS functions like the Securities and Exchange Commission for labor unions.?

David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said that OLMS has had its staff increased by 25 percent over the past four years, and that it is hardly being starved.

?So it seems to me that what the gentleman?s amendment does is to enrich the one portion of the Labor Department which has been doing very well, thank you, and they have been doing very well while other portions of the Labor Department that are supposed to focus on protecting workers have, in fact, been starved,? Obey said.

By a vote of 186-237, the amendment was rejected.  All but eight Democrats present voted for the amendment.  Of Republicans present, 178 voted for the amendment and 16 voted against it.  The end result is that the bill went forward without language that would have boosted money for forcing labor unions to disclose finances and trimmed money for international labor affairs.

 


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 641
Jul 17, 2007
HR 2641. (Fiscal 2008 Energy and water spending) On passing a bill to fund energy and water projects in fiscal 2008/On passing the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on passing a $31.6 billion bill that would fund energy and water development projects, including those at the Energy Department, Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers.  This sum includes funding for hundreds of water and wastewater infrastructure projects, as well as those related to locks, dams and inland waterways.

The measure would also appropriate $8.8 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration and $494.5 million for a controversial proposed nuclear waste dump at Nevada?s Yucca Mountain. 

The bill also includes more than $1 billion in various water projects requested by members of Congress (often referred to as ?earmarks?).  Most of the debate time on this bill was absorbed by Republicans? unsuccessful attempts to curb or, in one case, completely erase, the earmarks in the measure. 

?When I see a group of earmarks that are going to institutions in Members? districts, and I reflect upon the fact that we are now on a collision course to either double taxes on the next generation, or, for all intents and purposes, have no Federal Government, save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, we have got to start saving the pennies. When we start saving the pennies, eventually, the dollars will take care of themselves,? said Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, in a comment that was typical of the debate.

Republicans mostly agreed with Hensarling, but some defended the practice of allowing members to set aside money for projects beneficial to their districts, and noted that the White House itself often makes its own earmark requests.

?I think this is a well done bill. I think the earmarks are essential to Congress doing its oversight. I wish, frankly, we could work better with the administration on their earmarks. We don?t know what they?re going to do. They don?t come and talk to us. Even in the hearings, we have no idea where they?re going to spend all their money on the projects they want,? said David Hobson, R-Ohio. 

By a vote of 312-112, the House passed the bill.  All but one Democrat present voted for the bill (Shelley Berkley of Nevada).  Of Republicans present, 86 voted for the bill and 111 voted against it.  The end result is that the House passed a bill that would provide $31.6 billion for energy and water projects in fiscal 2008.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Infrastructure Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 635
Jul 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1 Implementing the 9/11Commission Recommendations Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 634
Jul 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 547 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 628
Jul 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1851 Section 8 Voucher Reform Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Lost
Roll Call 627
Jul 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1851
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 626
Jul 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1851
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 625
Jul 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1851
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 624
Jul 12, 2007
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, requiring a pullout of ground troops from Iraq by April 2008 (H.R. 2956)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on final passage of a bill to require a pullout of combat troops from Iraq by April 2008.

Democrats justified the legislation on the grounds that it was past time for a timetable to bring the troops home, and that President Bush's strategy was clearly not working, creating only further strife in an already ware-torn country.

"We need a responsible redeployment. This legislation gives it to us. It states that the Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of armed forces in that country beginning not later than 120 days after the date of enactment," said Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.). The measure would further require that troop levels be reduced to a limited presence defined in the bill by April 2008.

"The question before us, are we, as a country, any safer now than we were when we went into Iraq in March of 2003? What has it done for the security of our country?" Skelton continued.

Republicans called the plan defeatist, lacking in vision and without a strategy for success.

"This is an attempt once again to stampede a retreat from Iraq, and it is a gratuitous attempt to do this," said Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). "There is no reason, only three-and-one-half weeks after the surge of troops has been put in place, to now race for the borders, to demand that the president start to wind up this operation and start to leave, especially when General Petraeus will be making recommendations to us on September 15."

Hunter and other Republicans disputed Democratic assertions that progress was not being made in the country and repeated President Bush's calls for patience. Democrats said they had been patient enough.

The bill passed by a vote of 223 to 201. Four Republicans joined all but ten Democrats in voting for the measure, and legislation to require a pullout of combat forces from Iraq by April 2008 received the House's approval. The measure faced uncertain prospects in the Senate, and President Bush promised to veto it regardless.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 623
Jul 12, 2007
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, requiring a pullout of ground troops from Iraq by April 2008 (H.R. 2956)/On tabling an appeal of the ruling of the chair

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote with strong undertones about the role the war in Iraq is playing in the larger so-called war on terror. It came up during debate on a bill that would pull combat troops out of Iraq by April 2008.

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) had proposed a motion to recommit with instructions - a move to send the bill to the Intelligence Committee with language amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow electronic surveillance of "a particular known person who is reasonably believed to be in the United States under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes." Basically, Wilson's motion would have amended the bill to allow warrant-less electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists within the United States.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) objected on the grounds that Wilson's amendment was not germane (relevant) to the bill, making a parliamentary move known as a point of order.

Wilson responded that "intelligence is the first line of defense in the war on terror, and we are now knowingly operating with our fingers in our ears and our hands over our eyes."

Skelton objected on the grounds that Wilson wasn't addressing the substance of his point of order. At which point the Speaker Pro Tempore (a Democratic appointee of the Speaker to oversee House debate) agreed with Skelton that Wilson's remarks were not "confined to the point of order at issue before this House," and gave her one last chance to address the substance of the point of order, that is, whether her amendment was relevant to the bill.

Without mentioning Iraq, Wilson then started talking about national security and stated that everyone remembered "where we were on the morning of 9/11."

"The reality is that this underlying bill deals with an issue of national security vital to this country, and the most important vital issue that this body must deal with today is to make sure we have the ability to listen to our enemies," Wilson continued, adding, "That is the first line of defense in the war on terror, and that is what we are willfully ignoring."

At which point the Speaker Pro Tem ruled that Wilson's amendment was not germane to the bill, citing as evidence that her motion to recommit would have sent the bill to the Intelligence Committee, rather than the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees that originally referred it to the House floor.

"One of the central tenets of the germaneness rule is that an amendment should be within the jurisdiction of the committees whose jurisdiction is reflected in the bill," added the Speaker Pro Tem.

Wilson then appealed the ruling of the chair, and Skelton moved to table (kill) her appeal. This vote was on Skelton's motion to table.

On an almost complete party-line vote, the House moved to table Wilson's appeal. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition, and only two Democrats defected and voted against the motion to table. Thus, by a vote of 224 to 197, the House tabled a motion to overrule the chair that an amendment to allow warrant-less electronic surveillance of persons in the United States was not sufficiently relevant to allow consideration of attaching to a bill to require combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by April 2008, and the bill moved toward a vote without the provision.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 621
Jul 12, 2007
H. Res. 533, Providing for consideration of legislation requiring a pullout of ground troops from Iraq by April 2008 (H.R. 2956)/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on a resolution outlining the rules for consideration of a bill requiring a pullout of combat troops from Iraq by April 2008.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule" and allowed for no amendments.

"The House of Representatives today should be prepared to engage in a free and fair debate regarding all of the potential options for the future conduct of combat operations and diplomatic initiatives in Iraq and the broader Middle East," said Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.). Instead, English said, the Democratic-dominated Rules Committee proposed rules for debate that didn't allow any amendments. He added that the legislation could have served as a starting point, but the Democrats had demonstrated that "their motivations are, at core, political."

"The people who bring this rule to the floor today do not allow amendments because they're afraid. They're afraid that some of these amendments might prevail. They're afraid that, given viable alternatives, some Members of their own party will choose cooperation over confrontation," English continued.

Democrats countered that enough was enough with the failed strategy in Iraq, and it was time to make changes, and that they were running the House in much the way Republicans did when they were in power.

"What Democrats are calling for today is not a retreat. It is not a surrender. It is a statement that Congress will not wait for another ambiguous so-called progress report and will not give the administration another chance to move the goalposts," said Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.). "Instead, we will refuse to needlessly sacrifice our soldiers, weaken our military, undermine our national security, and bleed our country in ways that even the worst terrorists could ever dream of. And it is a statement to the Iraqi people that they will no longer have to live as dual victims: victims of violence and victims of a flawed military strategy that is at best failing to bring peace to the country and at worst perpetuating their suffering."

Republicans were unanimous in their opposition to the resolution. Five Democrats crossed party lines and voted against it, as well. But even with defections among their own ranks, the majority Democrats still had the votes to pass the rules package. Thus, by a vote of 221 to 196, the House passed rules outlining debate for a bill that would require a pullout of combat troops from Iraq by April 2008, paving the way for the bill to come to the floor for a final vote.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 620
Jul 12, 2007
H. Res. 533, Providing for consideration of legislation requiring a pullout of combat troops from Iraq by April 2008 (H.R. 2956)/On ordering the previous question

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for consideration of a bill requiring a pullout of combat troops from Iraq by April 2008.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule" and allowed for no amendments.

"It has actually been several weeks now since we have had a meaningless vote on the issue of Iraq, and so I suppose we are overdue for another one," said Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.). "And knowing that their proposal cannot withstand any critical scrutiny, they have once again shut down the process and brought this to us under a completely closed rule, not allowing any of the very thoughtful proposed alternatives to be considered whatsoever."

Dreier brought an amendment to the Rules Committee that would have substituted the Democrat-drafted bill with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel created by Congress to study the war strategy and progress.

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) responded to Democrats' claims that they were running the House much as the Republicans had when they were in power. "That is about the most insignificant and meaningless statement [they] could make, because Democrats are now in charge, and they are in charge in part because of the war in Iraq and because they promised to be different and have open debate and allow us all to say what we needed to say and from that find consensus."

Democrats said it was time to stop debating and reign in the war.

"The war in Iraq is breaking the back of our military. It is causing severe damage to the federal budget to the tune of $10 billion each month, and causing grave harm to the future fiscal health of our nation," Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) "And while President Bush keeps scorning deadlines and promising breakthroughs that never come, it is clear that he lacks the vision, the wisdom or the courage to chart a new course. It is frighteningly clear that the President plans, instead, to stay the course and dump this mess on the next President. It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and change direction in Iraq."

This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present but one (Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina) voted against the motion and all Democrats present but three (Reps. John Barrow and Jim Marshall of Georgia and Christopher Carney of Pennsylvania) voted for it, and the motion passed 225 to 197. Thus, a resolution outlining the rules for debate for a bill to pull combat troops out of Iraq by April 2008 overcame a parliamentary hurdle and came one step from adoption.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 616
Jul 11, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1337 To provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities served by the District
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 615
Jul 11, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 986 Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 613
Jul 11, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2669 College Cost Reduction Act of 2007
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 612
Jul 11, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2669 College Cost Reduction Act of 2007
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 611
Jul 11, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2669
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 610
Jul 11, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 1701 To provide for the extension of transitional medical assistance (TMA) and the abstinence education program through the end of fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Won
Roll Call 608
Jul 11, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 531 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 607
Jul 11, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 531 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 606
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2829 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations for FY 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 605
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2829 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations for FY 2008
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 604
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 603
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 602
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 601
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 600
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 599
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 598
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 596
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 595
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 594
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 592
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 589
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 588
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 587
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 586
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 585
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 584
Jun 28, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2829
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 582
Jun 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, As Amended: H RES 517 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2829, Financial Services Appropriations, FY 2008
On Agreeing to the Resolution, As Amended

Y Y Won
Roll Call 581
Jun 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 517
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 579
Jun 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2643 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 578
Jun 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2643 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2008
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 577
Jun 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 54 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 576
Jun 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 58 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 574
Jun 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 54 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 573
Jun 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 53 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 572
Jun 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 50 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 571
Jun 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 49 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 570
Jun 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 567
Jun 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 565
Jun 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 564
Jun 27, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 563
Jun 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 561
Jun 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 558
Jun 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 557
Jun 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 556
Jun 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 555
Jun 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 554
Jun 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 553
Jun 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 552
Jun 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 551
Jun 26, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2643
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 548
Jun 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2771 Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 547
Jun 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2771 Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY 2008
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 546
Jun 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2771
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 545
Jun 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2771
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 544
Jun 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 502 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2771, Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY 2008
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 543
Jun 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 502 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2771, Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY 2008
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 542
Jun 21, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2764 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations for FY 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 539
Jun 21, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 2764
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 538
Jun 21, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 2764
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 537
Jun 21, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 2764
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 536
Jun 21, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 2764
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 534
Jun 21, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2764
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 533
Jun 21, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2764
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 532
Jun 21, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2764
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 531
Jun 21, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2764
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 530
Jun 21, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2764
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 528
Jun 21, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2764
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 527
Jun 21, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2764
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 526
Jun 20, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 525
Jun 20, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 524
Jun 20, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 523
Jun 20, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 522
Jun 20, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 521
Jun 20, 2007
HR 2641 (Fiscal 2008 Energy and Water appropriations), Bishop of New York amendment to block the establishment of a floating liquid natural gas facility in Long Island Sound/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill funding energy and water programs, introduced by Tim Bishop, D-N.Y. Bishop?s amendment would prohibit the establishment of a floating liquid natural gas facility planned for the middle of New York?s Long Island Sound, which has about 28 million people living within 50 miles of the water. It would effectively short-circuit the facility?s progress by directing the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (FERC) to stop considering its application.

Bishop, whose district encompasses most of the Long Island area, said he does not want the project to go forward because of ?serious and debilitating environmental impacts? associated with the facility, which would be used to process liquefied natural gas. Bishop also cited safety and security concerns. ?Even the Coast Guard, which would be charged with securing this facility, has indicated that a much more full public discussion needs to take place in order to determine who is going to provide that security and who will fund it,? Bishop said.

Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who supported the amendment, said the facility would be roughly the size of the Queen Mary 2 (an enormous oceanliner), and sit just 10 miles off the coast of Connecticut, and 9 miles off the coast of Long Island. The facility would also require the construction of a 25-mile pipeline in the middle of what DeLauro called prime territory for fishing and lobstering, placing that area off-limits to those who make their living by fishing.

On the other side are business and other interests who argue that the Long Island area has an enormous appetite for energy that could be partially satisfied by natural gas, a relatively clean-burning and efficient fuel. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind.,said FERC should be allowed to continue examining the proposed facility?s application, instead of stopping it cold through legislation. ?FERC?s consideration of applications to site energy facilities does not imply that the applications will be granted, or if granted, will not require appropriate environmental protection measures. Moreover, all FERC authorizations are subject to judicial review,? Visclosky said.

And Gene Green, D-Texas (a state heavily invested in the petrochemical industry) opposed the amendment, saying building more liquefied natural gas facilities can help ease America?s dependence on foreign sources of energy. ?Here in America we only have two options to increase our supply of natural gas to meet our energy needs ? we can build more LNG import plants and we can produce more gas offshore. There is no alternative to natural gas in many cases,? Green said.

The House voted 285-146 to defeat the amendment. Republicans were largely united in their vote against the amendment, but Democrats split, with 94 voting against the Progressive position.  Thus, the bill went forward without language that would have delayed a proposed liquid natural gas facility in Long Island Sound.


ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 520
Jun 20, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 519
Jun 20, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 517
Jun 20, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 516
Jun 20, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 511
Jun 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Won
Roll Call 510
Jun 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 509
Jun 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 508
Jun 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 507
Jun 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 506
Jun 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 504
Jun 19, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2641
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 496
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2642
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 495
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2642
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 494
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2642
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 492
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2642
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 491
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 490
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 489
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 488
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 46 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 487
Jun 15, 2007
HR 2638. (Fiscal 2008 Homeland Security appropriations), Forbes of Virginia amendment that would prevent the Homeland Security Department from allowing certain immigrants to stay inside the United States beyond the period initially granted/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment by Randy Forbes, R-Va., that would prevent the Homeland Security Department from extending the duration of time immigrants from countries in crisis can remain in the U.S. without being deported.

The agency is able to grant ?temporary protected status? (TPS) to immigrants from certain countries ? particularly those experiencing a crisis, such as a hurricane ? for 18 months. The agency may extend that status by adding another 18 months at its discretion. There is no cap on how many times the protected status may be extended. Forbes? amendment would remove the agency?s ability to extend the protected status beyond its initial 18 months.

Forbes argued that some countries have had their status extended for decades, and that calling the protected status ?temporary? is misguided. He also said many of the immigrants protected from deportation by this designation are in the U.S. illegally, and include violent gang members. Further, Forbes said the open-ended nature of the extensions has created ?a de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants from certain Central American countries.? Forbes opposes proposals to provide illegal immigrants with ?amnesty,? where instead of being prosecuted and deported for living in the United States illegally, they would be allowed to apply for green cards and, eventually, U.S. citizenship.

?TPS is being used to grant long-time residence, a perpetual amnesty, to illegal immigrants of certain favored nationalities. This amendment will return TPS to its original intent of providing temporary refuge during temporary periods of crisis,? Forbes said.

David Price, D-N.C., said he opposed the amendment in the ?strongest possible terms? because it is designed to protect citizens of countries ?with severe hardships: civil wars, massive natural disasters, humanitarian crises, some of those troubled places in the world where people are fleeing absolutely horrendous conditions.? Price said more than 4,000 people, from war-torn countries like the Sudan, could be deported if their temporary protected status were revoked.

Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., said immigrants with temporary protected status should not be viewed as illegal immigrants. ?They?re here legally.  They?re here because this Congress, this administration and other administrations, have seen fit to give them this protection. They?re here because they can?t go back home,? Serrano said.

The House defeated the amendment, 298-123, a victory for Democrats, with some 79 Republicans taking their side.  Thus the bill  went forward without language removing the Homeland Security Department?s ability to indefinitely extend temporary protected status to certain immigrants.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Immigration Law Reform
N N Won
Roll Call 486
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 485
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 43 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 481
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 480
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 479
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 478
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 477
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 476
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 474
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 473
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 472
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 471
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 470
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 469
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 468
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 467
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 466
Jun 15, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 464
Jun 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008
On Motion that the Committee Rise

N N Won
Roll Call 463
Jun 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008
On Motion that the Committee Rise

N N Won
Roll Call 462
Jun 12, 2007
Procedural motion to declare consideration of the fiscal 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 2638) completed/On motion that the committee rise

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a procedural motion that the House ?rise? and report as completed a bill the House had been debating (in this case, the bill that funds the Homeland Security Department ? HR 2638). Generally, these are non-controversial, routine motions that pass by voice vote once the House is finished with a bill. However, sometimes the minority party (in this case, the Republicans) calls up these motions prematurely, before a bill is actually finished, and then forces roll call votes on them as a way to express displeasure or delay progress, as was the case with this party-line vote.

Unhappy with a Democratic announcement that appropriations bills would not contain any earmarks (typically money allocated to pet projects requested by individual members of Congress) until the bills reached the conference committee stage (where the House and Senate meet to reconcile their differing bills), Republicans forced numerous votes on meaningless motions and employed parliamentary maneuvers that kept the House tied up into the wee hours of the night over a series of days. This vote came toward the end of the third evening, after a particularly testy exchange between House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., and Spencer Bachus, R-Ala.

?We?ve already been told there will be earmarks added to the appropriation bill, but it won?t be until all the bills are passed that they?ll go to conference, and a few select members, representing probably 10 percent of the American people, they will add the earmarks. The American people will not ever know what these earmarks are until they?re passed into law,? Bachus asid.

Obey interrupted Bachus.  ?We keep hearing this mythical, robotic claim from the other side of the aisle that somehow these earmarks are going to be dropped in in conference,? Obey said.

Obey said a list of every earmark would be filed within the next two months, and that members would have 30 days in which to review and comment on them before the bills are signed into law.  Obey also pointed out that Republicans are no strangers to this practice, having done something similar between 1998 and 2005. ?They did not have any earmarks in the Labor-Health-Education bill until the bill was in conference. The only difference was those earmarks were never reviewed ahead of time. These will be. Those earmarks were never in public view. These will be,? Obey said.

By a party line vote of 216-188, the House defeated the procedural motion that would have declared the bill?s consideration completed, a victory for Democrats. Thus, the House continued to debate the bill funding homeland security-related programs in fiscal 2008.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Won
Roll Call 461
Jun 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008
On Motion that the Committee Rise

N N Won
Roll Call 460
Jun 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008
On Motion that the Committee Rise

N N Won
Roll Call 459
Jun 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008
On Motion that the Committee Rise

N N Won
Roll Call 458
Jun 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2638 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008
On Motion that the Committee Rise

N N Won
Roll Call 455
Jun 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 454
Jun 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 453
Jun 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2638
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 451
Jun 12, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 473 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2638, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2008
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 447
Jun 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 65 Lumbee Recognition Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 446
Jun 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 65 Lumbee Recognition Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 445
Jun 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 465 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 65) to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 444
Jun 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 465 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 65) to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 443
Jun 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 5 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 442
Jun 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Commit with Instructions: S 5 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act
On Motion to Commit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 441
Jun 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 464 Providing for consideration of S. 5, to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 440
Jun 07, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 464 Providing for consideration of S. 5, to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 439
Jun 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 2560 Human Cloning Prohibition Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 437
Jun 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2446 Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Lost
Roll Call 436
Jun 06, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2446
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 431
Jun 06, 2007
H Res 453. A rule providing for consideration of a bill (HR 2446) that would provide aid to Afghanistan/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the vote on passing a resolution outlining the rules for House floor consideration of a bill (HR 2446) that would allocate $6.4 billion in aid to Afghanistan.

These types of resolutions ? drafted by the powerful House Rules Committee ? are tools the majority party (in this case, the Democrats) uses to control floor consideration of potentially contentious bills. These resolutions typically impose time limits on floor debate and enforce strict limits on exactly which amendments may be offered and which may not.

Similarly, debate over these resolutions typically centers around the minority party?s concerns that the process for floor consideration is too restrictive and doesn?t allow for enough amendments to be offered. Debate over this resolution was no different. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Florida, complained that the rule was ?structured,? which restricts amendments to a list of ones approved by the committee, rather than ?open,? which would allow anyone to offer any amendment.

?Our friends on the other side of the aisle, again, the majority had another opportunity yesterday in the Rules Committee to open the process and come forth with an open rule,? Diaz-Balart said. He also took a shot at Democrats by reminding them that many of them ?promised during the campaign that they were going to bring a significant amount, as many as possible, of bills to the floor under open rules.?

Jim McGovern, D-Mass., who chairs the Rules Committee, said every amendment brought before his committee will be allowed. ?We bring to the floor today [a rule] that makes every single amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee and not withdrawn by its author in order. Every Republican amendment, every Democratic amendment,? McGovern said.  McGovern fired back at the Republican party, saying though the rule isn?t open, it?s ?in sharp contrast to the way they used to do business when the Republicans were in the majority, where there was a tendency to shut everything down, to close everything up, to not allow members of the minority to be able to have amendments.?

As is typically the case with these types of resolutions governing floor debate, the House passed it on a strict party line vote, 220-195, with Democrats in support and Republicans in opposition. The bill this rule structures debate on is a wide-ranging, bipartisan package of aid to Afghanistan, including anti-drug efforts and programs for women and girls. Thus, the House passed the resolution governing floor debate, and proceeded to the Afghanistan aid bill itself.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 425
May 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Concur in Senate Amendment with House Amendment No. 2: H R 2206 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007
Concur in Senate Amendment with House Amendment No. 2

N N Lost
Roll Call 422
May 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2316 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y N Lost
Roll Call 421
May 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2316
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 419
May 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2317 Lobbying Transparency Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Lost
Roll Call 418
May 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 438 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 417
May 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 438 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 416
May 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 437 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2317, Lobbying Trancparency Act; and providing for the consideration of H.R. 2316, Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 415
May 24, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 437 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2317, Lobbying Trancparency Act; and providing for the consideration of H.R. 2316, Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 409
May 23, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1100 Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site Boundary Revision Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 408
May 23, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1100 Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site Boundary Revision Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 407
May 23, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1100
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 406
May 23, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1100
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 404
May 23, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1252 Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Won
Roll Call 403
May 23, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 429 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1100) to revise the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site in the State of North Carolina, and for other purposes.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 402
May 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 428 Resolution Raising a Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

Y Y Won
Roll Call 397
May 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 214 To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to preserve the independence of United States attorneys
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Won
Roll Call 396
May 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1427 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 395
May 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1427 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 393
May 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 1427
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 392
May 22, 2007
HR 1427. (Federal housing financing overhaul), Hensarling of Texas amendment to prevent affordable housing money from being transferred between funds/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a massive bill that sought to overhaul federal regulation of mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, offered by Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, who chairs the conservative Republican Study Committee. Hensarling?s amendment was one in a series of Republican attempts to erase, cripple or otherwise chip away at a $3 billion affordable housing fund, which would help low-income families construct and maintain homes. Specifically, this amendment sought to prevent money from being transferred between two federal affordable housing accounts.

Debate on the amendment, which was one in a series of votes called more to make a political point than actually effect change, centered mostly around the existence of the affordable housing fund itself, which the bill would fund at $3 billion. Opponents of the fund say funneling profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?s investment portfolio could threaten the companies? solvency. Others argue that it could become another type of entitlement spending (examples of which are Medicare and Social Security).

?I don?t know exactly what the housing trust fund is, but I?m nervous about it. I?m nervous about it because when I look at almost every other government trust fund, what I see is an entitlement,? Hensarling said. ?And the last thing we need to do is to be authorizing spending for a yet to be created entitlement spending fund.?

Barney Frank, D-Mass., who chairs the Financial Services Committee, said the bill handles the trust fund this way to avoid running afoul of budget rules known as PAYGO, a congressional rule requiring any bill that creates new spending or reduces revenues be offset by a reduction in spending, or creation of new revenue.

?An entitlement means that individuals will be able to say ?Give me housing, I am entitled to it legally.? What we are saying is we will set up a housing fund. We will debate how it is distributed, but it will never be close to an entitlement,? Frank countered.

With a vote of 263-155, the amendment was rejected on a largely party-line vote, with 39 Republicans joining Democrats in opposing it. The amendment?s defeat means the authority to transfer money between affordable housing funds is left intact.


HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
N N Won
Roll Call 391
May 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 1427
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 390
May 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 1427
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 389
May 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1427
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 388
May 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1427
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 387
May 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1427
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 386
May 22, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 1427
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 382
May 17, 2007
Federal housing finance overhaul (H.R. 1427)/Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) amendment to require that the amount allocated to the affordable housing fund not exceed the amount allocated in the preceding year if in that year the federal government had a budget deficit and borrowed against the Social Security trust fund

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill to create a new independent agency to oversee the workings of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market. This amendment, proposed by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), would have required that the amount allocated to the affordable housing fund created by the legislation not exceed the amount allocated in the preceding year if in that year the federal government had an "actual on-budget deficit" and an "actual off-budget surplus" - budget-speak for borrowing from the Social Security trust fund.

In addition to creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the underlying bill Roskam's amendment was seeking to change would also create a new stream of funding for affordable housing programs funded by contributions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Roskam said his amendment would simply "postpone the diversion of funds to the affordable housing trust fund that is created in this bill until such time as Congress stops raiding the Social Security trust fund to pay for unrelated government programs."

"This year, the majority proposed and passed a budget that assumes it will raid the entire Social Security surplus, an estimated $190 billion, to spend on other government programs, and that amount will increase to $203 billion for the year 2008," Roskam said.

Roskam said a "yes" vote on his amendment would "take the money and put it into the Social Security trust fund."

But that's where Roskam got into rhetorical trouble with Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.)

Frank asserted that Roskam misstated his own amendment. "He says, instead of putting it in the affordable housing Fund, put it into Social Security," Frank said. "Nothing in this amendment does that. This amendment says that if there is a deficit in the federal budget, then you don't put the money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the affordable housing fund," but not put it into the Social Security trust fund as Roskam had originally indicated.

"There is no connection between the money being spent from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Frank said, adding that "not spending the affordable housing fund would in no way reduce the deficit."

When Frank asked him to clarify what he meant, Roskam said, "Maybe it is a two-step dance."

To which Frank replied: "It is a two-step dance. Is the gentleman asking me to dance? He says it is a two-step dance. It is a Kabuki dance. It is a Dance of Seven Veils. I guess we will learn later what is the second step of the dance."

Frank concluded that Roskam's amendment, or at least his own interpretation of is, "is a perfect definition of a non sequitur."

Democrats were unanimous in their opposition, and 173 Republicans voted for it. Thus, on a near party-line vote of 173 to 245, the House voted to reject an attempt to tie contributions to an affordable housing program from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the federal government's borrowing against the Social Security trust fund, and a bill to reform the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market went forward without the provision.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Won
Roll Call 381
May 17, 2007
Federal housing finance overhaul (H.R. 1427)/ Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) amendment to require that the boards of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac include five members appointed by the president

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill to create a new independent agency to oversee the workings of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market. This amendment, proposed by Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), would have required the boards of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to include five presidential appointees and that each board consist of a total of seven to 15 directors.

Kanjorski's amendment actually represented the status quo of sorts, as the underlying bill to which he was seeking to amend sought to remove the presidential appointees from the boards of directors of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, of which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a part. Kanjorski sought to retain what he deemed as the "public" directors on those boards.

Kanjorski said the "unique nature" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's federal charters, having a minority of their respective boards of directors comprised of presidential appointees is "entirely appropriate."

"Government-sponsored enterprises, by their very nature, are public/private entities, and they need to have a public voice at the highest levels of governance," Kanjorski said. .

[The Federal National Mortgage Association (known as Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Corporation (Freddie Mac) were chartered by Congress in 1934 and 1970, respectively, in order to create a secondary market for mortgages and increase liquidity. Both have been plagued by considerable accounting, financial reporting and managerial problems in recent years, and this legislation aimed to reform the agencies by creating an oversight authority.]

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) responded to Kanjorski's support for presidentially appointed directors by pointing out the bipartisan determination by the Financial Services Committee that drafted the bill that political considerations were best removed from the boards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"We believe that you cannot serve two masters and do a good, faithful job to both masters," Feeney said. "One of the reasons that Fannie and Freddie got in accounting problems in the first place is because of a complacent board of directors that was populated with political employees."

The opposition to Kanjorski's amendment was overwhelming. All but 20 Republicans opposed it, and only 134 Democrats supported it. Most of the House's most progressive lawmakers voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 154 to 263, the House rejected an attempt to restore the presidential appointment of a minority of the directors on the boards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and legislation to reform the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market went forward without the provision.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N Y Lost
Roll Call 380
May 17, 2007
Federal housing finance overhaul (H.R. 1427)/ Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) amendment to require a study on the effects the contributions to the affordable housing fund would have on the cost of mortgages to homebuyers and suspend the program if the program served to increase the costs of mortgages

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill to create a new independent agency to oversee the workings of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market. In addition to creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the legislation would also create a new stream of funding for affordable housing programs funded by contributions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This amendment, proposed by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), would have required the Government Accountability Office to study the effects the affordable-housing fund would have on the availability and affordability of credit for homebuyers and the extent to which the costs would be passed on to homebuyers.

Republicans said the amendment was simply a way to assess whether the costs of the contributions to the affordable housing fund would be passed on to mortgage holders, and Democrats said it was a backdoor attempt to kill the program.

"Some of us on this side of the aisle, many free market conservatives, believe that what is deemed the affordable housing Fund, the Housing trust fund, will be passed on straight to the mortgage consumers of America," McHenry said, "in essence, a tax increase on those who have mortgages, especially middle income individuals."

Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) responded that the amendment was a thinly veiled attempt to "obliterate the program."

"Now, it's very important for us to understand, we're dealing right now with a very volatile housing market," Scott said. "We're dealing with a situation where the subprime market has melted down. We're dealing with a situation where we've had record foreclosures.

"There is a need for government. We have a constitutional responsibility to take care of the public interests. If there ever was a need for the public interest, it is needed in affordable housing," Scott said.

Scott went on to explain that McHenry's amendment concerned him because it gave one regulator (the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency) the power to determine whether GAO's assessment meant that contributions to the affordable housing program were causing a decrease the availability or affordability of credit to home buyers or would increase the costs to homebuyers.

"All of that power you are putting arbitrarily into a person's hands to say, on his whim, kill the program, done with the program, based upon what he sees and what he says," Scott said.

The majority of lawmakers agreed with Scott's assessment, and the amendment was rejected easily. Fourteen Republicans joined a unanimous Democratic Caucus to oppose the amendment. Thus, by a vote of 176 to 240, the House rejected an attempt to require that contributions to an affordable housing program be predicated on whether the chief housing finance regulator interpreted a GAO report to mean that the program constituted a hidden tax on homebuyers. A bill to reform the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market went forward with the affordable housing program unaltered.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Won
Roll Call 379
May 17, 2007
Federal housing finance overhaul (H.R. 1427)/ Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) amendment to suspend contributions to the affordable housing fund if the payments contribute to an increase in mortgage costs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill to create a new independent agency to oversee the workings of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market. In addition to creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the legislation would also create a new stream of funding for affordable housing programs funded by contributions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This amendment, proposed by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), would have suspended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's contributions to the affordable housing fund if the payments were to contribute to an increase in mortgage costs.

Republicans believed that the creation of the affordable housing fund was a backdoor tax on mortgage holders by increasing the costs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which would fund the program under the legislation.

"Earlier this evening the chairman said that he believes that this will be paid by the shareholders," Hensarling said of Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank's (D-Mass.) previous remarks. "We believe on this side of the aisle that, due to the duopoly power, the Fannie and Freddie, that they already control roughly 80 percent of the market in which they operate, that a substantial portion of the cost of the so-called affordable housing Fund will, indeed, be imposed upon homeowners in the form of higher mortgages, indeed, functionally a mortgage tax, a new mortgage tax on the American people."

Hensarling said that his amendment would have no effect if what Frank asserted were correct. But if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's contributions to the housing fund have "an adverse impact upon the cost of housing in America, that mortgages rise, that the program will be terminated," Hensarling said.

Frank replied that Hensarling's amendment was simply another Republican attempt to "kill the fund, this time by obfuscation." (See also Roll Call 378.)

"There are people who do not believe that the federal government should be encouraging the construction of affordable housing, and understand that however we propose to do it, they will object to it," Frank continued. "If we try to do it through appropriations, that will be a problem because of the deficit. Here we try to do it by taking, we believe, essentially from the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

Frank also took issue with Hensarling's assertion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac constitute a government-sanctioned duopoly. "At one point it might have been. In fact, today, the securitization market is far more competitive," Frank concluded. "There are significant private competitors to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The notion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can raise prices at will does not seem to me to reflect economic reality."

In the end, the House sided with Frank. Democrats were unanimous in their opposition, and 27 Republicans joined them in opposing the amendment. Thus, by a vote of 164 to 253, the House rejected a proposal to suspend contributions to the affordable housing fund if regulators determined that the program was increasing the price of mortgages, and a bill to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went forward with the affordable housing fund intact.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Won
Roll Call 378
May 17, 2007
Federal housing finance overhaul (H.R. 1427)/Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) amendment to strike a provision creating an affordable housing fund

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill to create a new independent agency to oversee the workings of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the federally chartered organizations that support the home mortgage market. In addition to creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the legislation would also create a new stream of funding for affordable housing programs. This amendment, proposed by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), sought to strike the bill's provision creating an affordable housing fund.

In introducing his amendment, Bachus said the country does not need another affordable housing program.

"If we determine that the 90 some-odd housing programs are not being effective in addressing the needs of low-income and middle-income Americans, then we need to first reform those programs," Bachus said. "But, in passing legislation to strengthen the financial stability of our GSEs, we do not need at the same time to impose a $3 billion cost on them. Those are opposing actions."

GSEs refer to government-sponsored enterprises, of which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are examples. The $3 billion figure referred to the cost of the housing program in the legislation.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (known as Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Corporation (Freddie Mac) were chartered by Congress in 1934 and 1970, respectively, in order to create a secondary market for mortgages and increase liquidity. Both have been plagued by considerable accounting, financial reporting and managerial problems in recent years, and this legislation aimed to reform the agencies by creating an oversight authority.

Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass) responded to Bachus' assertions by saying that the country currently does "not have enough programs currently being funded that build affordable housing for families."

"We are not building public housing," Frank added. "We have the voucher program. The voucher program, on an annual basis, adds to the demand for housing in a way that does not increase supply. There is not now a generally funded affordable housing construction program for families, for working people."

The majority of lawmakers sided with Frank. Democrats were unanimous in their opposition, and they were joined by 43 Republicans in voting against the amendment. Thus, by a vote of 148 to 269, the House rejected a proposal to cut the affordable housing programs in the bill, and legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac proceeded with the new affordable housing programs intact.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Won
Roll Call 377
May 17, 2007
Fiscal 2008 budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 21)/On agreeing to the conference report

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on the fiscal 2008 budget resolution. The $3 trillion measure included almost $1 trillion in what is known as discretionary spending (not including Social Security and Medicare, among other "non-discretionary" programs). The total price tag total also included $143 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although most of the funding for those conflicts has thus far come in "emergency" appropriations not outlined in any budget plan.

The budget resolution - the first to be authored by Democrats since 1995 - projected a deficit of $252 billion for fiscal 2008, which would gradually turn into a surplus of $41 billion by fiscal 2012. The budget resolution sets to accomplish that mostly through letting most of President Bush's tax cuts expire, while maintaining -- and even increasing -- spending in health care, education, veterans' programs and housing.

The budget resolution forms the blueprint for spending decisions for the next five years. It is passed by the House and Senate but is not signed by the president nor does it have the force of law. (That is why it is referred to as a resolution and not a bill.) Nonetheless, the ability of both chambers to agree on budget priorities is considered a prerequisite to responsible spending and good governance as it gives the 12 spending panels on the Appropriations Committee guidance and reflects consensus on how the multi-trillion dollar pie of federal spending should be sliced.

At this point in its legislative lifecycle, the budget resolution had already been passed by both chambers and then made it out of conference committee. If the two chambers pass differing versions of a measure, what's known as a conference committee is convened to hammer out the differences between the two resolutions and draft a consensus measure, which then must in turn be approved by both the House and Senate. This vote was on setting the rules for debate for the House's consideration of that conference committee report.

Democrats lauded the budget resolution as the first step towards turning around what they deemed were the fiscal and moral improprieties of the first six years of Bush's presidency, most of which time the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress.

Republicans lambasted the plan as evidence of Democrats' fiscal irresponsibility and accused Democrats of a backdoor tax increase.

Nonetheless, the resolution was adopted on a near party-line vote. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition, and Democrats were able to pass the measure despite defection from 13 lawmakers among their ranks. By a final vote of 214 to 209, the fiscal 2008 budget resolution was thus passed by the House and sent to the Senate, were it was adopted the same day.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 376
May 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 409 Providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 21, to set forth the congressional budget for the United States Government
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 375
May 17, 2007
Outlining the rules for debate (H. Res. 409) for the fiscal 2008 budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 21)/On ordering the previous question (to end debate and possibility of amendment)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a crucial procedural vote on the fiscal 2008 budget resolution. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the Democrat-drafted budget resolution generally, and also because they opposed how Democrats proposed to handle spending rules known as "pay as you go" (PAYGO).

To oppose ordering the previous question was a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and to allow the opposition to offer an alternative plan. Motions to order the previous question are about who controls the debate and represents one of the only tools available to those who oppose the majority's agenda.

This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party.

The budget resolution - the first to be authored by Democrats since 1995 - projected a deficit of $252 billion for fiscal 2008, which would gradually turn into a surplus of $41 billion by fiscal 2012. The budget resolution sets to accomplish that mostly through letting most of President Bush's signature tax cuts expire, while maintaining -- and even increasing -- spending in health care, education, veterans' programs and housing.

The budget resolution forms the blueprint for spending decisions for the next five years. It is passed by the House and Senate but is not signed by the president nor does it have the force of law. (That is why it is referred to as a resolution and not a bill.) Nonetheless, the ability of both chambers to agree on budget priorities is considered a prerequisite to responsible spending and good governance as it gives the 12 spending panels on the Appropriations Committee guidance and reflects consensus on how the multi-trillion dollar pie of federal spending should be sliced.

The $3 trillion measure included almost $1 trillion in what is known as discretionary spending (not including Social Security and Medicare, among other "non-discretionary" programs). (The total price tag total also included $143 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although most of the funding for those conflicts has thus far come in "emergency" appropriations not outlined in any budget plan.)

At this point in its legislative lifecycle, the budget resolution had already been passed by both chambers and then made it out of conference committee. If the two chambers pass differing versions of a measure, what's known as a conference committee is convened to hammer out the differences between the two resolutions and draft a consensus measure, which then must in turn be approved by both the House and Senate. This vote was on setting the rules for debate for the House's consideration of that conference committee report.

Democrats lauded the budget resolution as the first step towards turning around what they deemed were the fiscal improprieties of the first six years of Bush's presidency, most of which time the Republicans also controlled both chambers of Congress.

Republicans lambasted the plan as evidence of Democrats' fiscal irresponsibility and accused Democrats of a backdoor tax increase.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) wanted to offer an amendment to the rule, which would have, in his words, stopped the chamber "from hiding behind a cheap procedural maneuver." Sessions said the rules for debate allowed lawmakers to raise the limit on the amount of public debt the federal government could hold without a formal vote.

"This rule allows Members to duck the responsibility of taking a vote on raising a limit on a public debt, a painful but necessary exercise of this chamber's legislative responsibilities," Sessions said. "Because of this rule invented by Democrats, Members who vote for this underlying conference report will also be recorded as voting to raise the public debt. Members need to be aware of this. They need to know exactly what they are voting for."

Democrats countered that it was Republicans who were the fiscally irresponsible ones.

"This administration and these past Congresses took a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into a $9 trillion debt. This Democratic budget, in contrast, reaches balance by 2012, and strictly adheres to PAYGO rules," Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) said.

Motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. This time was no exception. All Republicans present voted against the measure and all Democrats present but one voted for it, so the motion passed 224-193, and the House moved to approve the rules for debate for the fiscal 2008 budget resolution, thus bringing the resolution to the floor. The measure included a provision to allow the House to raise the amount of public debt the federal government could hold without a separate vote.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 374
May 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 404 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1427, Federal Housing Finance Reform Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 373
May 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1585 National Defense Authorization Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 371
May 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1585
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 370
May 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1585
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 369
May 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1585
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 368
May 17, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1585
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 367
May 17, 2007
HR 1585. (Fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill), Tierney of Massachusetts amendment to reduce funding for missile defense programs by $1.1 billion/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on an amendment to the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill, offered by John Tierney, D-Mass., that would have axed some $1.1 billion in funding for several existing missile defense systems ? about a 20 percent cut.

Conceptually, a national missile defense system is intended to shield America from attacks by long-range missiles. But these systems -- dubbed ?Star Wars? when they were first introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 ? have over the years been a favorite target of progressive politicians, many of whom believe that they encourage nuclear proliferation, are outdated, ineffectual and a money sink besides.

Tierney said his amendment targeted several high-risk, long-term missile defense systems that he believes do not warrant federal money for many of those reasons. ?This Congress should not continue to acquiesce in the authorization on this deeply flawed system. We have to come to terms with certain stubborn realities and have the courage to change course,? Tierney said.

Republicans, along with Ike Skelton, D-Mo. , the chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee, sought to preserve the program. Skelton  said  the underlying bill already shaved $764 million from missile defense systems, and that to cut more could jeopardize America?s defenses. ?This amendment would effectively terminate most, if not all, of the Missile Defense Agency?s longer term research and development programs. Given the dynamic security environment we find ourselves in today, I don?t believe it is prudent to do this,? Skelton said. In the past, Skelton has backed Republicans on rolling out new missile defense systems. He has said he believes they could help fend off missile attacks from North Korea and other rogue states.

Many Democrats who opposed the amendment took much the same position, suggesting that while they shared concerns about the efficiency and usefulness of some of the Pentagon?s missile defense programs, the current threat to American security was too imminent to make such a drastic cut.

The amendment was defeated on a 299-127 vote. Democrats were split on the amendment (124-105), with Progressives mostly voting yes.  Three Republicans also voted yes ? Ron Paul, R-Texas, who supports most efforts to trim government spending; Jimmy Duncan, R-Tenn., who has opposed the administration on some defense issues; and Mike Castle, R-Del., who is one of the most moderate Republicans in the House. Thus, Tierney?s amendment to erase $1.1 billion in funding for missile defense programs was defeated.


WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 366
May 16, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1585
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 365
May 16, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1585
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 364
May 16, 2007
Fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585); Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) amendment to prohibit the Bush administration from planning a contingency military operation in Iran/On adoption of the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation authorizing $648.6 billion for the Defense Department for fiscal 2008 that would prohibit the Bush administration from using funds in the bill intended to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to plan military operations in Iran. The language was proposed by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.).

President Bush threatened to veto the legislation if the amendment was included.

Andrews said that while he believed it was in the "interest of freedom-loving people around the world to deny the present regime in Tehran access to a nuclear weapon," he also said his amendment did not limit the United State's ability to deal with that potential problem.

"The amendment I submit raises the issue of the propriety of this coequal branch of our government asserting its proper constitutional authority," Andrews continued. What he was trying to avoid, he said, was military gaming for a conflict with Iran using funds appropriated for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The Constitution vests us, as the duly elected representatives of the people, with the authority and responsibility to decide when this country will initiate hostilities in order to serve our national interest absent an emergency or a self-defense situation," Andrews added.

"This amendment preserves that emergency authority of the President. It preserves the self-defense authority of the President. But it properly asserts the duly assigned constitutional role of this branch to decide the circumstances under which we should go forward with a major contingency operation," Andrews concluded.

Republicans opposed the amendment on the grounds that it inhibited the president's ability to conduct operations in Iraq to defend U.S. interests in that country. Republicans repeated assertions by the administration that Iranian troops have helped the insurgents fight American forces in Iraq.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) said that U.S. military commanders have reported that Iran has participated in moving weapons that have been used against U.S. troops.

"The idea that we are saying that in this piece of the budget we cannot plan for interdiction of those items, of those weapons that are moving across the border, that we can't plan, for example, for Special Forces operations that we might need to implement or to move into action, to preempt this movement of deadly devices across the border, that we can't plan to extract hostages if they should be taken by Iranian militia or Iranian members of the armed forces is just not practical and it's not reasonable," Hunter continued.

Democrats were unable to secure enough support from within their own ranks for the amendment. Although six Republicans supported the language, it was not enough to offset the defection by 29 Democrats. Thus, by a vote of 202 to 216, the House rejected an amendment to the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill that would have prohibited the administration from using monies in the bill intended to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to plan for a military conflict with Iran, and the legislation proceeded without the language.


WAR & PEACE Relations with Iran
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 363
May 16, 2007
Fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585)/Motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole (and end debate on amendments to the legislation)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was yet another in a series of procedural motions offered by Republicans to protest the way the Democratic majority was conducting the business of the House. This motion was offered by Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.).

The motion was offered during debate of a bill to authorize $648.6 billion for Defense programs for fiscal 2008. Republicans were irritated because Democrats prevented many of their proposed amendments to fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill from coming to the House floor for debate. (See also Roll Call 352, 353, 357, 359 and 361.)

A motion to rise is similar to a motion to adjourn. The only substantive difference between the two motions is that a motion to rise is offered while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole during considerations of amendments.

The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct business. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.)

If a motion to rise is adopted, it terminates the debate on a pending matter. It is a disruptive action usually employed by the minority party.

There was no debate on the motion. All Democrats present but four voted against the motion to rise, and all Republicans present but nine voted for it. The motion thus lost by a vote of 188 to 221 and the House continued with the business at hand, which was amendments to the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Won
Roll Call 361
May 16, 2007
Fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585)/Motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole (and end debate on amendments to the legislation)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was yet another in a series of procedural motions offered by Republicans to protest the way the Democratic majority was conducting the business of the House. This motion was offered by Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.).

A motion to rise is similar to a motion to adjourn. The only substantive difference between the two motions is that a motion to rise is offered while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole during considerations of amendments.

The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct business. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.)

If a motion to rise is adopted, it terminates the debate on a pending matter. It is a disruptive action usually employed by the minority party.

The motion was offered during debate of a bill to authorize $648.6 billion for Defense programs for fiscal 2008. Republicans were irritated because Democrats prevented many of their proposed amendments to fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill from coming to the House floor for debate. (See also Roll Call 352, 353, 357, 359 and 363.)

There was no debate on the motion. All Democrats present but one voted against the motion to rise, and all Republicans present but four voted for it. The motion thus lost by a vote of 178 to 217 and the House continued with the business at hand, which was amendments to the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Won
Roll Call 359
May 16, 2007
Fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585)/Motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole (and end debate on amendments to the legislation)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was yet another in a series of procedural motions offered by Republicans to protest the way the Democratic majority was conducting the business of the House. This motion was offered by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.).

The motion was offered during debate of a bill to authorize $648.6 billion for Defense programs for fiscal 2008. Republicans were irritated because Democrats prevented many of their proposed amendments to fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill from coming to the House floor for debate. (See also Roll Call 352, 353, 357, 361 and 363.)

A motion to rise is similar to a motion to adjourn. The only substantive difference between the two motions is that a motion to rise is offered while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole during considerations of amendments.

The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct business. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.)

If a motion to rise is adopted, it terminates the debate on a pending matter. It is a disruptive action usually employed by the minority party.

There was no debate on the motion. All Democrats present but one voted against the motion to rise, and all Republicans present but five voted for it. The motion thus lost by a vote of 186 to 213 and the House continued with the business at hand, which was amendments to the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Won
Roll Call 357
May 16, 2007
Fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585)/Motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole (and end debate on amendments to the legislation)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was yet another in a series of procedural motions offered by Republicans to protest the way the Democratic majority was conducting the business of the House. This motion was offered by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.).

The motion was offered during debate of a bill to authorize $648.6 billion for Defense programs for fiscal 2008. Republicans were irritated because Democrats prevented many of their proposed amendments to fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill from coming to the House floor for debate. (See also Roll Call 352, 353, 359, 361 and 363.)

A motion to rise is similar to a motion to adjourn. The only substantive difference between the two motions is that a motion to rise is offered while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole during considerations of amendments.

The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct business. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.)

If a motion to rise is adopted, it terminates the debate on a pending matter. It is a disruptive action usually employed by the minority party.

There was no debate on the motion. All Democrats present but one voted against the motion to rise, and all Republicans present but four voted for it. The motion thus lost by a vote of 184 to 222 and the House continued with the business at hand, which was amendments to the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Won
Roll Call 355
May 16, 2007
Fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585)/Motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole (and end debate on amendments to the legislation)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was yet another in a series of procedural motions offered by Republicans to protest the way the Democratic majority was conducting the business of the House. This motion was offered by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.).

A motion to rise is similar to a motion to adjourn. The only substantive difference between the two motions is that a motion to rise is offered while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole during considerations of amendments.

The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct business. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.)

If a motion to rise is adopted, it terminates the debate on a pending matter. It is a disruptive action usually employed by the minority party.

The motion was offered during debate of a bill to authorize $648.6 billion for Defense programs for fiscal 2008. Republicans were irritated because Democrats prevented many of their proposed amendments to fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill from coming to the House floor for debate. (See also Roll Call 352, 353, 357, 359, 361 and 363.)

There was no debate on the motion. All Democrats present voted against the motion to rise, and all Republicans present but eight voted for it. The motion thus lost by a vote of 177 to 219 and the House continued with the business at hand, which was amendments to the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Won
Roll Call 352
May 16, 2007
Providing for consideration (H. Res. 403) of the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585)/On adoption of the rules package

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on the rules for debate on a bill to authorize $648.6 billion in funding, including $141.6 billion in "emergency" spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the Defense Department for fiscal 2008.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "structured rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a structured rule, only amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee can be offered on the House floor. In this case, the rule made in order a total of 50 amendments.

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) objected to the rule because of the many Republican amendments the Rules Committee didn't allow to be considered by the full House. He also objected to the procedures the majority Democrats used leading up to the vote.

"I am deeply troubled that for the first time, the first time during my tenure in Congress and tenure on the Rules Committee, Members of Congress reported that they were actually prohibited, prohibited from submitting an amendment to the committee after the deadline," Hastings said.

Hastings was referring to what are known as second-degree amendments, which are basically amendments to amendments.

"These types of amendments by definition cannot be drafted until the text of the original amendment has been seen," Hastings continued. "So let me be clear. The Democrat leadership actually denied Members of Congress the opportunity to have their amendments presented and then denied by the committee because typically amendments that are offered late are denied. But they didn't even have the opportunity to submit them late."

Hastings added that he was "disappointed that the Democrat majority has chosen to go out of its way to be inconsistent and change the rules and definitions, leaving Members of Congress questioning what rules and norms they should follow."

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) responded: "I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee because he is aware, and anyone who attended that committee meeting would be aware, that certain second-degree amendments were in fact offered by the other side of the aisle and were debated and voted upon in committee."

The House adopted the rules for debate on an almost completely party-line vote. All but three Republicans voted against the rules package, and Democrats were unanimous in their support. Thus, by a vote of 229 to 194, the House approved the rules for consideration for legislation to authorize $648.6 billion for Defense programs for fiscal 2008, and the House proceeded to debate on amendments approved by the Rules Committee.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 351
May 16, 2007
Providing for consideration (H. Res. 403) of the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization (H.R. 1585)/Motion to order the previous question (end debate and possibility of amendment)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This motion was offered to force a vote on the rules for debate on a bill to authorize $648.6 billion in funding, including $141.6 billion in "emergency" spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the Defense Department for fiscal 2008.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration.

To oppose ordering the previous question was a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and to allow the opposition to offer an alternative plan. Motions to order the previous question are about who controls the debate and represent one of the only tools available to those who oppose the majority's agenda.

Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "structured rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a structured rule, only amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee can be offered on the House floor. In this case, the rule made in order a total of 50 amendments.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) rose to opposed the rule on the grounds that the Rules Committee did not make in order "many of the amendments that were necessary to address the evisceration of our Missile Defense System and that, Madam Speaker, at a time when our intelligence tells us the North Koreans and the Iranians are continuing to develop dangerous missile capability."

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) responded that the committee considered 135 amendments and allowed 50. She added: "I think it is also important to respond to the claims that missile defense is not funded through this bill. Indeed, that is incorrect. The record should reflect that only in Washington can a program be provided and funded with billions and billions of dollars for numerous decades; and then say, oh, we are suffering. In fact, that is not the case."

Republicans also complained about many other specific amendments that were not allowed.

"Just for the simple fact that I am in the minority party, the Rules Committee did not allow an amendment which would have given a 9-year-old child from my district access to the death gratuity that her mother wanted her to have when she was killed in Iraq, just for partisan reasons," Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa) said. "There are at least 143 cases exactly like this. And to deny a child access to this benefit is simply outrageous."

This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present but one voted against the measure and all Democrats present but two voted for it, and the motion passed 225-198. Thus, a motion to force a vote on the rules for debate for legislation to authorize $648.6 billion for Defense programs for fiscal 2008 passed, and the House proceeded to a final vote on the rules package.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 342
May 14, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 1124 To extend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Won
Roll Call 341
May 10, 2007
Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization (H.R. 2082)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote was on legislation authorizing funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008.

The intelligence budget is classified, but it is estimated to be around $45 billion annually and includes money for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. House leaders reported that this Intelligence budget was the largest in history.

The legislation would authorize increases in the human intelligence budget, including additional training for intelligence agents. The bill would also require that a National Intelligence Estimate on global climate change be submitted to Congress, which many Republicans opposed (see Roll Call 337).

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said he supported the bill because it supported the men and women who are "deployed into harm's way and depend on the military intelligence capabilities authorized by this bill."

"It is important for them to achieve their missions," Skelton said. "And this legislation assures continued delivery of our intelligence to our warfighters. It will lead to important improvements in the future."

Many Republicans opposed the bill for what they said were cuts to crucial human intelligence programs.

Rep. Terry Everett (R-Ala.) pointed out that the bill would slash funding for "one of our most important intelligence collection functions in the global war on terrorism," the human intelligence programs.

"Regardless of your position on the war, we cannot cut a primary intelligence function that is critical to protecting our troops in combat," he said.

Support for and opposition against the measure split mostly down party lines. All but six Democrats voted for the bill, and all but five Republicans opposed it. Thus, by a vote of 225 to 197, the House passed a bill authorizing funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008 that, among other things, would direct increases in the human intelligence budget and require a report on the national security implications of global climate change, and the legislation made its way to the Senate.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
Y Y Won
Roll Call 340
May 10, 2007
Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization (H.R. 2082)/Motion to recommit with instructions to increase the CIA's human intelligence budget by $23 million, offset by an equal cut for the National Drug Intelligence Center

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation authorizing funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008. Proposed by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), the motion to recommit would have increased the CIA's human intelligence budget by $23 million, offset by an equal cut for the National Drug Intelligence Center.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

Rogers said that the intelligence bill had some very good points, but the sections that cut human intelligence programs would jeopardize "soldiers in the field in not getting the proper assistance and information that they need."

"You know, for a time of war, the priorities of this bill are completely misplaced in critical areas," Rogers said. "The motion to recommit would readjust those priorities by increasing human intelligence funding for the Central Intelligence Agency by $23 million. That money would come from an earmark funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center which a formal oversight report of the House Committee said: 'An expensive and duplicative use of scarce federal drug enforcement resources.'' And the U.S. News & World Report called it a 'boondoggle.'"

The motion to recommit would have also directed the Department of Justice inspector general to conduct an audit of the National Drug Intelligence Center to determine if the center was wasteful and duplicative. Rogers said Democrats blocked the audit in committee "with no substantive explanation."

House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) chastised Rogers for discussing the classified intelligence budget in public debate. He also outlined substantive problems with Rogers' amendment. He said the program Rogers would cut to offset the cost of an increase to the human intelligence budget "makes valuable contributions to the war on drugs and to homeland security, first and foremost."

"This motion is also misleading because the underlying bill provides our intelligence officers everything they need," Reyes said, adding that the underling bill already increased the budget for human intelligence. "It adds funds to the CIA and Defense Department for human intelligence training so that our operators can be more effective. It invests in language training for case officers so they can operate effectively overseas."

Reyes also said that the study Rogers sought has already been done.

Rogers' motion was rejected. Only one Democrat broke ranks and voted for it, while 16 Republicans voted against it. Thus, on a mostly party-line vote of 181 to 241, the House rejected a Republican attempt to amend the intelligence authorization bill to cut $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center and spend the funds on additional human intelligence operations. Legislation authorizing intelligence spending for fiscal 2008 proceeded without the provision.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Assisting Crime Impacted Communities
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Drug Prevention and Treatment Programs
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
N N Won
Roll Call 339
May 10, 2007
Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization (H.R. 2082)/Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) amendment to clarify that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the exclusive means by which domestic electronic surveillance for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information may be conducted

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation authorizing funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008. Proposed by Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), the amendment would clarify that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is the exclusive means by which domestic electronic surveillance for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information may be conducted.

The impetus behind the amendment was a growing dissatisfaction among lawmakers, Democrats particularly, at the Bush administration's use of wiretapping and other surveillance methods for domestic spying. The administration has argued that FISA doesn't provide the necessary tools to fight terrorism, and a series of news reports in recent years has revealed that the administration has flagrantly disregarded FISA requirements, namely that the government obtain a warrant from a secret court before eavesdropping within the United States on Americans. The administration was working to convince Congress to retroactively expand surveillance authority beyond FISA's boundaries, something Congress would eventually go on to do in August.

The basic thrust of this amendment was to reaffirm FISA's primacy in governing domestic surveillance, and its adoption was a setback (albeit a temporary one) to the administration.

Schiff said he and Flake's amendment was designed to reign in "the president's unilateral assertion of power with regard to the electronic surveillance of Americans on U.S. soil and reassert that our existing statutes govern the operation of such surveillance."

He said that while the president possesses the authority to engage in electronic surveillance of "the enemy" outside the country, Congress possesses the authority to regulate such surveillance within the United States.

"The president has argued that the authorization for the use of military force provided him with the authority to engage in warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans," Schiff said. "It is hard to believe that any of us contemplated, when we voted to authorize the use of force to root out the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, that we were also voting to nullify FISA."

He concluded that if the government can eavesdrop on purely domestic calls between Americans without court approval, there would be no limit to executive power.

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) responded that "the sad thing is that the bipartisan leadership of this body, Democrat and Republican, knew for five years this program was going on and did nothing to update the laws or even propose that perhaps this was wrong to do this this way. They remained silent. The failure is in the Congress."

Wilson and many Republicans maintained that FISA was broken, as it was no longer able to let the intelligence agencies gather crucial information about "our enemies," nor was it protecting the civil liberties of Americans. For that reason, she said, she couldn't support the amendment, because the law is "outdated, and we are stuck with our heads in the sand in 1970s law. And your amendment insists that we stay there."

Twenty-three Republicans broke with party ranks to support the amendment, and only five Democrats opposed it. Thus, on a vote of 245 to 178, the House voted to reaffirm that intelligence agencies had to get a warrant from a secret court in order to spy on Americans within the United States, and legislation authorizing intelligence spending for fiscal 2008 went forward with the provision.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 338
May 10, 2007
Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization (H.R. 2082)/Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) amendment to limit the number of personnel in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to the number serving on May 1, 2007

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment that would limit the number of people working in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to the number in the office on May 1, 2007. Proposed by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich,) the measure amended legislation authorizing funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008.

The impetus behind Roger's amendment was a growing concern in both parties that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was becoming an additional layer of bureaucracy within the intelligence community rather than the small, agile office Congress intended to coordinate activities among the various agencies that do intelligence work when the office was created by the Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

Roger's said the office has grown exponentially since its creation "at the expense of analysts and officers in the field, and I think is the wrong direction." I think it's so important that we make this statement to them that enough is enough."

Rogers pointed out that those who were brought into the office came out of the field. "They were doing real work, targeting bad guys, identifying, putting them on lists, trying to get our guys to bring them to justice," Rogers said. "What happened then is they disrupted some of those operations, brought those people in, and started tasking back to the people in the field. That's not value-added; it's just not."

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), who cosponsored the amendment, said it sent a message to the Bush administration that "we will not give you a blank check with which you could continue to grow a new bureaucracy before we know what you are doing with what you already have. A bigger bureaucracy does not make better intelligence."

Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said while he supported the ideas behind the amendment, he thought it would have "unintended consequences."

"For example, though the intent of this amendment is to limit the layers of unnecessary bureaucracy, this cap would actually eliminate large numbers of analysts and planners, with the harshest impact falling on the National Counterterrorism Center, which analyzes terrorism information and plans counterterrorism operations," Reyes said. "In addition, this amendment would force the DNI to fire anyone hired between May 1 and the date of the enactment of this bill, preventing the DNI from increasing capacity in priority areas."

In the end, the amendment passed with significant Democratic support. Only three Republicans voted against it, and 106 Democrats broke with their party leaders in voting for it. Thus, by a vote of 297 to 122, the House voted to freeze the number of people working in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at the staffing level as of May 1, 2007, and legislation authorizing spending for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008 went forward with the provision.


WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
N N Lost
Roll Call 337
May 10, 2007
Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization (H.R. 2082)/Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) amendment to strike the bill's requirement that a national intelligence estimate on global climate change be submitted to Congress

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a Republican amendment to strike language in legislation authorizing funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008 that would require a national intelligence estimate on global climate change be submitted to Congress.

The intelligence budget is classified, but it is estimated to be around $45 billion annually and includes money for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. House leaders reported that this Intelligence budget was the largest in history.

Republicans disagreed with a section in the bill that called upon the National Intelligence Council produce a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the national security impact of climate change, an action requested by 11 three- and four-star generals. Democrats said the provision was important because, in the words of Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), "climate change is impacting global security."

Republicans had previously tried and failed to prevent the bill from coming to the floor because of their opposition to this section (see Roll Call 324), and this was their last opportunity to remove it from the legislation.

Hoekstra said the provision would send the intelligence community back to the "bugs and bunnies" era of the early 1990s when Congress directed the intelligence agencies to focus on "politically correct priorities," such as "to spy on the environment." He said telling the intelligence agencies to move their priorities from radical Islam, North Korea, Syria and Iran to focusing on a National Intelligence Estimate on climate change "sends exactly the wrong message."

Democrats said Hoekstra missed the larger point and the interrelatedness of climate change to global security.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) said the 11 three- and four-star generals and the American people "are ahead of us on this."

"As they noted, the geopolitical effects of global warming are likely to intensify instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world as people fight over access to water and food, creating humanitarian disasters and failed states that facilitate the establishment of terrorist safe havens," Eshoo said. "The intelligence community agrees, and they are already preparing an assessment on how our enemies could use global climate change to degrade our security interests. This NIE will not divert collection assets from other priorities. That's hogwash."

Hoekstra's motion was rejected by a near party-line vote of 185 to 230. Twelve Republicans broke with their party to vote against it, and only three Democrats voted for it. Thus, the House rejected a Republican attempt to strip legislation authorizing funding for the intelligence agencies of language requiring a report be submitted to Congress on the national security implications of global climate change, and the fiscal 2008 intelligence authorization moved toward a final vote with the requirement intact.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
N N Won
Roll Call 336
May 10, 2007
Emergency agriculture relief (H.R. 2207)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on emergency aid to farmers affected by extreme weather conditions in many parts of the country, including floods, wildfires and drought. The legislation would provide $4.5 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending, including $1.8 billion in crop disaster assistance and $1.5 billion in livestock assistance, as well as $500 million for wildfire management and suppression. The measure also included $425 million funding for rural schools, $60 million for the California salmon industry and $31 million for a milk subsidy program.

The agriculture emergency appropriations bill was originally part of an "emergency" supplemental to fund the Iraq war. President Bush vetoed that legislation because it contained a timeline for withdrawing troops from that conflict. After Bush implied in his veto message that Congressional Democrats didn't have the political wherewithal to pass what he deemed to be an excessive agriculture supplemental separately from the Iraq supplemental, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) announced that the House would do just that. Republicans had accused Democrats of using the politically popular farm funding to "buy" votes for the troop withdrawal measure. The rules for consideration for the now-separate agriculture aid bill called for the measure to be immediately combined with the war supplemental, which passed earlier the same day. (See Roll Calls 265, 327 and 333.)

Republican critics of the agriculture aid bill said that it contained excessive non-emergency spending. The White House issued a statement calling it "unnecessary and unwarranted," pointing out that record-high receipts were projected for crops and livestock this year and that federally subsidized crop insurance was already in place to provide a safety net for farmers. The other provisions in the bill were similarly unnecessary, some Republicans said.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the president's answer to the "slow-motion" natural disasters occurring around the country was, "You are on your own." The Agriculture Department declared nearly three-quarters of all U.S. counties as primary or continuous disaster areas over the past two years, DeLauro continued, but no disaster aid has been given besides funding for hurricane relief on the Gulf Coast.

Obey said Bush had it "backwards because what the president seemed to suggest is that the only legitimate funding for an emergency appropriation would be for the war in Iraq."

"In fact, the war in Iraq should not be funded at all as an emergency appropriation," Obey continued. "After all, it has been around for more than 4 years, despite the President's landing on that aircraft carrier. And the fact is that the President, in order to hide the full cost of the war, asked for that war to be funded in 11 different slices. Those funds should have been provided in regular appropriation bills, not in supplementals."

Obey pointed out that the president declared much of the country a natural disaster area, and that it was Congress' obligation to act accordingly, "and that is what we are trying to do."

In the end, the agriculture relief package passed with the support of 80 Republicans. Five Democrats voted against it. The final vote was 302 to 120, more than enough to override the president's threatened veto, a point that was made irrelevant by the fact that the legislation was immediately attached to the war supplemental, which Bush also threatened to veto (and that Congress did not have the votes to override). Nonetheless, the House overwhelmingly passed legislation to provide federal relief to farmers affected by extreme weather conditions in much of the country, and the legislation moved to the Senate.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
Y Y Won
Roll Call 335
May 10, 2007
Emergency agriculture relief (H.R. 2207)/Motion to recommit with instructions to offset the spending in the bill with spending cuts or tax increases and leaving open the possibility that the measure could go back to committee indefinitely

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a Republican motion to send an agriculture relief bill back to committee ostensibly to find what are known as "offsets" - spending cuts or tax increases to make the bill "budget-neutral." Democrats accused Republicans of using the motion as a trick to send the legislation back to committee to never return to the House floor for a vote.

The legislation was a package of emergency aid to farmers affected by extreme weather conditions in many parts of the country, including floods, wildfires and drought. The bill would provide $4.5 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending, including $1.8 billion in crop disaster assistance and $1.5 billion in livestock assistance, as well as $500 million for wildfire management and suppression. The measure also included $425 million funding for rural schools, $60 million for the California salmon industry and $31 million for a milk subsidy program.

Republicans said the measure was excessive and unnecessary, and President Bush threatened to veto it.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) offered the motion to recommit. He said it was a "simple motion to recommit that sends the bill back to committee and instructs the committee to find offsets."

No other words in support were offered by Republicans.

Democrats accused them of trickery and hypocrisy.

Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said that the motion was "really quite interesting."

"What it says is that the same folks who want to spend $57 billion on tax cuts on millionaires this year, all paid for with borrowed money, the same folks who are comfortable with the idea that we have got over a trillion dollars in unfunded tax cuts, all paid for with borrowed money, the same folks that want us to spend, no questions asked, at least $600 billion in a sad, sad war in Iraq, these folks have suddenly gotten religion, and they now have a motion that says they would like to see this bill be deficit neutral," Obey said.

He continued: "What that means is they are going to ask the farmers of America to bear the full weight of deficit reduction in this bill. This is simply a device to kill the bill because instead of asking that the bill be reported forthwith, it asks that the bill be reported promptly. That, as you know, is code language for killing the bill. I don't think I need to say anything further.

"If you want to provide the funding in this bill, you will vote against this motion to recommit. If you care about the farmers, if you care about the western wildfire problem, if you want to meet our obligation to the parts of the country that generally get stiffed and ignored, then you vote against the motion to recommit. If you care about these folks, you will vote against the motion to recommit," Obey concluded.

The motion was rejected on a near party-line vote. All but 12 Republicans voted for it, and all but four Democrats voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 184 to 233, Republicans were shut out of their attempts to send the measure back to committee to offset the bill's price tag with tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere - what Democrats said was an attempt to kill the bill, as the language in the motion specified no time constraints on when the legislation had to come back to the House floor for a vote - and a measure to provide disaster assistance to farmers made its way to a final vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
N N Won
Roll Call 334
May 10, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Motion to Hold a Secret Session: MOTION
On Motion to Table the Motion to Hold a Secret Session

Y Y Won
Roll Call 333
May 10, 2007
Defense Department spending bill to provide $95.5 billion in "emergency" appropriations for the military for the remainder of fiscal 2007/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on legislation to provide $95 billion in "emergency" appropriations for the Defense Department, primarily to fund the war in Iraq.

This war-spending bill was drafted after President Bush vetoed similar legislation because of its inclusion of a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. (See Roll Calls 235 and 276.)

Under the new legislation, the war-spending bill itself would be divided into two parts: $42.8 billion would be provided immediately to fund military operations, an amount expected to last two to three months. The measure would then require a second round of votes in late July to release the remaining $52.8 billion.

Although the bill had many facets, debate primarily focused on the progress - or lack thereof - in Iraq and whether American troops should continue to occupy that country.

Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) said it was time to end the conflict. "This combat is constitutionally and strategically unjustifiable, operationally poorly executed with regard to armoring and deploying the troops, and politically and diplomatically disastrous," he said.

"This war is not making anyone more safer or more free, and it cannot be won militarily," Holt said. "As retired General Odom said, the challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq but how to recover from a strategic mistake, invading Iraq in the first place."

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) questioned whether the funding in the bill had too many strings attached to allow the U.S. military to be effective.

"It is like giving a soldier a brand-new uniform and then shackling his foot to an anvil. And that anvil, Mr. Speaker, is politics," Kingston said. "Our soldiers fight wars. They cannot take care of Iraqi politics. And yet this bill puts 17 different stipulations on that funding for our soldiers, to say that if these aren't taken care of, then you lose your funding."

The legislation would also include similar benchmarks for the Iraqi government as had been in the spending bill Bush vetoed May 1. Prior to the vote to release the second sum of funding, Congress would vote on an amendment requiring that the second sum be used solely to start bringing U.S. combat forces home within 90 days of enactment.

Bush expressed his intension to veto this spending package, as well.

The Iraq spending bill is the seventh "emergency" appropriations bill to make its way through Congress during President Bush's term. Another, more massive supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected in the fall. ("Emergency" supplemental appropriations bills are so named because they are handled outside of the regular annual Congressional processes that fund the activities of the U.S. government and therefore don't have to abide by normal budget rules.)

The legislation also would fund $6.8 billion for hurricane relief and recovery, $3.3 billion for military health care, and $2.25 billion for homeland security. It would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years as well as provide $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives.

In the end, only two Republicans voted for the resolution, joining all but 10 Democrats in passing the $95.5 billion legislation. Thus, by a vote of 221 to 205, the House passed "emergency" appropriations to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as hurricane relief, military health care and homeland security programs, and the measure was sent to the Senate incorporating Democrats' stipulations on the release of the funds.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 332
May 10, 2007
Defense Department spending bill to provide $95.5 billion in "emergency" appropriations for the military for the remainder of fiscal 2007/Motion to recommit with instructions to delete the section requiring a second vote to release part of the funds after the president reports to Congress on the Iraqi government's progress in meeting benchmarks

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to force an amendment to legislation to provide $95 billion in "emergency" appropriations for the Defense Department, primarily to fund the war in Iraq. The amendment would have deleted the section in the bill requiring a second vote by Congress to release some of the funds after President Bush reported back on the Iraqi government's progress in meeting benchmarks.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If a motion to recommit succeeds, the bill goes back to its committee of origin and language is added to reflect the instructions adopted.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) offered the motion. He said the language that would require Bush to report back to Congress with the Iraqi government's progress in meeting 16 specific goals would give Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) the sole authority to introduce a resolution of approval to release the additional funds. Lewis pointed out that Obey could decide not to introduce such a resolution at all.

"The authority that this gives the chairman of the committee to introduce or not introduce legislation is unprecedented," Lewis said. "Further, in an almost unprecedented move, this supplemental includes the rule [for consideration] under which the joint resolution will be brought to the floor. And under this rule, the only amendment made in order is one that mandates the withdrawal of troops from Iraq within 6 months."

That language, Lewis said, would set a "dangerous" precedent that should be of "great concern to Members on both sides of the aisle."

Obey replied that it was time the Bush administration was held accountable. Lewis' motion, he said, would remove the provision that would set aside almost $50 billion pending confirmation by Bush that the Iraqi government has met the 16 benchmarks. The effect of the motion to recommit, Obey maintained, was "to give the president every dollar he wants, no questions asked, no oversight, no review, no nothing."

The fencing, as Obey called it, was in his view the only pressure for a policy change in Iraq. "If you vote for this motion, it is an endorsement of the status quo," Obey concluded.

This Iraq war-spending bill was drafted after President Bush vetoed similar legislation because of its inclusion of a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. (See Roll Calls 235 and 276.)

Under the new legislation, the war-spending bill itself would be divided into two parts: $42.8 billion would be provided immediately to fund military operations, an amount expected to last two to three months. The measure would then require a second round of votes in late July to release the remaining $52.8 billion.

The legislation would also include similar benchmarks for the Iraqi government as had been in the spending bill Bush vetoed May 1. Prior to the vote to release the second sum of funding, Congress would vote on an amendment requiring that the second sum be used solely to start bringing U.S. combat forces home within 90 days of enactment.

On an almost completely party-line vote, the motion to recommit failed. All but three Republicans present voted for it, and all but three Democrats present voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 195 to 229, the House rejected a Republican attempt to force a vote on an amendment that would have deleted a provision in the bill requiring Congress to vote again to release half of the funds only after Bush certified that the Iraqi government had met certain benchmarks. Legislation providing $95.5 billion for the Defense Department to conduct the war in Iraq proceeded with the provision for conditional two-part funding intact.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Won
Roll Call 331
May 10, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Holding a Secret Session: MOTION
On Holding a Secret Session

N N Won
Roll Call 330
May 10, 2007
To provide for the redeployment and withdrawal of U.S. armed forces and military contractors from Iraq within 90 days of enactment (H.R. 2237)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on legislation to begin redeploying and withdrawing U.S. armed forces and military contractors from Iraq within 90 days of enactment. The withdrawal would have had to be completed within 180 days of enactment, and the language would have prohibited the Defense Department from increasing the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq beyond the number serving there as of Jan. 1, 2007 without a specific congressional authorization.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said the phones were ringing off the hook in her congressional office with constituents calling and demanding an end to the war.

"Sadly, the president is dealing with an Iraq that exists only in his imagination," Schakowsky said. "It is time for the president to understand that this House will not endorse a blank check for an endless war. Listen to the mothers of America on this Mother's Day weekend. They are saying, support our children in uniform by bringing them home."

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) responded that even if he were to assume that what critics of the war have said about President Bush lying to start a war in Iraq and that the war really was about oil were true, "we are there now." And to leave, Kingston said, would be disastrous. The "surge," he said, referring to U.S. troop increases in the spring, was working.

Despite "a very bleak picture," Kingston continued, "progress is being made."

"If you pass this legislation today, you wouldn't just erode that progress. You would sign a death sentence to people like this prime minister and his family. Now, I agree that the Republican Party probably lost the majority in the House because of the war as much as anything else, but for us that is just politics. It is a political death. For the people over there that we are helping, this is real death," Kingston added.

Democrats countered that the U.S. troop presence was only exacerbating the civil strife in Iraq.

Support for the timetable for withdrawal was strong among Democrats but it wasn't enough to pass the legislation. Two Republicans joined 169 Democrats in voting for the measure, and 59 Democrats opposed it. Thus, by a vote of 171 to 255, the House rejected a bill that would have required a complete pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq within 180 days of enactment.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 329
May 10, 2007
To provide for the redeployment and withdrawal of U.S. armed forces and military contractors from Iraq within 90 days of enactment (H.R. 2237)/Motion to recommit with instructions that language be added stating that the decision to withdraw should be based on protection of members of the armed forces, the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. embassy

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on whether to force a vote on an amendment to legislation to begin redeploying and withdrawing U.S. armed forces and military contractors from Iraq within 90 days of enactment. The withdrawal would have to be completed within 180 days of enactment. Republicans sought to add language to the bill to state that the determination to withdrawal should be based on a number of factors, including protection of members of the armed forces, the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. embassy.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If a motion to recommit succeeds, the bill goes back to its committee of origin and language is added to reflect the instructions adopted.

Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J.) offered the motion. He said the legislation would have a "devastating impact on our ability to fight terrorism here and abroad and would have severe security impacts, not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East and the entire region."

Saxton said his motion would "ensure that when we withdraw from Iraq, we do so based on the conditions on the ground." He added that a premature withdrawal could embolden al Qaeda and forces for destabilization in the region, including Iran.

Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) complained that the minority did not give the majority a chance to review the motion before it was offered, but he said it was immediately apparent to him that its purpose was simply to prevent lawmakers from voting on the underlying bill.

"It is designed to gut the bill by adding two additional conditions that would enable our troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely," Obey said. "Those conditions make reference to the regional security of the Middle East and the national security interest of the United States. That language is so broad that virtually any deployment of any armed force could be justified under that language."

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) added that the motion was "yet another cynical attempt to try to avoid dealing with the issue that I think both Democrats and Republicans want to deal with, and that is whether or not we should have a timetable for withdrawal and redeployment from Iraq."

All but two Republicans voted to send the spending bill back to committee with specific directions to include the language, but Democrats were near unanimous in their opposition; only 13 Democrats voted for it. The motion to recommit with instructions failed by a vote of 210 to 218, and the House thus rejected a provision that would have included conditions for troop redeployment in legislation to require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days of enactment. A bill to set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country proceeded without amendment.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Won
Roll Call 328
May 10, 2007
Fiscal 2008 Intelligence authorization (H.R. 2082)/Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) motion to proceed into closed session to discuss classified provisions tucked into the legislation that benefit a particular interest, organization or locale

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to move the House into a secret session with the purpose of discussing earmarks in the fiscal 2008 Intelligence authorization bill. Earmarks are provisions tucked into legislation at the behest of individual lawmakers that benefit a particular interest, organization or locale.

The intelligence budget is classified, but it is estimated to be around $45 billion annually and includes money for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. House leaders reported that this Intelligence budget was the largest in history.

Flake was upset because the text of the earmarks included in the Intelligence bill were not made available to lawmakers 72 hours in advance of the legislation coming to the floor, as required by a House rule adopted at the beginning of this Congress.

"We said that if you are going to have an earmark in a bill, or in a report, that you need to state that you do not have a financial interest in that earmark, and then you need to submit that earmark, or it has to be submitted with the report so that Members can actually see that and see that there is no financial interest, see if it has merit or warrant," Flake said. "This process is not being followed here."

Flake said he was initially told there were no earmarks in the legislation, only later to find out there was a list but it wasn't available until after the deadline to submit amendments to the bill - the only way a lawmaker could challenge a particular earmark.

"We cannot continue to do business like this," Flake said. "Members need not be reminded that Duke Cunningham now sits in prison because of earmarks he largely got in the intelligence process, in the Intelligence Committee. We cannot allow that to happen again." Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham was sentence to eight years in prison for bribery and corruption.

"And then we have the problem here in open session where you can't even challenge the earmark and talk about what the earmark is actually about because you are in open session and you might be talking about classified things," Flake said.

Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said the Government Printing Office made an error in omitting the earmarks from the published version of the bill.

"Be that as it may, this committee followed the requirements of the House for each Member receiving an earmark to certify that neither he or she nor his or her spouse would benefit financially from any kind of action," Reyes said. "We complied with all the requirements, all the rules, and all the regulations.

Unsatisfied, Flake moved the House to be cleared of everyone except lawmakers. Republicans were unanimous in their support for the motion, and all but nine Democrats were opposed. Thus, on a mostly party-line vote of 207 to 217, the House rejected a motion to move the House into secret session to discuss classified earmarks, and the Intelligence authorization moved towards a final vote with the earmarks intact.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
N N Won
Roll Call 327
May 10, 2007
Providing for consideration (H. Res. 387) for two fiscal 2007 "emergency" supplemental spending bills and legislation to require a withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq (H.R. 2206, H.R. 2237, H.R. 2207)/On adoption of the rules package

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on the rules for debate for a series of bills to provide $95.5 billion in "emergency" appropriations for the military for the remainder of fiscal 2007, a timeline for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq as well as $4.5 billion for agriculture relief.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "closed rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a closed rule, no amendments can be offered on the House floor.

This Iraq war-spending bill was drafted after President Bush vetoed similar legislation because of its inclusion of a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. (See Roll Calls 235 and 276.) The original bill also contained disaster relief for farmers following record droughts and other severe weather in many parts of the country.

This time around, House appropriators separated the two spending bills and the Iraq pullout language into three separate measures. The rules of consideration would provide that the three measures be combined into one piece of legislation after they were adopted individually.

Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said he made the decision to separate the measures after Republicans had criticized Democrats for including the farm relief in the original war-spending supplemental as a way to "buy" votes for the troop-withdrawal provisions.

"The president seemed to suggest in his veto message that we didn't have the courage to deal with the agriculture and other related issues alone, that we had to slip them in, so to speak, in the Iraq bill," Obey said. "And frankly, that got my dander up."

Under the this plan, the war-spending bill itself would be divided into two parts: $42.8 billion would be provided immediately to fund military operations, an amount expected to last two to three months. The measure would then require a second round of votes in late July to release the remaining $52.8 billion.

The legislation would also include similar benchmarks for the Iraqi government as had been in the spending bill Bush vetoed May 1. Prior to the vote to release the second sum of funding, Congress would vote on an amendment requiring that the second sum be used solely to start bringing U.S. combat forces home within 90 days of enactment.

Bush expressed his intension to veto this spending package, as well.

The Iraq spending bill is the seventh "emergency" appropriations bill to make its way through Congress during President Bush's term. Another, more massive supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected in the fall. ("Emergency" supplemental appropriations bills are so named because they are handled outside of the regular annual Congressional processes that fund the activities of the U.S. government and therefore don't have to abide by normal budget rules.)

Republicans called the series of bills a "charade" and complained about the closed process under which they were going to be brought to the House floor.

"First they brought up a bill that they knew the President would veto. Then they called for a veto override that they knew would fail. And today we are once again considering the same defeatist policy that failed in the first two rounds plus, plus, Mr. Speaker, a call for redeployment, basically withdrawal, within 90 days, to begin withdrawal within 90 days," Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) said. "Kicking the pullout vote a few months down the road is not a solution."

Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said she found it "striking" that for all four years the Iraq war has been funded by supplemental appropriations measures.

"From the beginning the White House has refused to plan ahead. Instead it has counted on Congress to accept its demands and pass one supplemental bill and then another time and time again, with no end in sight and no accountability required in return," Slaughter said. "The American people have rejected a House that blindly accepts the administration's predictions about Iraq, all the while ceding its role in deciding matters of war and peace, the most solemn responsibility given to the Congress."

On an almost completely party-line vote, the House adopted the rules of consideration for the three measures. Only one Republican broke ranks to support it, and five Democrats crossed party lines to vote against it. Thus, by a vote of 219 to 199, the House approved the rules of debate for three pieces of legislation that would later be combined into one bill: supplemental appropriations for the Iraq war, a timeline for the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq and emergency funding for farming relief.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 326
May 10, 2007
Providing for consideration (H. Res. 387) for two fiscal 2007 "emergency" supplemental spending bills and legislation to require a withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq (H.R. 2206, H.R. 2237, H.R. 2207)/Motion to order the previous question (ending debate and preventing amendment)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This motion was offered to force a vote on the rules for debate for a series of bills to provide $95.5 billion in "emergency" appropriations for the military for the remainder of fiscal 2007, a timeline for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq as well as $4.5 billion for agriculture relief.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration.

To oppose ordering the previous question was a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and to allow the opposition to offer an alternative plan. Motions to order the previous question are about who controls the debate and represent one of the only tools available to those who oppose the majority's agenda.

Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "closed rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a closed rule, no amendments can be offered on the House floor.

This Iraq war-spending bill was drafted after President Bush vetoed similar legislation because of its inclusion of a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. (See Roll Calls 235 and 276.) The original bill also contained disaster relief for farmers following record droughts and other severe weather in many parts of the country.

This time around, House appropriators separated the two spending bills (for war spending and agriculture relief) and the Iraq pullout language into three separate measures. The rules of consideration would provide that the three measures be combined into one piece of legislation after they were adopted individually.

Under the this plan, the war-spending bill itself would be divided into two parts: $42.8 billion would be provided immediately to fund military operations, an amount expected to last two to three months. The measure would then require a second round of votes in late July 2007 to release the remaining $52.8 billion.

The legislation would also include similar benchmarks for the Iraqi government as had been in the spending bill Bush vetoed May 1. Prior to the vote to release the second sum of funding, Congress would vote on an amendment requiring that the second sum be used solely to start bringing U.S. combat forces home within 90 days of enactment.

Bush expressed his intension to veto this spending package, as well.

The Iraq spending bill is the seventh "emergency" appropriations bill to make its way through Congress during President Bush's term. Another, more massive supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected in the fall. ("Emergency" supplemental appropriations bills are so named because they are handled outside of the regular annual Congressional processes that fund the activities of the U.S. government and therefore don't have to abide by normal budget rules.)

Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) said Congress had an obligation to have a "serious, substantive debate to supply our troops with the funds they need to do their job," but that the Democrats "simply scheduled one more empty political vote under yet another totally closed process."

"And we all know, under both Democrats and Republicans, the tradition is that when it comes to wartime supplementals, they be considered under an open amendment process, but that's been thrown out the door," Dreier said.

Democrats said it was time for accountability.

"My fellow Democrats and I promised a new way forward," Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said. "And so the first funding bill that we delivered to the president reconciled our party's conscience with the brutal realities the war presented to us, realities that we, unlike some in the administration, are willing to acknowledge.

"And we said the war would not go on forever, that it must have an end, not an irresponsible end but an end," Slaughter continued. "The President rejected our offer out of hand. He told us that while he would never compromise, we had to. Mr. Speaker, stubbornness is not the same as strength."

If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all but three Democrats present voted for it, and the motion passed 222 to 201. Thus, on a party-line vote, the House ended debate and brought to a vote the rules for consideration for three pieces of legislation to fund the Iraq war, to require a timeline for the withdrawal of combat troops and to provide relief for farmers impacted by severe weather.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 325
May 10, 2007
Providing consideration for the fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization (H.R. 2082)/Adoption of the rules package

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on the rules for debate on a bill to authorize funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008. The intelligence budget is classified, but it is estimated to be around $45 billion annually and includes money for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said the legislation represented the largest budget for intelligence spending in history.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "structured rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a structured rule, only amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee can be offered on the House floor. In this case, the rule made in order a total of 10 amendments, almost half of which were offered by Republicans.

Republicans also opposed the rules package because of their discontent with a provision in the bill itself that would request that the National Intelligence Council produce a National Intelligence Estimate on the national security impact of global climate change, an action requested by 11 three- and four-star generals. Democrats said the provision was important, in the words of Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), because "climate change is impacting global security."

"Just look at the Middle East, the battle for scarce resources among those who have been displaced, particularly in Iraq, has the potential to generate sociopolitical environments that foster the creation of terrorist cells," Hastings said. "If we can't agree on this, I can assure you that we are going to have significant problems in the future. Even the National Defense University has recognized these implications by prioritizing response to large-scale national disasters in some of its most recent training simulations."

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said that the provision eroded what otherwise would have been bipartisan support for the bill. He said it was unwise to direct the intelligence community's "limited resources" to an assessment "on theoretical risks from global warming."

The rules for debate was adopted on a completely party-line vote. All Republicans present voted against the resolution, and all Democrats present voted to approve it. Thus, by a vote of 226 to 198, the House adopted the rules for consideration for legislation to authorize a classified amount for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008 and made way for the legislation to be brought to the House floor for debate, amendment and a final up-or-down vote.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
Y Y Won
Roll Call 324
May 10, 2007
Providing consideration for the fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization (H.R. 2082)/Motion to order the previous question (ending debate and preventing amendment)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This motion was offered to force a vote on the rules for debate on a bill to authorize funding for the intelligence agencies for fiscal 2008. The intelligence budget is classified, but it is estimated to be around $45 billion annually and includes money for the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said the legislation represented the largest budget for intelligence spending in history.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a up-or-down vote on the resolution under consideration.

To oppose ordering the previous question was a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and to allow the opposition to offer an alternative plan. Motions to order the previous question are about who controls the debate and represent one of the only tools available to those who oppose the majority's agenda.

Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "structured rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a structured rule, only amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee can be offered on the House floor. In this case, the rule made in order a total of 10 amendments, almost half of which were offered by Republicans.

Republicans also opposed the rules package because of their discontent with a provision in the bill itself that would request that the National Intelligence Council produce a National Intelligence Estimate on the national security impact of climate change, an action requested by 11 three- and four-star generals. Democrats said the provision was important because, in the words of Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), "climate change is impacting global security."

"Just look at the Middle East, the battle for scarce resources among those who have been displaced, particularly in Iraq, has the potential to generate sociopolitical environments that foster the creation of terrorist cells," Hastings said. "If we can't agree on this, I can assure you that we are going to have significant problems in the future. Even the National Defense University has recognized these implications by prioritizing response to large-scale national disasters in some of its most recent training simulations."

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said that the provision eroded what otherwise would have been bipartisan support for the bill. He said it was unwise to direct the intelligence community's "limited resources" to an assessment "on theoretical risks from global warming."

If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all but one Democrat present voted for it, and the motion passed 223 to 199. Thus, on a party-line vote, the House ended debate and brought to a vote the rules for consideration for legislation that would authorize a classified sum for intelligence spending for fiscal 2008.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
Y Y Won
Roll Call 322
May 10, 2007
Increasing opportunities for participation by small business in federal contracting (H.R. 1873)/Motion to recommit with instructions to allow small businesses to be considered "economically disadvantaged" if they can demonstrate they are adversely affected by expiring tax incentives

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was a Republican attempt to force an amendment to legislation aiming to increase the opportunities for participation by small businesses in federal contracting. Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.) motioned to send the bill back to the Small Business Committee with instructions that it be amended to allow any small businesses that could demonstrate that they would be adversely affected by expiring tax incentives to be considered "economically disadvantaged" and thus better able to compete for federal contracts.

The legislation to which English was seeking to amend would limit the ability of federal agencies to bundle small projects into large contracts and require the Small Business Administration (SBA) to take steps to reduce incorrect entries in the government's contractor registry that currently over-report the number of small businesses awarded federal contracts.

Despite bipartisan support for the legislation, Republicans were upset at what they characterized as being shut out of the amendment process. They said not even one Republican amendment was made in order by the Rules Committee (see Roll Call 312).

So in this case, the motion to recommit with instructions was the Republican's only chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. A motion to recommit is usually a symbolic vote, however, as the minority rarely wins.

English said his amendment was timely because of the inclusion of what Republicans deemed the largest tax increase in American history in the fiscal 2008 budget resolution proposed by Democrats (see Roll Call 307). In actuality, the "tax increase" Republicans referred to was the omission in the House's version of the budget resolution a plan to extend tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 that the then-Republican-led Congress had originally designed to expire at the end of the decade so as to obscure their true long-term cost.

During debate of the fiscal 2008 budget resolution, Democrats promised to extend the tax cuts to the middle class and small businesses while letting many that benefit only wealthy individuals and large corporations to expire. Nonetheless, the Democrats engaged in a little budget gimmickry of their own by not including the tax cuts they planned to extend in the 2008 budget resolution, allowing them to make the federal budget appear more balanced than it will likely end up being if those tax cuts are extended without cutting federal spending or increasing taxes elsewhere.

For his part, English said that he was "concerned that if we see a change in our tax policies on this scale, that it is going to have a huge impact on small businesses." English was particularly concerned with a tax provision known as Section 179, which allows small businesses to write off their capital investments as business expenses.

"All this motion to recommit is seeking to do is to give small businesses a tool to enhance their success in the marketplace, despite the potential for being hammered by a Brobdingnagian set of tax increases required by the budget that we are going to be facing," English continued.

But Democrats said the argument was nonsense.

"I would just like to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that I am a little confused, because if he cares so much about extending section 179, where was he last week when we voted to override the veto of the President where section 179 was part of it?" asked Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.).

Velazquez went on to question the Republicans' commitment to entrepreneurship. "This Congress just sent a bill to the President cutting taxes for small businesses. While the president [signed] a bill for tax breaks for large companies, the president just vetoed the one that helped small businesses, like section 179; not only extending section 179, but expanding section 179," Velazquez said. "Republicans passed $2 trillion in tax cuts, yet small business priorities were never taken care of."

On an almost completely party-line vote, the House rejected the motion to recommit. Republicans were unanimous in their support, while all but 11 Democrats voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 209 to 216, the motion to recommit failed, and a bill aiming to increase the opportunities for participation by small businesses in federal contracting moved towards a final vote without attaching an amendment that would have allowed small businesses that could demonstrate that they are adversely affected by expiring tax incentives to be considered "economically disadvantaged."


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
N N Won
Roll Call 318
May 09, 2007
Authorizing $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008 (H.R. 1684)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on legislation authorizing $40 billion for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal 2008.

The bill would authorize $300 million between fiscal 2008 and 2010 for grants to states to prevent terrorists or other individuals from fraudulently obtaining and using state-issued identification cards and to develop more secure state-issued documents. The measure would require the agency to conduct a comprehensive homeland security review. Furthermore, it would eliminate the department's authority to establish a unique personnel management system that prevents employees from being covered by workplace laws afforded to other federal workers.

The last provision was the most controversial, and President Bush threatened to veto the legislation over its inclusion. Republicans said that DHS's personnel system, unique in the federal government, was necessary to give the executive branch the necessary "flexibilities" to manage the country's security. Democrats said that the system, which as been held up in federal court since the department's creation several years ago, only undermined worker morale and was an unnecessary elimination of the rights normally afforded federal workers.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the bill contained "strong accountability measures aimed at strengthening and streamlining management of the Department of Homeland Security, which has struggled with its management challenges; and it includes provisions to improve information sharing, to enhance bioterrorism preparedness and to eliminate the Department's authority to establish its own personnel management system."

Many Republicans supported the bill until the inclusion of what's known as the manager's amendment, a package of changes that modified the bill after it passed out of the Homeland Security Committee (see Roll Call 314).

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.) said although she was "cynical about the campaign promises made by the other side to implement the remaining 9/11 Commission reforms, I never dreamed that the American people would be betrayed the way I believe they are today."

She said the majority of lawmakers on the Homeland Security Committee "rolled over and played dead, letting their other committee counterparts in the House pick this bill clean of many good security measures in a manager's amendment that will strip them out and gut the bill."

Among the provisions stripped from the original bill when the House adopted the manager's amendment was language that would have required employers at critical infrastructure sites to verify Social Security numbers of their employees before hiring them.

"Do you know why constituents all around the Nation should be outraged?" Brown-Waite asked. "Because 2 years ago, a power plant in Florida unknowingly had a painting contractor who hired illegal aliens. Several of them had pending criminal charges and had been deported multiple times."

As a fusion of many agencies previously under the oversight of multiple committees and subcommittees in the House, the Department of Homeland Security has been plagued by bureaucratic turf wars since its inception - critics say to the detriment of the department and Congress' stated goal in its creation: national security. It is those influences to which Brown-Waite referred.

Despite protests from many Republicans, the legislation passed easily. Seventy-three Republicans joined all but two Democrats in voting for the bill. Thus, on a final vote of 296 to 126, the House passed legislation authorizing $40 billion for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal 2008, including provisions that would prevent the agency from implementing a personnel system that would deny its workers the civil service protections afforded to other federal employees.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 317
May 09, 2007
Authorizing $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008 (H.R. 1684)/Motion to recommit with instructions to authorize the agency to deploy a system to perform risk assessments of people entering the United States

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote represented a Republican attempt to force an amendment to legislation authorizing $40 billion for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal 2008. The motion was to send the bill back committee with instructions to add language authorizing DHS to deploy the Automated Targeting System (ATS-P) at the border to collect information and perform risk assessments of people entering the country.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. It's usually a symbolic vote, as the minority rarely wins. The Democrats almost always failed to pass motions to recommit under more than a decade of Republican rule in the House. But increasingly Republicans have been winning motions to recommit. When that happens, the bill is sent back to committee with instructions to include the amendment outlined in the motion, then the bill is immediately sent back to the House floor, where the change is agreed to by a separate voice vote.

Rep. Charles Dent (R-Pa.) made the motion to recommit. He said if Congress "truly serious" about implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, then the motion would be adopted.

"The 9/11 Commission told us that we needed to develop a better border security system," Dent said. "The bottom line here is that ATS-P, after factoring in the available information, indicates to the Customs and Border Protection [CBP] officer whether an international traveler should be flagged for additional screening or questioning. That CBP officer retains the discretion to do with that information as he or she pleases. But by giving advance notice of an investigatory lead, ATS-P allows the officer and the agency to operate more effectively, to engage in screening that is risk-based."

Democrats opposed the implementation of the program on privacy grounds. Furthermore, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said that it would detract personnel and resources from another border security program, called US-VISIT, not yet fully implemented and "put our government at further risk."

"What we need to do is to implement US-VISIT, integrate it with the new technology plan that is about to be brought online," Lofgren said. "It will be a dreadful mistake for the Congress to defer a Department that is not terrifically functional as is from this vital mission by creating still another program that will not actually do its job."

Customs and Border Patrol recently filed a Privacy Act notice informing the public that the agency had been utilizing the Automated Targeting System for 5 years without public disclosure. Many Democrats have called upon the agency, which operates under DHS, to reevaluate privacy concerns regarding the program. As of this vote, the agency had yet to answer the Democrats' questions about the programs' operations and data collection.

Nonetheless, Republicans found 66 Democrats to join them in their motion to recommit, which passed easily. Republicans were unanimous in their support, and the remaining 160 Democrats present voted against the motion. Thus, by a vote of 264 to 160, the House forced an amendment to a bill authorizing $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008 that would authorize DHS to deploy a border-security system that would assign "risk assessment" scores to individuals entering the United States. The legislation proceeded toward a final vote with this amendment now incorporated.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 316
May 09, 2007
Authorizing $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008 (H.R. 1684)/Revote on the manager's amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a revote on a series of technical and substantial changes to legislation authorizing $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department (DHS) for fiscal 2008 that had been previously approved (see Roll Call 314) by the Committee of the Whole. Under House rules, any lawmaker -- in this case Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) -- can demand a revote by the full House on an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.

The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct business. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100, as long as there are no vacancies)

The amendment packaged, known as a "manager's amendment" or "chairman's mark," was offered by Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). A manager's amendment is usually offered by the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction and represents a series of changes to the bill after it has been passed out of committee and before it comes before the full House.

Republicans were particularly incensed that the manager's amendment, which was adopted in the Committee of the Whole by a vote of 216 to 209, omitted "sense of Congress" language that the House and Senate each should have a single point of homeland security oversight, a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. The language was nonbinding, but it was nonetheless stripped from the bill by the manager's amendment.

"Unfortunately, the bill that comes to the floor today has been either stripped or dramatically modified up to 50 percent of the original provisions," Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said.

In addition, the manager's amendment also struck $1.6 billion that the original version of the bill would have authorized for the Secret Service, established new criminal penalties for maritime smuggling of illegal immigrants and required contractors to certify to DHS whether they are delinquent on their federal taxes. Thompson's amendment package also added language requiring the integration of two registered traveler programs and mandated a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on law-enforcement retirement systems. GAO is the investigative arm of Congress.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the manager's amendment was simply a way to work out necessary changes to the bill.

On an almost total party-line vote, the House affirmed its previous vote. All but three Republicans voted against it, and all but 16 Democrats voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 212 to 209, the House re-approved the manager's amendment for legislation authorizing $39.8 billion in funding the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008, and the bill was then brought up for consideration in an amended form.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 314
May 09, 2007
Authorizing $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008 (H.R. 1684)/Manager's amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a series of technical and substantial changes to legislation authorizing $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department (DHS) for fiscal 2008.

The amendment struck $1.6 billion that the original version of the bill would have authorized for the Secret Service, established new criminal penalties for maritime smuggling of illegal immigrants and required contractors to certify to DHS whether they are delinquent on their federal taxes. The amendment package also added language requiring the integration of two registered traveler programs and mandated a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on law-enforcement retirement systems. GAO is the investigative arm of Congress.

Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) offered the amendment package, known as a "manager's amendment." A manager's amendment is usually offered by the committee chairman and represents a series of changes to the bill after it has been passed out of committee and before it comes before the full House. It is often referred to as the chairman's "mark."

Republicans opposed the manager's amendment because they said it would undo the bipartisan effort that created the legislation in committee.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said that he supported the bill when it was in committee, but opposed the new version of the bill because of the manager's amendment. "Unfortunately, the bill that comes to the floor today has been either stripped or dramatically modified up to 50 percent of the original provisions," King said.

"And some of these are very significant provisions, probably none more significant than just the sense of Congress, which was so strongly recommended by the 9/11 Commission, saying that the Committee on Homeland Security should be the focal point of legislative activity regarding the Department of Homeland Security, rather than having offices and officials of the Department having to testify before 84 or 86 or 88 various committees and subcommittees of the House," King continued.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the manager's amendment was simply a way to work out necessary changes to the bill.

On an almost total party-line vote, the House adopted the rules package. All but four Republicans voted against it, and all but 17 Democrats voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 216 to 209, the House approved the manager's amendment for legislation authorizing $39.8 billion in funding the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008, making way for the bill to be brought up for consideration in an amended form.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 312
May 09, 2007
Providing for the consideration (H. Res. 383) of legislation to increase opportunities for participation by small business in federal contracting (H.R. 1873)/On adoption of the rule

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on the rules for debate on a bill aiming to increase participation by small businesses in federal contracting. The legislation would limit the ability of federal agencies to bundle small projects into large contracts and require the Small Business Administration (SBA) to take steps to reduce incorrect entries in the government's contractor registry.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "structured rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a structured rule, only amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee can be offered on the House floor.

Since 1953, with the enactment of the Small Business Act, Congress declared as the policy of the federal government to promote small businesses and ensure that a "fair proportion" of federal contracts go to small businesses. The almost 26 million small businesses in the United States employ over half of all private sector workers and pay approximately 45 percent of total U.S. private payroll, yet small businesses in 2006 won just over a fifth of federal contracts, and even that figure is believed to be a overestimate given accounting maneuvers by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to inflate the figure. Yet even with the dubious accounting, SBA has failed to meet its goal of 23 percent of federal contracts going to small businesses for the past six years.

The legislation aims to remedy the shortcomings by preventing SBA from "bundling," the practice of combining two or more smaller contracts into a single, larger package whose scope is out of reach for many small businesses. The bill would also require the federal government to more accurately report the number of small businesses awarded federal contracts and prevent the agency from counting contracts awarded to larger companies in its small business contracting goals.

Despite bipartisan support for the legislation, Republicans were upset at what they characterized as being shut out of the amendment process. They said not even one Republican amendment was made in order by the Rules Committee. Republicans believed that several changes to the bill included in what's known as a manager's amendment (which would be automatically adopted with the rules package) would harm small businesses. A manager's amendment is proposed by the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction and outlines both technical and substantial changes to the legislation after it is passed out of committee.

"So I think the question is begged, how can the majority claim to be fostering an open legislative process when it totally shuts out the minority?" asked Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.).

Democrats said that although no Republican amendments by themselves were made in order by the Rules Committee, some bipartisan amendments were.

"So to say that no Republican suggestions were made in order was simply not totally accurate," Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) said. "We believe that this is, in fact, a very good use of the time of the Members of this House."

Diaz-Balart responded that he found it "quite interesting to see that now it is important for the minority to pair with members from the majority party in order to be considered, that pairing with someone from the other side makes the denial of amendments to all Republican amendments apparently fair."

Cardoza shot back that in the last two years under Republican control of the House, the Rules Committee reported a "grand total" of three open rules (with the exception of spending bills), meaning that only in these three cases had all amendments had been allowed. In the first four months of Democratic control, Cardoza said, the majority has already allowed seven open rules. "Say what you want, we have already had a fairer and far more open process than happened in just the last two years of the prior majority's rule, when their party ran this place," Cardoza concluded.

The partisan rhetoric was reflected in the total conformity of each party in voting on the rules package. All 197 Republicans present opposed it, and all 223 Democrats present voted for it. Thus, the House approved the rules of consideration for a bill aiming to increase the participation of small businesses in the federal contracting process, and the legislation was brought up for debate, amendment and an up-or-down vote on the House floor.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Lobbying Reform & Government Transparency
Y Y Won
Roll Call 311
May 09, 2007
Providing for consideration (H. Res. 382) of legislation to authorize $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008 (H.R. 1684)/On adoption of the rule

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on the rules for consideration for a bill to authorize $39.8 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "structured rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a structured rule, only amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee can be offered on the House floor.

Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said that Democrats did allow several amendments and that he looked "forward to an active debate and the opportunity to present my manager's amendment."

A manager's amendment is offered by the committee chairman and can be comprised of technical amendments or changes of a more substantial nature (or some combination thereof). Republicans opposed the manager's amendment because they said it would undo the bipartisan effort that created the legislation in committee.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said that he supported the bill when it was in committee, but opposed the rule and the new version of the bill because of the manager's amendment. "Unfortunately, the bill that comes to the floor today has been either stripped or dramatically modified up to 50 percent of the original provisions," King said.

"And some of these are very significant provisions, probably none more significant than just the sense of Congress, which was so strongly recommended by the 9/11 Commission, saying that the Committee on Homeland Security should be the focal point of legislative activity regarding the Department of Homeland Security, rather than having offices and officials of the Department having to testify before 84 or 86 or 88 various committees and subcommittees of the House," King continued. He said that was just one of many significant provisions stripped from the bill by the manager's amendment.

The rules of consideration automatically stipulated for the adoption of the manager's amendment, meaning that a vote for the rules package was also a vote to adopt the manager's amendment. The structured rule prevented Republicans from offering amendments to that and other provisions they wished to see changed.

On an almost total party-line vote, the House adopted the rules package. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition, and all but one Democrat voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 222 to 197, the House approved the rules for consideration for legislation authorizing $39.8 billion in funding the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008, making way for the bill to come to the House floor for debate, amendment and a final vote.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Won
Roll Call 310
May 09, 2007
Providing for consideration (H. Res. 382) of legislation to authorize $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008 (H.R. 1684)/Motion to order the previous question (end debate and prevent amendment)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This motion was offered to force a vote on the rules for debate on a bill to authorize $39.8 billion for the Homeland Security Department for fiscal 2008.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration.

To oppose ordering the previous question was a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and to allow the opposition to offer an alternative plan. Motions to order the previous question are about who controls the debate and represent one of the only tools available to those who oppose the majority's agenda.

Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the so-called "structured rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a structured rule, only amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee can be offered on the House floor.

Many Republicans were upset over a provision in the legislation that would scrap the Homeland Security Department's current personnel system, whereby employees are effectively excluded from the civil service protections afforded to other federal workers. President Bush threatened to veto the measure over the provision, arguing that it would take away the agency's "flexibilities" in managing employees.

"This bill gets at the heart of the management problems within the Department," Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said. "As we all know, the Department was created by combining the work of 22 separate agencies. This process of integration has had many, many challenges, poor communication between agencies, a lack of qualified management, unusually high turnover of senior personnel."

Democrats said the previous Republican-controlled Congress made the problems worse by not passing an authorization bill for fiscal 2007 (and instead funding the agency without a separate bill fine-tuning its operations).

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) responded that Democrats had manipulated the process by attempting to undo what had been a bipartisan bill to emerge out of the Homeland Security committee with what's known as a manager's amendment that Diaz-Balart said would significantly alter the bill. A manager's amendment is a package of changes to legislation by the chairman of the committee to modify the original bill before it is taken up by the full House.

"Most of the provisions stricken by the manager's amendment had become part of the bill through Republican amendments in the committee process," Diaz-Balart said. He pointed out two changes he said were most egregious. The first would strike post-employment lobbying restrictions that would have ensured that department employees could not lobby any part of the agency for a year after their departures. The second provision would strike nonbinding language calling for the implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendation to establish a single point of oversight of homeland security in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.

"Now, that is one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and precisely it is one that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle ran on in the elections, the promise to enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations," Diaz-Balart said. "Yet here they have an opportunity to follow through on their campaign promise, but, instead, they strike the provision from the bill through the manager's amendment. And they don't even allow for the provision to be debated in the form of an amendment on the floor."

The rules of consideration automatically stipulated for the adoption of the manager's amendment, meaning that a vote for the rules package was also a vote to adopt the manager's amendment. The structured rule prevented Republicans from offering amendments to provisions they wished to see changed unless the Rules Committee had pre-approved them.

"The Rules Committee had the opportunity to allow an open rule on this bill, but the suggestion that we do so, that we come forth with an open rule, was voted down by the majority on the Rules Committee," Diaz-Balart said. "Instead, they decided to report out a restrictive rule, thereby shutting out Members who had worked diligently to prepare their amendments."

If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all but three Democrats present voted for it, and the motion passed 217-199. Thus, on a party-line vote, the House ended debate and brought to a vote the rules for consideration for legislation that would authorize $39.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal 2008.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Won
Roll Call 309
May 08, 2007
Recognizing the suffering and loyalty of residents of Guam during World War II Loyalty (H.R. 1595)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on adoption of legislation to recognize the suffering and loyalty of the Guam residents during World War II and the Japanese occupation. The bill would direct the Treasury Department to make payments to those who were killed, injured, raped, forced into labor or interned or to their survivors.

The measure was taken up by a procedure known as a suspension of the rules, basically a time-saving method used for relatively non-controversial legislation that is all but assured of passage. Suspending the rules means that the measure is unamendable and debate is limited to forty minutes on each side. Bills taken up under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds majority for passage.

The bill was not without controversy, however. Many Republicans opposed it on grounds that Guam residents had already been adequately compensated for their suffering during World War II.

Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) said the bill gives parity to Guam after 63 years of "inequity and injustice."

"The question we must ask ourselves before this vote today is, will we ignore history? Will we be deaf to the testimonials of Guam's liberators, our U.S. servicemen, who spoke about Guam's patriotism in the face of enemy occupation? Will we vote against inequity for people who aided our military to take Guam back from the enemy, who greeted our military with tattered rags made into American flags?" Christensen asked.

Two federal commissions, one in 1947 and the other in 2004, reported to Congress that the people of Guam have not been made whole despite efforts to rehabilitate the island after Japanese occupation. Guam became an unincorporated territory of the United States in 1948. The federal commissions documented public executions by beheading, rapes and torture during the Japanese wartime occupation and both recommended that the United States make additional reparations. During the occupation, 22,000 American nationals were interned in camps on the island in the Western Pacific.

No Republicans spoke against the measure, but Del. Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa) alluded to their opposition: "Mr. Speaker, it has been said among some of the critics of this legislation, saying that the people of Guam were properly compensated already. The way the whole thing has been presented, the procedures that were followed and the war claims that were made for the U.S. citizens left out the people of Guam. For some reason or another, I think our colleagues need to understand this a little more clearly."

In the end, 66 Republicans joined all but two Democrats in supporting the legislation. Thus, by a final vote of 288 to 133, the House sustained the two-thirds majority necessary to pass the bill under suspension of the rules, thereby voting to direct the Treasury Department to make payments to residents of Guam who were killed, injured, raped, forced into labor or interned under Japanese occupation during World War II, or to their survivors.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
Y Y Won
Roll Call 308
May 08, 2007
Five-year budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 21)/Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) motion to instruct conferees to reject the revenue levels set in the House budget resolution, accommodate the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and prohibit the use of the Social Security trust fund to finance other government programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a Republican motion to instruct House representatives on a joint House-Senate conference committee meeting to iron out the differences between the two chambers' fiscal 2008 budget resolutions. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) moved to instruct the conferees to include language in the final report that would reject the revenue levels set in the House budget resolution and insist on the revenue projections outlined in the Senate's version, which provided for the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts set to expire in 2010. The motion would also insist that the conference report mandate that the Social Security trust fund not be used to finance other government spending.

The budget resolution forms the blueprint for spending decisions for the next five years. It is passed by the House and Senate but is not signed by the president nor does it have the force of law. (That is why it is referred to as a resolution and not a bill.) Nonetheless, the ability of both chambers to agree on budget priorities is considered a prerequisite to responsible spending and good governance as it gives the 12 spending panels on the Appropriations Committee guidance and reflects consensus on how the multi-trillion dollar pie of federal spending should be sliced.

A motion to instruct conferees is a way for the House to go on record outlining how the chamber wants its representatives to negotiate a compromise measure. It carries heavy weight in the conference committee because the final version of the resolution that emerges from those discussions has to go back to each chamber for approval.

Among the differences between the chambers was the total fiscal 2008 discretionary spending (which excludes Medicare and Social Security funding), which the House's version set at $956 billion and the Senate wanted to see lowered by $7 billion. (The House's figure was also $23 billion more than President Bush requested.)

Republicans said that the House's version of the budget plan would amount to the biggest tax increase in American history. What they were referring to was the budgetary treatment of future actions to renew tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, which the House's resolution didn't account for. In its version of the resolution, the Senate went on record in supporting the extension of some of those tax cuts by financing their costs with expected surpluses. The House outlined its support for the extension of certain tax breaks less formally, drawing Republican criticism.

Because the budget resolution is not binding, however, the debate essentially amounted to what sort of political statement Congress would make on the extension of the tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2010. (The sun-setting provision was originally put in place, at least in part, to mask their huge budgetary consequences at the time of enactment.)

Republicans didn't endorse the budget put forth by either chamber, but they found the Senate's version more agreeable. Republicans said that the House plan amounted to a tax increase. House Democrats said they placed a higher priority on balancing the budget in five years while not cutting spending, and accused Republicans of running up the national debt since Bush took office, and they promised to extend certain middle-class tax credits, but those tax provisions were not included in the formal budget put forth by the House.

Ryan said his motion reflected "a very simple up or down choice: One, rejecting the largest tax increase in our nation's history, which is contained in the House budget; two, insisting on the lowest possible level of taxes available in the budget conference; and three, stopping the raid on Social Security's cash surpluses."

He went on to add that both chambers' versions of the budget "call for historic tax increases, and we in the minority can't do anything to prevent that," but he hoped with this vote to "at least minimize the damage that these tax hikes will bring."

Budget Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) said independent, third-party groups such as the Concord Coalition and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as well as the Brookings Institution stated unequivocally that the budget resolution neither called for nor required a tax increase.

"We have included in the budget resolution not one place, but twice, in different parts of the resolution, our wholehearted endorsement, our commitment, our pledge, our determination to see that these middle-income tax cuts are preserved and enacted and carried forward when they expire per their terms," Spratt said. "The budget resolution does not cause them to expire. They were designed to expire, written to expire when they were offered and passed. At that particular time, that was part of the provision."

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) added that he found it ironic that Republicans were talking about fiscal responsibility when for "12 consecutive years of ironclad Republican control they wrote all the fiscal rules, wrote the budgets, wrote the tax policy ... [and] it's a pretty sorry record of fiscal irresponsibility."

Blumenauer added that there wasn't "that great a difference of opinion" between Ryan's motion (which would essentially endorse a budget resolution closer to the Senate's) and the House-passed budget. "We are, in fact, going to be able to meet the objectives. We are working hard in our budget to make sure that we deal meaningfully with tax relief for those who need it," he added.

One way or another, Democrats were all but assured of getting their way because they held the upper hand in the conference committee because of their majorities in both chambers.

Despite their comments, however, both Blumenauer and Spratt ended up voting for Ryan's motion.

Only 57 Democrats opposed the motion to instruct, and Republicans were unanimous in their support for it. By and large the opposition came from the House's most progressive lawmakers, although it was certainly not a homogenous group.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), who voted against the motion, said it violated the most fundamental concept of pay-as-you-go spending (PAYGO), under which tax cuts and spending increases have to be off set by revenue increases elsewhere in the budget. He said Republicans threw PAYGO out the window when President Bush took control of the executive branch in 2001, after previous Congresses had climbed out of deficits into surpluses with fiscal responsibility and adherence to PAYGO principles.

"Mr. Speaker, PAYGO is a very simple concept. If you are going to increase spending, you pay for it. If you are going to cut taxes, you pay for it. You don't go into the ditch. If you have a tax cut, you have to pay for it either with increases of other taxes or spending cuts to pay for it. If you have spending increases, you have to pay for it with cutting spending somewhere else or increasing taxes to pay for it," Scott said, adding "we got out of the ditch with fiscal responsibility, and as soon as 2001 came along, you let PAYGO expire, passed tax cuts that we couldn't afford and put us right back into the ditch."

Scott said Ryan's motion assumed "$250 billion in cuts that we are not going to make."

"The fact is that the only way the Republican budget makes any sense is if you have $250 billion in cuts, mostly in Medicare and Medicaid, at a time when we can't even afford the cuts that are already in effect," Scott continued. "What are your priorities? Tax cuts that we can't afford at a time when we need to cover children? We can't even afford the Medicaid program we have got now."

Three-quarters of Democrats joined all Republicans present in passing Ryan's motion to instruct House negotiators to reject portions of the House-passed budget resolution in the chamber's negotiations with the Senate on a budget resolution for fiscal 2008 through fiscal 2013. Most significantly, the motion to instruct conferees rejected the revenue levels set in the House budget resolution and insisted on the revenue projections outlined in the Senate's version, which provided for the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts set to expire in 2010. The final vote was 364 to 57. The House had originally not included the extension of those tax cuts in its five-year budget plan, and this vote represented a rejection of that decision. Although the motion to instruct conferees is not binding, it has a weighty impact on negotiations between the chambers and reflects the House's consensus on how the two chambers should iron out differences in creating a compromise budget.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 307
May 08, 2007
Five-year budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 21)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on adoption of a House-Senate budget resolution for fiscal 2008 through fiscal 2013.

The budget resolution forms the blueprint for spending decisions for the next five years. It is passed by the House and Senate but is not signed by the president nor does it have the force of law. (That is why it is referred to as a resolution and not a bill.) Nonetheless, the ability of both chambers to agree on budget priorities is considered a prerequisite to responsible spending and good governance as it gives the 12 spending panels on the Appropriations Committee guidance and reflects consensus on how the multi-trillion dollar pie of federal spending should be sliced.

This vote represented the House's endorsement of its version of the budget resolution before the chamber sent its representatives to a conference committee to iron out differences between the two chambers' versions. During three of the past five years of Republican control of Congress, one or both chambers failed to pass the budget resolution and the spending process proceeded without one.

In the previous vote (see Roll Call 306), the House moved to take up consideration of the Senate's version of the fiscal 2008 budget resolution and then automatically amend it with the text of the House resolution. This vote then reflected the House's insistence on its budget numbers when House and Senate negotiators met to decide on a compromise plan. That resolution would then need to be sent back to each chamber for its approval in order for the resolution to be considered adopted.

Among the differences between the chambers was the total fiscal 2008 discretionary spending (which excludes Medicare and Social Security funding), which the House's version set at $956 billion and the Senate wanted to see lowered by $7 billion. (The House's figure was also $23 billion more than President Bush requested.)

The House's version called for $145.2 billion for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would assume $503.8 billion for defense discretionary spending, not counting the $145.2 billion war funding. Non-defense discretionary spending would be set at $451.1 billion. The resolution would also direct the Education and Labor Committee to find a total of $75 million in spending cuts for fiscal 2007 through 2012.

Republicans said that the budget plan would amount to the biggest tax increase in American history. What they were referring to was the budgetary treatment of future actions to renew tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, which the House's resolution didn't budget for. Because the budget resolution is not binding, however, the debate essentially amounted to what sort of political statement Congress would make on the extension of the tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2010. (The sun-setting provision was originally put in place, at least in part, to mask their huge budgetary consequences at the time of enactment.)

In its version of the resolution, the Senate went on record in supporting the extension of some of those tax cuts by financing their costs with expected surpluses. The House outlined its support for the extension of certain tax breaks less formally, drawing Republican criticism.

Democrats maintained that the resolution promised to extend the child-tax credit, the so-called marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent individual income tax bracket, estate tax reform, the research and development tax credit and the education of state and local sales taxes, but those tax provisions were not included in the formal budget.

Republicans said that the Democratic plan amounted to a tax increase. Democrats said they placed a higher priority on balancing the budget in five years while not cutting spending, and accused Republicans of running up the national debt since Bush took office.

Republican Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas) called the budget a "fiscal train wreck."

"This Democrat budget, which is balanced on the backs of everyday taxpayers, would be used to finance bloated new government spending that will grow well above the rate of inflation through 2012, while also ignoring the brewing entitlement crisis," Sessions added. "Around 77 million baby boomers will be retiring in the very near future and will begin collecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Funding this new spending represents the greatest economic challenge of our era, and it is a challenge that the Democrat budget has chosen to completely ignore, while going on its own spending spree elsewhere."

Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) responded that he had no idea what Sessions was talking about. "The fact of the matter is that the Democratic budget resolution does not contain a single tax increase, period," a fact he said was backed up by numerous independent budget watchdog groups.

"We need to correct the fiscal course of the country because the fiscal outlook that we are confronting has deteriorated dramatically over the past 6 years because of the Republicans misplaced priorities," McGovern continued. "In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. That's $5.6 trillion. Within 2 years, that surplus was gone, and the United States began accumulating an amount of national debt, adding $2.8 trillion to our federal debt burden since 2001."

On a near party-line vote, the House voted to approve the budget resolution. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition, and all but 12 Democrats voted for its adoption. Thus, on a vote of 212 to 207, the House passed a five-year budget resolution that would leave open how to finance the extension of tax breaks that are set to expire at the end of the decade.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 306
May 08, 2007
On adopting the rules for consideration (H. Res. 370) of the five-year budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 99/S. Con. Res. 21)/Rule for a conference

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on adoption of the rules for consideration for a House-Senate budget resolution for fiscal 2008 through fiscal 2013.

The rule was necessary because the House Republican leadership did not agree to the customary unanimous consent agreement to allow the House to go to a join House-Senate conference committee on a Senate-numbered bill. The House Democratic leadership planned to take up the Senate's version of the budget resolution and then replace it with the House's version in a parliamentary move known as a substitute amendment.

Rules of consideration are required to take up particular measures in the House, but commonly both parties agree to proceed on simple parliamentary matters without such formalities, a procedure known as unanimous consent. Republicans were opposed to this budget resolution because they said it laid out plans for what they called the biggest tax increase in American history, and they decided to begin their efforts to frustrate its passage not with the consideration of the resolution itself but with a usually non-controversial technical matter.

The budget resolution forms the blueprint for spending decisions for the next five years. It is passed by the House and Senate but is not signed by the president nor does it have the force of law. (That is why it is referred to as a resolution and not a bill.) Nonetheless, the ability of both chambers to agree on budget priorities is considered a prerequisite to responsible spending and good governance as it gives the 12 spending panels on the Appropriations Committee guidance and reflects consensus on how the multi-trillion dollar pie of federal spending should be sliced.

This vote made way for the House's consideration of the budget resolution before it was to be sent to a House-Senate conference committee to iron out differences between the two chambers' versions. During three of the past five years of Republican control of Congress, one or both chambers failed to pass the budget resolution and the spending process proceeded without one.

Logistically, adoption of this rule meant that the House would take up consideration of the Senate's version of the fiscal 2008 budget resolution and then automatically amend it with the text of the House resolution. It would then be in order for the House to insist on its version when House and Senate negotiators met to decide on a compromise plan. That resolution would then need to be sent back to each chamber for its approval in order for the budget resolution to be considered adopted.

Among the differences between the chambers was the total fiscal 2008 discretionary spending (which excludes Medicare and Social Security funding), which the House's version set at $956 billion and the Senate wanted to see lowered by $7 billion. (The House's figure was also $23 billion more than President Bush requested.)

"The rule is very simple," Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) said. "It allows the House to disagree with the Senate budget resolution and request a conference.

"This rule is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because the Republican leadership refused to agree to the customary unanimous consent request required to go to conference on a Senate numbered bill," McGovern continued. "In fact, there is no instance in recent memory where a separate rule has been adopted to go to conference with the Senate on a budget resolution due to the objection of a unanimous consent request. Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time figuring out why my Republican friends are choosing to be obstructionists on even the most routine housekeeping measures."

Republicans countered that they were simply opposing what they labeled the largest tax increase in American history. What they were referring to was the budgetary treatment of future actions to renew tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. Because the budget resolution is not binding, however, the debate essentially amounted to what sort of political statement Congress would make on the extension of the tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2010. (The sun-setting provision was originally put in place, at least in part, to mask their huge budgetary consequences at the time of enactment.)

In its version of the resolution, the Senate went on record in supporting the extension of some of those tax cuts by financing their costs with expected surpluses. The House outlined its support for the extension of certain tax breaks less formally, drawing Republican criticism.

House Republicans said that the House Democrats' plan amounted to a tax increase. Democrats said they placed a higher priority on balancing the budget in five years while not cutting spending, and accused Republicans of running up the national debt since Bush took office.

Democrats maintained that the resolution promised to extend the child-tax credit, the so-called marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent individual income tax bracket, estate tax reform, the research and development tax credit and the education of state and local sales taxes, but those tax provisions were not included in the formal budget.

"By voting against this rule," Republican Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas) said, "every Member of this body can demonstrate their opposition to the federal largesse included in this budget, as well as their opposition to the largest tax increase in American history."

On an almost completely party-line vote, the House voted to approve the rule. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition, and all but two Democrats voted for its adoption. Thus, on a vote of 221 to 197, the House moved to take up the Senate's version of the fiscal 2008 budget resolution and replace it with the text of the House version. The move was a Democratic victory over objections by Republicans who said that the budget amounted to blueprint for a tax increase because the House's version did not formally budget for the extension of tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 that expire in 2010.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 305
May 08, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 377 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1294, Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 300
May 03, 2007
Reauthorizing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (H.R. 1868)/Motion to recommit with instructions to cap funding if the federal government is tapping into the Social Security trust fund to finance federal programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote represented a Republican attempt to force the adoption of an amendment to a bill to reauthorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which conducts a wide range of scientific research. The bill would authorize $2.5 billion for the agency through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.), the amendment would cap funding for NIST programs at the previous year's funding level if the federal government uses the Social Security trust fund to finance non-Social Security spending.

In essence, English was attempting to use a procedural motion to tie funding for NIST programs with the health of the Social Security trust fund. The federal government has been borrowing (with interest paid) against surpluses in that fund for decades to finance other spending, but the impending retirement of millions of baby boomers is expected to require every bit of those surpluses.

"In other words," English said, "new spending, because we were running a deficit, was inevitably at the expense of the Social Security system.

"Mr. Speaker, by commingling our Social Security surplus with our deficit-ridden general fund, we potentially expose our Social Security system to risk by shielding our policymakers from their spending decisions to the full consequences and the full balance sheet," English added. "The time has come for us to change that practice. Specifically, this motion says that the funding authorized for the Advanced Technology Program will be capped at the previous year's appropriated amount until such time as the Social Security surplus is not used to foot part of the bill."

Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.) countered that the solvency of Social Security is now projected to be 42 years, "and that is based on conservative, conservative estimates." The projected solvency of the program has increased by almost a decade in the past eight years. The reason for that, Wu maintained, was economic growth.

"There is nothing more important to the American economy and our competitiveness than the legislation that we are considering today," Wu continued. "The motion to recommit which the gentleman offers would fundamentally gut this legislation and prevent us from investing in the most productive of technologies, a traditional role which the federal government has played to support research and early-stage development, not commercialization, but early-stage development. By prohibiting those activities with this cap, what in essence would happen is our rate of economic growth would be slackened."

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.

All but one Republican voted to send the spending bill back to the Science and Technology Committee with directions to cap funding unless the federal government did not borrow from the Social Security trust fund to finance other spending. But only five Democrats voted for the motion. By a vote of 190 to 216, the motion to recommit with instructions thus failed, and legislation to reauthorize the National Institutes of Standards and Technology moved towards a final up-or-down vote without the restriction.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 299
May 03, 2007
Expanding federal hate-crimes law to include the use or threat of force against individuals because of their gender, sexual orientation or disability (H.R. 1592)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on a bill to expand the reach of federal hate-crimes legislation to include crimes committed against an individual because of his or her gender, sexual orientation or disability.

Current federal hate-crimes law covers the use or threat of force against a person based on race, color, religion or national origin that interferes with the victim's ability to engage in six specific "federally protected" activities. This bill would remove from the definition interference with the victim's ability to engage in federally protected activities, effectively allowing federal law enforcement broader authority to prosecute hate crimes. The legislation would also authorize $5 million annually for grants for local law enforcement officials to help them investigate and prosecute hate crimes and stiffen the penalties for those convicted of such crimes.

Republicans philosophically opposed the legislation because they believe a crime is a crime and that the bill would essentially turn the federal government into the "thought police." They said the legislation would unfairly create a special category of crimes, unjustly making one crime more worthy of punishment than another simply by the somewhat murky notion of the personal beliefs of the perpetrator. Republicans don't think that crimes against homosexuals or other "special classes" of people should be treated differently than a crime committed against anyone else.

Democrats and supporters of the legislation maintained that 15,000 hate crimes based on sexual orientation were reported between 1991 and 2005, and that it was high time for the federal government to include those hate crimes in federal law side-by-side with crimes committed against people because of their race or national origin. They painted the issue as a simple one of civil rights.

"Hate crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant threat to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society," said House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), the bill's sponsor.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the legislation "will have a chilling effect on religious freedom and First Amendment rights." Republicans maintained that the bill would prompt religious leaders to be more reluctant to speak out against homosexuality out of fear that their words would later be linked to a crime for which they may be held responsible.

The legislation passed easily on a mostly party-line vote. Twenty-five Republicans joined all but 14 Democrats present in voting for the measure. Thus, on a vote of 237 to 180, the House approved legislation that would expand the definition of hate crimes to include crimes perpetrated based on gender, sexual orientation or disability. The bill then moved to the Senate.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Hate Crimes
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 298
May 03, 2007
Expanding federal hate-crimes law to include the use or threat of force against individuals because of their gender, sexual orientation or disability (H.R. 1592)/Motion to recommit with instructions to send the bill back to committee to include crimes against the elderly and armed forces personnel in the definition of hate crimes

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote represented a Republican attempt to force an amendment to hate-crimes legislation to include crimes committed against an individual because of his or her gender, sexual orientation or disability. The amendment would have included crimes against the elderly and armed forces personnel in the definition of hate crimes, but Democrats charged that it was a thinly veiled attempt to kill the legislation.

Republicans motioned to send (or recommit) the bill to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to add senior citizens and current and former members of the U.S. military to the criteria of victims protected under the legislation. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) made the motion, arguing that senior citizens and veterans deserved special protection, as well.

"If Congress rejects this motion to recommit, who will explain to the thousands of victims who are senior citizens or military victims that their injuries are less important than those of others protected under the hate crimes law?" Smith asked. "Are we really prepared to tell seniors and our men and women in uniform across our country that crimes committed against victims because of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability are, as a rule, more worthy of punishment than those committed against seniors and military personnel?"

Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) pointed out that the motion provided for the bill to be reported back to the House "promptly" rather than "forthwith," the customary language, insinuating that Republicans intended to send the legislation back to committee indefinitely and thus prevent its passage. The Speaker Pro Tempore, a designee of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) who rules on parliamentary matters, confirmed Conyers' suspicion on the impact of the language in the motion.

Conyers also pointed out that the Republican amendment was redundant with existing federal law.

"The categories of individuals included in the amendment, seniors and members of the armed services, are entitled to protection under the law, and in point of fact they have protection under the law at both federal and state levels," Conyers said.

Nonetheless, Conyers asked unanimous consent to amend the bill to add those two categories, but Smith objected. Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Smith's refusal "reeks with the stench of cynicism."

Republicans philosophically opposed the legislation because they believe a crime is a crime and that the bill would essentially turn the federal government into the "thought police." They said the legislation would unfairly create a special category of crimes, unjustly making one crime more worthy of punishment than another simply by the somewhat murky notion of the personal beliefs of the perpetrator. Republicans don't think that crimes against homosexuals or other "special classes" of people should be treated differently than a crime committed against anyone else.

Democrats said Republicans were simply standing in the way of civil rights.

On a party-line vote, the House rejected the motion to recommit. Nine Democrats joined all but 11 Republicans in voting to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee, but the "nays" prevailed. Thus, by a vote of 189 to 227, the House defeated a Republican motion to force an amendment to hate crimes legislation that would have included crimes against the elderly and armed services personnel in the federal definition of hate crimes and sent the legislation back to committee indefinitely. With the last-ditch Republican effort to alter and delay the legislation dispensed with, a bill that would expand the definition of hate crimes to include crimes perpetrated based on gender, sexual orientation or disability moved towards a final up-or-down vote.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Hate Crimes
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 297
May 03, 2007
H. Res. 364, providing for the consideration of legislation to expand federal hate-crimes law to include the use or threat of force against individuals because of their gender, sexual orientation or disability (H.R. 1592)/On adoption of the rule

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on the rules for debate for a bill to expand the reach of federal hate-crimes legislation to include crimes committed against an individual because of his or her gender, sexual orientation or disability.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Current federal hate-crimes law covers the use or threat of force against a person based on race, color, religion or national origin that interferes with the victim's ability to engage in six specific "federally protected" activities. This bill would remove from the definition interference with the victim's ability to engage in federally protected activities, effectively allowing federal law enforcement broader authority to prosecute hate crimes. The legislation would also authorize $5 million annually for grants for local law enforcement officials to help them investigate and prosecute hate crimes and stiffen the penalties for those convicted of such crimes.

Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the underlying bill as well as in protest of the so-called "closed rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed on the House floor.

Republicans philosophically opposed the legislation because they believe a crime is a crime and that the bill would essentially turn the federal government into the "thought police." They said the legislation would unfairly create a special category of crimes, unjustly making one crime more worthy of punishment than another simply by the somewhat murky notion of the personal beliefs of the perpetrator. Republicans were irritated that the Rules Committee prevented all 18 amendments presented from being offered on the House floor for consideration by the full chamber.

"Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this closed rule, which not only gags the minority party, but gags all Members of the House, who will be denied the right to offer improvements to this legislation," Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said. "I urge my colleagues to oppose the gag order rule and the underlying bill that creates special categories of citizens and ends equality under the law."

Democrats said Republicans were simply standing in the way of civil rights.

"We are talking about life and death issues here," said Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.). "And, unfortunately, I think it is clear that there are some on the other side of the aisle who oppose the expansion of civil rights protections for threatened groups living in the United States, and I believe they are flat wrong. But this gives the Members, every Member of the House, the opportunity to vote up or down on whether or not they believe that we should expand protections. I think this is an appropriate rule, and I strongly support the underlying bill."

All Republicans present voted against the rules package. All but nine Democrats voted for it. On an almost party-line vote of 213 to 199, the House approved the rules for consideration for legislation that would expand the definition of hate crimes to included crimes perpetrated based on gender, sexual orientation or disability, thus paving the way to bring the bill for consideration on the House floor.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Hate Crimes
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 296
May 03, 2007
H. Res. 364, providing for the consideration of legislation to expand federal hate-crimes law to include the use or threat of force against individuals because of their gender, sexual orientation or disability (H.R. 1592)/Motion to order previous question (ending debate and prohibiting amendment)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This motion was offered to force a vote on the rules for debate for a bill to expand the reach of federal hate-crimes legislation to include crimes committed against an individual because of his or her gender, sexual orientation or disability.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration.

To oppose ordering the previous question was a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and to allow the opposition to offer an alternative plan. Motions to order the previous question are about who controls the debate and represent one of the only tools available to those who oppose the majority's agenda.

Current federal hate-crimes law covers the use or threat of force against a person based on race, color, religion or national origin that interferes with the victim's ability to engage in six specific "federally protected" activities. This bill would remove from the definition interference with the victim's ability to engage in federally protected activities, effectively allowing federal law enforcement broader authority to prosecute hate crimes. The legislation would also authorize $5 million annually for grants for local law enforcement officials to help them investigate and prosecute hate crimes and stiffen the penalties for those convicted of such crimes.

Republicans opposed the rules package because of their opposition to the underlying bill as well as in protest of the so-called "closed rule" proposed by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee. Under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed on the House floor.

Republicans philosophically opposed the legislation because they believe a crime is a crime and that the bill would essentially turn the federal government into the "thought police." They said the legislation would unfairly create a special category of crimes, unjustly making one crime more worthy of punishment than another simply by the somewhat murky notion of the personal beliefs of the perpetrator. Republicans don't think that crimes against homosexuals or other "special classes" of people should be treated differently than a crime committed against anyone else.

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said, "if someone commits a crime, they should be punished, period." He added, "It is a bad bill. This rule is a bad bill, not allowing for improvement, so I ask Members to oppose the rule and the previous question."

Supporters of the legislation maintained that 15,000 hate crimes based on sexual orientation were reported between 1991 and 2005, and that it was high time for the federal government to include those hate crimes in federal law side-by-side with crimes committed against people because of their race or national origin.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said, "violent acts fueled by bigotry and hatred of a particular group simply because of who they are has no place in America."

If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all but five Democrats present voted for it, and the motion passed 217-196. Thus, on an almost party-line vote, the House ended debate and brought to a vote the rules for consideration for legislation that would expand the definition of hate crimes to include crimes perpetrated based on gender, sexual orientation or disability.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Hate Crimes
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 294
May 02, 2007
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) amendment to prohibit the authorized funding levels for the agency from going into effect unless the cost of the legislation was offset

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the amendment would have prohibited the authorized funding levels for the agency from going into effect unless the cost of the legislation was offset by spending cuts or revenue increases elsewhere in the federal budget.

"The NSF has a mission to achieve excellence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at all levels and all settings from kindergarten through postdoctoral training, from classrooms to science museums and online resources, having done so for the last half century," Price said. "So while what this bill does is extremely important, $20.973 billion is a considerable amount of money even here in Washington, and it is equally important that we are good stewards of the hard-earned money of the American people. We should not limit our talk about fiscal responsibility only when it is politically convenient."

What Price was advocating for is known as pay-as-you-go spending rules, or PAYGO. Promises to adhere to PAYGO spending rules are oft made by both parties, and Price was attempting to hold the new Democratic majority to their pledge of fiscal responsibility when they retook control of Congress at the beginning of 2007.

Only Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), the author of the legislation, rose to oppose Price's amendment, and he had only this to say: "The amendment by the gentleman from Georgia has been offered before. It has been defeated before on other bills. I would urge its defeat. And after we accomplish that, I would urge passage of this otherwise outstanding bill."

With no further debate, Price's amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. Democrats were unanimous in their opposition, joined by nine Republicans who broke with party ranks and voted against it. Thus, on a vote of 183 to 253, the House defeated an amendment to require that legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation for three years with almost $21 billion in funding not go into effect unless the funding levels were offset by spending cuts or revenue increases elsewhere in the federal budget. The legislation proceeded to a final vote without the requirement, and the bill went on to pass easily.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 293
May 02, 2007
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) amendment to establish a program to help communicate NSF research results to the public

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), the amendment would direct NSA to provide grant supplements to institutions that receive awards through the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program. The supplemental funding would be used to train graduate students in communicating their research to "non-scientist audiences."

"I believe this proposal will ensure that we are getting as much return on the Federal Government's investment in the National Science Foundation as possible," Matsui said. "By implementing this program, it would diversify the education of our scientists and would ensure that policymakers and other nonscientists have better access to the technical expertise fostered by NSF and the nation's broader research enterprise, because if scientists can't tell the rest of us what they have discovered, we are not fully recognizing the benefits of our investment in scientific research."

Matsui said her proposal would "create a pipeline of scientists who are increasingly engaged with nonscientists, including policymakers, business leaders and others."

Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) said he rose to oppose Matsui's amendment "with some reluctance" because he supported her underlying goal.

Ehlers, who has been a consistent advocate for increased funding for NSF, said he was first concerned that Matsui's amendment would cut into an already tight budget for the agency. "But my major objection is, I have taught at the university level and have taught at the college level," Ehlers said. "I have always felt this is the responsibility of the colleges and universities to do, and they shouldn't need an NSF grant to do this."

Despite Ehlers' objection, Matsui's amendment was easily adopted. Twelve Republicans crossed party lines to support it, while six Democrats broke ranks in opposition. Thus, on a vote of 232 to 186, the House adopted a proposal to require the National Science Foundation to institute a program to help communicate NSF research results to lay audiences, and legislation reauthorizing the agency for the next three years went forward with the provision.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 292
May 02, 2007
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) amendment to strike the creation of a pilot program to help individuals to improve grant applications that were previously not selected for funding

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), the amendment would have stricken from bill the creation of a pilot program to help individuals to improve grant applications that were previously not selected for funding.

"Are there not sufficient programs within the National Science Foundation that we should be funding, that we have extra money to actually fund people who did not get the grants to help them improve their proposals that they might get a grant next year?" Flake asked.

Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who authored the legislation to which Flake was seeking to amend, said that the pilot program was designed to keep young scientists "in the pipeline."

"If you look at the data on when people are most productive, it does not correlate particularly well with when they get the most funding. There are a host of reasons for that. Part of the reason is it takes some time to learn how to do the grants," Baird said.

"Sometimes the more senior members, the people with the long established research credentials and careers are just going to have more access to research because the peer reviewers are going to say, look, it is a safe bet to bet on this guy or this woman," Baird added. "The unknown person, the new person who may hold the promise of tomorrow, has a comparative disadvantage."

Flake's amendment was rejected easily. Only seven Democrats supported it, and 71 Republicans broke ranks with their party to vote against it. Thus, on a vote of 128 to 290, the House rejected an amendment that would have stricken the creation of a pilot program within the National Science Foundation to help individuals improve grant applications that had been previously rejected, and legislation to reauthorize the agency went forward with the program in place.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 291
May 02, 2007
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) amendment that would require a 0.5 percent across-the-board cut in the funding levels authorized for the agency

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), the amendment would require a 0.5 percent across-the-board cut in the funding levels authorized for the agency.

The bill to which Garrett was seeking to amend would increase spending for NSF by 9.9 percent in the first year, 7.4 percent in the second year and 7.3 percent in the third year, for an increase of over 25 percent over a 3-year period.

Garrett's amendment followed a failed attempt by Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) to cut the agency's proposed funding levels by 1 percent (see Roll Call 290).

Garrett said he was offering his amendment as an incentive for NSF to "identify waste and any abuse within the agency, but also, very importantly, to help identify those programs which are either underperforming or simply just not working."

"So when we purport to be so concerned about the taxpayers' dollars and the debt we are leaving our children, which I just heard from the gentleman from the other side of the aisle previously, how can we justify programmic increases for research that are actually more than twice the rate of inflation?" Garrett asked.

Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who authored the legislation, reiterated his objection to an across-the-board funding cut in the same terms he outlined against Campbell's amendment. He cited comments by Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), who previously pointed out that the return on investment on NSF research grants is perhaps the highest of any other federal agency - "a tremendous amount of our economic prosperity today came from those investigations," Baird added.

"I agree that we have got a huge fiscal problem," Baird continued. "But, again, I will tell you that if you look at the long-term drivers of the fiscal problems this country faces, nobody says it is that vast waste at the National Science Foundation that is driving this country into debt. They say it is a combination of revenue, it is a combination of entitlement programs, it is a combination of defense. I agree we ought to debate those, but not on the back of the National Science Foundation, for goodness sake."

Garrett's amendment found only a handful more supporters than did Campbell's proposal. All but six Democrats voted against it, and all but 72 Republicans voted for it. Thus, on a vote of 126 to 292, the House rejected an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation that would have reduced the agency's proposed funding levels by 0.5 percent across-the-board, and the bill moved forward without the reduction.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 290
May 02, 2007
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) amendment that would require a 1 percent across-the-board cut in the funding levels authorized for the agency

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), the amendment would require a 1 percent across-the-board cut in the funding levels authorized for the agency.

The bill to which Campbell was seeking to amend would increase spending for NSF by 9.9 percent in the first year, 7.4 percent in the second year and 7.3 percent in the third year, for an increase of over 25 percent over a 3-year period.

Campbell said those increases concerned him because of the mounting federal budget deficit. He added that no prediction indicated that the federal government was going to have a 25 percent increase in revenue over the same period.

Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) said cutting funding for research and scientific education was not the way to balance the budget and would instead lead to greater budget deficits and negatively impact national security and countless other areas. Baird listed reports by the National Academies of Science, the U.S. Commission on National Security, the Hart-Rudman commission on national security, the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, as well as a coalition of 15 industry associations that all called for similar or greater increases to the NSF budget as the legislation would authorize.

"I would also encourage you to ask your faculty administrators, ask your high technology industries, do you think this country is spending sufficient quantities on fundamental basic research and investment such as that funded by National Science Foundation? And do you think we are doing enough to keep our young people educated in science and math in ways such as supported by this legislation? I guarantee you most of them would say no," Baird continued.

Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) added that he found it ironic that Campbell was proposing to cut "the funding of the one agency that returns more on its money than any other agency does." Furthermore, he said that the National Science Foundation is "just about the lowest-cost research institution" and accounts for significantly less spending than the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health or NASA. "One of the lowest costs with the highest rate of return, I don't see any reason in the world to cut the NSF," Ehlers concluded.

Campbell's amendment was easily defeated. Only five Democrats crossed party lines to support it, while 82 Republicans voted against it. Thus, on a vote of 115 to 301, the House rejected an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation that would have reduced the agency's proposed funding levels by 1 percent across-the-board, and the bill moved forward without the reduction.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 289
May 02, 2007
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) amendment to prohibit the use of NSF funds for research related to a number of specific topics such as archives of Andean knotted-string records and bison hunting on the late prehistoric Great Plains

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), the amendment would prohibit the use of NSF funds for research related to a number of specific topics such as archives of Andean knotted-string records and bison hunting on the late prehistoric Great Plains.

Campbell wanted to cut research projects on account of the growing budget deficit. In addition to the Andean knotted-string and bison projects, Campbell would have put the following research projects on the chopping block: the accuracy in cross-cultural understanding of others' emotions; team versus individual play; sexual politics of waste in Dakar, Senegal; social relationships and reproductive strategies of Phayre's Leaf Monkeys; and a cognitive model of superstitious belief.

"What this amendment does is it says that there are certain things upon which we should not be spending money through this bill during this time of budget deficits, stealing Social Security funds, and increasing taxes," Campbell said. "The question before us is, do these things rise to the standard of requiring expenditures of taxpayer funds in a time of deficits, proposed tax increases and raiding Social Security funds? I think the answer is a resounding no."

Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) countered that the budget deficit rose to historic levels under the leadership of the Republican Party. He went on to explain that Campbell's amendment would set a dangerous precedent of congressional micromanagement in the activities of peer-reviewed scientific grants. "While congressional oversight of federal programs is, of course, important, second-guessing peer review in this way could compromise the fabric of our public research enterprise one thread at a time."

"And I would be tempted to ask the gentleman from California, except he's already stated his piece, why he would be opposing research that has been supported by the United States Army Research Institute; that is seen as critical to the security of our troops serving in Iraq," Baird added, referring to the study on the accuracy of cross-cultural understanding of emotions.

Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) seconded Baird's assertion that one cannot judge a scientific project by its title. He added that the "best estimate" of the return on investment for research funded by the National Science Foundation is a minimum of 20 percent and a maximum of 400 percent.

"Now, I challenge anyone in this chamber to find investments that will year after year give you that rate of return on the investment," Ehlers said.

Campbell's amendment was rejected. Nineteen Republicans crossed party lines to vote against it, and 22 Democrats broke with their party in voting for it. Thus, by a vote of 195 to 222, the House rejected an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation that would have prevented the agency from funding seven specific research projects, and the bill went forward without the provision.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Scientific Inquiry
N N Won
Roll Call 288
May 02, 2007
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) amendment to require NSF to create curriculum for kindergarten through 12th graders on climate change, climate science and strategies to reduce greenhouse gases

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), the amendment would require that NSF create educational materials on global warming for kindergarten through 12th graders.

As a former science teacher, Honda said his amendment was driven by his understanding that many scientific concepts are difficult to grasp and seem abstract and irrelevant to many people, but humans' ability to arrest the catastrophic consequences of global climate change will rest on our ability to grasp why it's happening and what we can do to change course.

"And, we don't have much time," he said. "Global warming will cause significant impacts, including shifting weather patterns, drought, rising sea levels, and disrupted wildlife migration patterns. Nearly every point on the globe is getting warmer, and the debate is no longer if, but when, these changes will occur.

"These threats are the most natural consequences of a worldwide over-reliance on fossil fuels and destructive, wasteful use of resources. We have lived on the earth, but we have not yet learned to live with the earth," Honda continued.

His amendment would direct NSF to create informal education materials, exhibits, and multi-media relevant to global warming, climate science, and greenhouse reduction strategies.

"The education provided by this amendment will help people of all ages and backgrounds to make choices in their daily lives and in their communities to stop global warming," Honda concluded, adding that while the only true answer is a comprehensive energy policy, this information would empower young people to make a difference in their own lives.

No Republicans spoke out against the amendment, although a majority supported a failed attempt by Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) to modify Honda's amendment to require NSF to include a "diversity of viewpoints" about the causes and implications of global climate change in its educational materials. (See Roll Call 287.)

Honda's amendment was adopted with unanimous Democratic support, and 27 Republicans joined them in passing it. Thus, on a vote of 252 to 165, the House approved an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation that would require the agency to produce educational materials for kindergarten through 12th graders on the issue of global climate change.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Scientific Inquiry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 287
May 02, 2007
Reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867)/Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) amendment to require educational materials on climate change put out by NSF to reflect the "diversity of scientific viewpoints" on whether human activity is responsible for changing weather patterns

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF), a large federal grant-making agency, at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. Proposed by Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.), the amendment would have required that educational materials on global warming put out by NSF for kindergarten through 12th graders reflect, in Sullivan's words, the "diversity of scientific viewpoints" on the subject.

The amendment was what is known as a second-degree amendment, basically an amendment to an amendment, and sought to modify an amendment proposed by Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) that would direct NSF to develop educational materials regarding climate change, climate science and strategies to reduce greenhouse gases for kindergarten through 12th graders. (See Roll Call 288.)

Sullivan asserted that his amendment would have strengthened Honda's proposal (which was subsequently adopted) by ensuring that "children are educated on all aspects of global climate change," including the impact of greenhouse gas reduction strategies on the U.S. economy, energy costs and developing nations. Sullivan said his amendment would ensure children are given a "fair and balanced scientific education."

Many Republicans in Congress question whether human activity is having a significant impact on global weather patterns and the overall warming of the planet. They have continually presented the science as undecided, despite the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists and national and international scientific agencies have asserted that human activity, specifically the production of greenhouse gases from combustion, are having a detrimental effect on global weather patterns and the ability of the planet to sustain the almost 7 billion people who live on it.

Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) said that Sullivan's amendment erroneously suggested that "there is an equal weight of evidence against that perspective as there is in favor of it," an assertion that Baird said is contradicted by scientists all over the world.

Baird asserted that as a former science teacher himself, he appreciated what Sullivan was trying to do in fostering debate, but added that he was concerned the proposal would lead to "micromanaging the education process" and the awkward task of trying to explain U.S. energy policy to 5-year-olds.

"I question whether we really want to mandate that a kindergarten teacher educate her or his students on the impact of greenhouse gases on U.S. energy security, global developing nations, et cetera," Baird said.

Sullivan's amendment was rejected on a mostly party-line vote. Twenty-eight Republicans joined all but three Democrats in voting against it. Thus, by a vote of 166 to 250, the House rejected a second-degree amendment to legislation reauthorizing the National Science Foundation that would have required the agency to include a diversity of viewpoints on the human impacts on global climate change in educational materials for kindergarten through 12th graders, and an amendment directing the agency to produce the educational materials proceeded towards an up-or-down vote without the requirement.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Scientific Inquiry
N N Won
Roll Call 284
May 02, 2007
Reauthorizing the Head Start program (H.R. 1439)/Motion to recommit with instructions to amend the legislation to permit faith-based organizations that provide federally funded early-childhood development programs to take religious affiliation into account when hiring employees and clarify that such organizations could use "religious art, icons, scripture or other symbols"

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote to force adoption of an amendment to legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2012. The proposal would have sent the bill back to committee with instructions to add language to allow faith-based recipients of Head Start funding to take religion into account when hiring employees for their early-childhood development programs. The amendment would have also clarified that faith-based organizations would not have to remove "religious art, icons, scripture or other symbols" in order to be eligible for federal funds.

The bill to which Republicans were seeking to amend would authorize $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 and such sums as may be necessary through fiscal 2012 for the early-childhood program.

Republicans attempted to force action on their proposal because Democratic-run Rules Committee blocked Republicans from offering a similar amendment on the House floor. (See Roll Calls 273-4.) Thus, a parliamentary tool called a motion to recommit was the only option Republican had left. If passed, a motion to recommit with instructions would have sent the legislation back to Education and Labor Committee with specific directions to amend the bill.

The amendment Republicans wanted to attach was drafted by Del. Luis Fortu–o (R-Puerto Rico). Republicans claimed that allowing groups receiving federal funds to use religion as a factor in hiring was both a civil rights and civil liberties issue.

Democrats called it straight-up discrimination.

Republican Rep. Buck McKeon (Calif.) said that the amendment was meant to fix a "flaw" in the Head Start law, as "faith-based institutions have been forced to relinquish their civil liberties if they choose to participate in the federal early childhood program we are poised to reauthorize today."

"Faith-based organizations cannot be expected to sustain their religious mission without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith because it is that faith that motivates them to serve their neighbors in trouble," Fortu–o added.

Democrats said religious organizations were free to do as they wished so long as they don't accept federal funds. Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas) said the amendment should have been called the "religious job discrimination act."

Edwards called himself "a person of faith," and pointed out that the Baptist Joint Committee, the American Jewish Committee, the Episcopal Church, and the NAACP all opposed the Republican amendment.

"Our principle is simple but deeply profound. No American, not one, should ever have to pass another American's private religious test to qualify for a tax-funded federal job," Edwards added.

On an almost completely party-line vote, the House rejected the Republican motion to recommit. Two Republicans crossed party lines to vote against it, while four Democrats supported it. Thus, on a vote of 195 to 222, the House voted down a Republican proposal to allow faith-based groups that accept federal funds for Head Start to hire employees for their early-childhood development programs based on the individuals' religious affiliations, and legislation to reauthorize Head Start moved towards a final up-or-down vote without the language.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 283
May 02, 2007
Reauthorizing the Head Start program (H.R. 1439)/Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) amendment to outline the importance of faith- and community-based organizations participation in the Head Start program

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2012. Proposed by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), the amendment would include congressional findings outlining the history and importance of faith- and community-based organizations in the early-childhood development program. The amendment would also add language clarifying that faith- and community-based groups would continue to be eligible to participate in the Head Start program on the same basis as other organizations.

The bill to which Shuler was seeking to amend would authorize $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 and such sums as may be necessary through fiscal 2012 for the early-childhood program. This legislation would only approve the spending, and the actual money would come from a separate appropriations bill.

Shuler himself attended a Head Start program when he was young, and he said he was proud that it had "helped make me the man that I am today."

"It's time for Congress to recognize that faith communities contribute to Head Start," Shuler continued. "This amendment thanks the community and faith-based organizations for the good work that they have done running the Head Start programs. It also confirms its right to continue running these programs."

Approximately 80 organizations that receive federal grants for early-childhood programs have religious affiliations.

Republicans countered that the amendment was simply a ruse by and political cover for Democrats, who had prevented a Republican-drafted amendment from being considered that would have allowed religious organizations that receive federal funds to use a potential employee's religious affiliation as a factor in hiring. The Democratic-run Rules Committee blocked the amendment - which would have allowed faith-based groups receiving federal funds to discriminate based on religious affiliation in their hiring practices - from being considered on the House floor. (See Roll Calls 273-4.)

"It has nothing to do with protecting the civil rights of faith-based providers," said Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.). "Instead, the majority has brought up a hollow, politically motivated attempt to have it both ways. On one hand, this amendment cheers the work of faith-based providers and recognizes their contributions to our nation; but on the other hand, it leaves them completely unprotected when it comes to their right to preserve their identity while serving children in Head Start. Frankly, this is insulting to faith-based organizations as it is transparent."

Shuler's amendment was adopted despite near-unanimous Republican objection. Only three Republicans voted for it, and two Democrats broke ranks with their party and voted against it. Thus, on a vote of 229 to 195, the House adopted an amendment that lauded the role of faith- and community-based organizations in Head Start and reaffirmed their ability to continue receiving federal grants to provide early-childhood development programs, and a bill to reauthorize Head Start moved forward with the language.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 282
May 02, 2007
Reauthorizing the Head Start program (H.R. 1439)/Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.) amendment to allow Head Start grantees, due to inadequate funding, to negotiate to reduce the number of children enrolled in the program if it is necessary to maintain the quality of services

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2012. Proposed by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.), the amendment would allow recipients of federal grants for early-childhood services to low-income children to negotiate with the Health and Human Services Department to reduce the number of children enrolled in the programs if the funding they receive is less than the previous year's appropriation and cuts are necessary to maintain the quality of services.

The bill to which Carnahan was seeking to amend would authorize $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 and such sums as may be necessary through fiscal 2012 for the early-childhood program. This legislation would only approve the spending, and the actual money would come from a separate appropriations bill.

"My amendment would allow for Head Start grantees to negotiate a funded enrollment level with the HHS Secretary if funding for the program does not keep pace with inflation," Carnahan said, adding that over the past three years, the Head Start program has experienced an 8 percent real decline in federal funding adjusted for inflation.

"This decline in funding has required already efficient Head Start agencies across the country to tighten their belts even more. Sadly, local agencies are now forced to pass these cuts on to quality staff," Carnahan continued.

Republicans opposed Carnahan's amendment because they said it would essentially allow programs that receive Head Start funding to blackmail the federal government for more money.

"In effect, this amendment allows grantees to cut services for children and kick children out of the Head Start program if Congress does not appropriate ever-higher funding amounts for Head Start," said Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.). "I think all of us want to service as many children as we can, and we want to have as high an appropriation level as we can, but if we fail to appropriate higher numbers, I don't think we should take it out on the children."

Democrats countered that the cuts were already hurting children, and that diluting an already stretched program would benefit no one.

Democrats were near unanimous in their support for Carnahan's proposal, with only one voting against. They were joined by 26 Republicans. Thus, by a vote of 253 to 171, the House voted to allow Head Start programs to negotiate with the federal government to curtail enrollment if budget cuts otherwise would cause the quality of the programs to suffer, and a bill to reauthorize the early-childhood development program proceeded with the provision.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 281
May 02, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1429
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 280
May 02, 2007
Reauthorizing the Head Start program (H.R. 1439)/Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) amendment to require that 50 percent of Head Start teachers nationwide have bachelor's degrees by 2011

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2012. Proposed by Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) the amendment would require that 50 percent of Head Start teachers nationwide have bachelor's degrees by 2011.

The bill to which Mica was seeking to amend would authorize $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 and such sums as may be necessary through fiscal 2012 for the early-childhood program. This legislation would only approve the spending, and the actual money would come from a separate appropriations bill.

The underlying legislation would require that all Head Start teachers have a bachelor's or advanced degree in childhood education or related field by the end of fiscal 2013. Mica's amendment would move that date up two years. Currently, 38 percent of Head Start teachers meet this goal.

"Now, we've moved this program from what I called it 14 years ago, from a glorified babysitting program, to a program that is giving our students the opportunity for quality educational opportunity," Mica said. "And these young people, at this age, deserve the very best. They are coming from the very worst, the worst as far as disadvantage in our society, the worst as far as opportunity, as far as family setting, as far as their readiness for school."

Mica continued that there are more Head Start programs in Democrat districts than there are in Republican districts, "just by the sheer economics of it, the demographics." He asked what if he came with a proposal that said only 50 percent of kindergarten teachers in Democrat districts would need to have bachelor's degrees, "how would you like that?"

Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.) responded that those who crafted the bill were trying to balance "the best we can do to increase the number of teachers with a B.A. degree in child education, child development and at the same time meet the other needs of the program. And to accelerate that effort on behalf of more teachers with an M.A. upsets that balance."

Miller said that tough choices were part and parcel of the measure's drafting. He gave the example that a million children are waiting to get into Head Start. He said someone could offer an amendment to put all of the Head Start funding into accommodating all children who are eligible. "Then you just reduce the quality and the availability to pay teachers to have them to stay. So this isn't a game where you can just pick out one part of the program and say, let's put the money there, and that's the reason why we did what we did."

Mica's amendment failed with a majority of Republicans supporting it and only one Democrat in favor. Thus, on a vote of 137 to 286, the House rejected an amendment to require 50 percent of all Head Start teachers to obtain bachelor's degrees or higher by 2011, and legislation to reauthorize the early-childhood program went forward with a requirement that the goal be met by 2013.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 278
May 02, 2007
Reauthorizing the Head Start program (H.R. 1439)/ Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) amendment that would forgive student loans for teachers who agree to commit to the program for three years

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2012. Proposed by Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) the amendment would authorize the Education Department to implement a program to forgive student loans for Head Start teachers who receive a bachelor's degree in a field related to early childhood education and agree to teach in the Head Start program for at least three years.

The bill to which Sestak was seeking to amend would authorize $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 and such sums as may be necessary through fiscal 2012 for the early-childhood program. This legislation would only approve the spending, and the actual money would come from a separate appropriations bill.

Sestak billed his amendment as a way to both attract new teachers to Head Start as well as to provide a way for existing Head Start teachers to improve their skills and education. Sestak proposed to forgive loans of up to $10,000.

"Head Start teachers are so critical at the time of a child's cognitive reasoning development, and this amendment recognizes this by ensuring that more than 55,000 Head Start teachers have the means of getting their bachelor's degree by forgiving their student loan burden," Sestak said.

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said he supported the intent of the amendment, but asserted that he thought it would be better attached to legislation dealing with higher education, which was scheduled to come up for consideration later in the year.

"We did a study, and we found that most of the education programs don't come under the Department of Education, they come under 39 other bureaucracies throughout this town," McKeon said. "And it would be, I think, moving to try to have things more organized. It fits better under the Higher Ed Act, and I would encourage that the gentleman put it under that."

McKeon encouraged Sestak to withdrawal the amendment and wait to attach it to the higher education bill, which Sestak declined to do.

Regardless, Sestak had more than ample support to pass his amendment. Eighty-seven Republicans joined a unanimous Democratic majority in approving the proposal. Thus, on a vote of 312 to 107, the House adopted an amendment to the Head Start bill creating a loan-forgiveness program for individuals obtaining a degree in early-childhood education who commit to teaching in the program for at least three years.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 277
May 02, 2007
Reauthorizing the Head Start program (H.R. 1439/ Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) amendment to establish a pilot program to allow eight states to take over the federally funded early-childhood program

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation to reauthorize the early-childhood development program Head Start through fiscal 2012. Proposed by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the amendment would have initiated a pilot program to allow eight states to "coordinate" their early-childhood development programs with Head Start, essentially allowing the states to take over the program with federal funds.

The bill to which Price was seeking to amend would authorize $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 and such sums as may be necessary through fiscal 2012. This legislation would only approve the spending, and the actual money would come from a separate appropriations bill.

Price called his amendment one "of expansion and educational opportunities for our young children." The amendment would have required that participating states ensure that participants receive services that are as good or better than those in the Head Start program, including health care, nutrition, mental health services as well as educational services.

Democrats charged that Price's amendment was nothing more than a cover to begin dismantling Head Start as a federal program.

"What this amendment would do would simply end Head Start in those eight states as we know it," Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) said." There would be no requirement that those states would take the money that we have set aside, that we have worked hard to provide within the budget for the Head Start program, and use it to implement a program that is anything like Head Start."

Twenty-seven Republicans joined a unanimous Democratic majority in rejecting Price's proposal. Thus, on a vote of 165 to 254, the House defeated an attempt to create a pilot program to turn Head Start funding over to the states, and legislation to reauthorize the federal early-childhood program went forward without the provision.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 276
May 02, 2007
Emergency supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other purposes (H.R. 1591)/Presidential veto override

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on whether to override President Bush's May 1 veto of a mid-year funding bill for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The legislation would have provided $124.2 billion for "emergency" funding for fiscal 2007, including $95.5 billion for the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush vetoed the legislation because of its inclusion of a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the end of March 2008. The timetable stipulated that ground troops would have to be withdrawn from that country by the end of 2007 if the president couldn't certify that the Iraqi government is meeting certain benchmarks.

In order for Congress to override a veto, both Houses have to sustain a two-thirds majority.

The seventh "emergency" spending bill to make its way through Congress during President Bush's term, the bill would have sent another $124.3 billion towards the Iraq war effort while taking steps toward ending the 4-year-old conflict. Another, more massive supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected in the fall. ("Emergency" supplemental appropriations bills are so named because they are handled outside of the regular annual Congressional processes that fund the activities of the U.S. government and therefore don't have to abide by normal budget rules.)

In addition to the military funding, the legislation would also raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next two years, the first wage hike in a decade, as well as provide $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives. The measure also included money for veterans' health care, recovery for the areas affected by the 2005 hurricanes, children's health care as well as Homeland Security initiatives.

Although many provisions in the legislation were controversial, none was more divisive than the timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq.

Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said that the fact is "that this bill is first, last and foremost about the war. It is about how we get our troops out of the war."

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) countered that imposing a timetable for withdrawal would be mark "retreating over the horizon," and will come with "frightening strategic consequences."

"This fighting will spill into neighboring countries, threaten our allies and then spread throughout the Middle East," Ros-Lehtinen continued, adding that the result would be a "humanitarian crisis."

Democrats pointed out that Iraq is already experiencing a civil war and the presence of U.S. ground troops only seems to be exacerbating the situation.

In the end, the Democrats did not have votes to override Bush's veto, falling far short of the two-thirds needed. Seven Democrats broke with their party and voted against overriding, while two Republicans crossed over to vote to withdrawal. Thus, by a vote of 222 to 203, legislation to fund continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq by March 2008 failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed to override the president's veto, and the legislation died in its current form. In order to fund the military operations, Congress then had to once again move legislation to do so through both the House and the Senate.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 275
May 02, 2007
Providing for the consideration of legislation to authorize $2.5 billion for the National Institute of Standards and Technology from fiscal 2008 through fiscal 2010/On adoption of the rule (H. Res. 350)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote on the rules for consideration for legislation to reauthorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology from fiscal 2008 through fiscal 2010 and provide for $2.5 billion in funding for the agency during that time.

Funding for federal agencies occurs in a two-step process under normal circumstances: First the spending levels are "authorized" and later they are actually funded through appropriations bills. Congress, with the constitutional power of the purse, has to approve spending by federal agencies, which in practice determines whether they continue to exist. The matter at hand was the reauthorization of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST resides within the Commerce Department and conducts a wide range of federally funded scientific research designed to promote innovation and industrial competitiveness.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the bill, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "structured rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. The rule made in order five amendments approved by the Rules Committee. By contrast, an "open rule" permits any and all relevant amendments to come to a vote on the House floor.

Despite significant Republican support for the underlying bill, Republicans opposed the rules package on the grounds that it was too restrictive. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) pointed out that the last time NIST was reauthorized when Republicans controlled Congress, the majority allowed for an open rule.

"I rise today in strong support of promoting technological innovation, bolstering the strength of our manufacturing industry and contributing to the overall global competitiveness of American business," Sessions said. "However, I simply cannot support the closed rule process brought forward today by the Democrat majority that prevents all but one Republican amendment from being considered by the House."

Although Democrats didn't defend the rule on these terms, and instead just spoke of their support for the underlying bill, in general the majority desires to have the most controlled process as possible for moving bills through the House. Unlimited amendments offer an opportunity for the minority to slow the legislative process and to assert priorities often at odds with the majority party's.

As is customary on such procedural votes, the two party's captured total or near-complete loyalty from within their ranks on the rules package. Only two Republicans voted for it, joining every Democrat present in passing the measure. Thus, on a vote of 226 to 189, the House approved the rules of consideration for legislation to reauthorize the National Institutes of Standards and Technology through 2012, and the bill moved towards an up-or-down vote.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 274
May 02, 2007
Providing for consideration of legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program (H.R. 1429)/On adoption of the rules package (H. Res. 348)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on the rules for consideration for legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2012.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the bill, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "structured rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor.

Although reauthorizing the early-childhood development program - and thus approving $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 (and such sums as necessary through fiscal 2012) - found considerable support among Republicans, and a majority of them ended up voting for final passage of the legislation, the rules package was a different matter.

Republicans balked because they wanted to offer an amendment to allow religious organizations that receive federal funds to use a potential employee's religious affiliation as a factor in hiring. The Rules Committee blocked a Republican amendment to that effect from being considered on the House floor, however, drawing Republican objection. The provision had been included in previous Head Start authorization bills. Approximately 80 organizations that receive federal grants for early-childhood programs have religious affiliations, though not all consider religious affiliation in selecting their employees

Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.) said "the Democratic majority pays lip service to their support of religious people and faith-based groups, but now they are here today, in this House, enacting a piece of legislation that I believe is a shot across the bow to all faith-based organizations that are involved in social services in this country. The Head Start bill today says that if you participate in the grant process, you will not be able to hire like-minded people to work in your child-care facility."

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) countered that "No citizen should have to pass a religious test to qualify for a publicly funded job."

"Religious organizations who run Head Start programs are not asking for this change," Castor continued. "They have written us to oppose it. Head Start teachers and staff should be chosen because they are qualified and they are effective teachers who will help children succeed and thrive. Hiring and firing decisions should not be made because of a teacher's religion. This is part of an ongoing attempt, I am afraid, by some on the other side of the aisle to make religion a wedge issue."

On a completely party-line vote, the House voted to approve the rules package. Thus, by a vote of 226 to 196, the rules for consideration of a bill to reauthorize the federal early-childhood program Head Start passed, and the legislation moved towards an up-or-down vote.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 273
May 02, 2007
Providing for consideration of legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program (H.R. 1429)/Motion to order the previous question (end debate) on the rules package (H. Res. 348)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote to determine who would control the agenda as the House began debate on a bill to reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2012. Under consideration was the rules for debate for the legislation, and this vote was to essentially force a vote on the resolution. The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the bill, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "structured rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor.

To oppose ordering the previous question was a vote against the Democratic majority's agenda and to allow the opposition to offer an alternative plan. Opposing motions to order the previous question are about who controls the debate and represent one of the only tools available to those who oppose the majority's agenda.

Although reauthorizing the early-childhood development program - and thus approving $7.4 billion in funding for fiscal 2008 (and such sums as necessary through fiscal 2012) - found considerable support among Republicans, and a majority of them ended up voting for final passage of the legislation, the rules package was a different matter.

Republicans balked because they wanted to offer an amendment to allow religious organizations that receive federal funds to use a potential employee's religious affiliation as a factor in hiring. However, the Rules Committee blocked a Republican amendment to that effect from being considered on the House floor , drawing Republican objection. The provision had been included in previous Head Start authorization bills. Approximately 80 organizations that receive federal grants for early-childhood programs have religious affiliations, though not all consider religious affiliation in selecting their employees

"Head Start has a proud history of inclusion of faith-based organizations," Rep. Lincoln Diaz Balart (R-Fla.) said.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) countered that "No citizen should have to pass a religious test to qualify for a publicly funded job."

"Religious organizations who run Head Start programs are not asking for this change," Castor continued. "They have written us to oppose it. Head Start teachers and staff should be chosen because they are qualified and they are effective teachers who will help children succeed and thrive. Hiring and firing decisions should not be made because of a teacher's religion. This is part of an ongoing attempt, I am afraid, by some on the other side of the aisle to make religion a wedge issue."

This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

The House voted on an almost entirely party-line vote to approve the motion to order the previous question. Only one Democrat and one Republican broke rank with their respective parties, otherwise all Democrats were in favor and all Republicans were opposed. Thus, by a vote of 226 to 194, the Democrats maintained control of the debate and a resolution outlining the rules for consideration of a bill to reauthorize the federal early-childhood program Head Start moved towards and up-or-down vote.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 269
Apr 26, 2007
Prohibition on the sale of wild horses for meat (H.R. 249)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on an a bill to prohibit the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from selling for meat horses that roam wildly on federal lands or currently are in federal holding facilities.

Under current law, the bureau can sell wild horses that have been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least three times or are over 10 years old for $10 per animal. The provision was put into place through an amendment sneaked into a 2005 appropriations bill by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.).

In 2006, 100,000 horses were slaughtered for consumption, mostly to be shipped overseas.

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) made an impassioned plea for the wild horses in the United States, calling them a symbol of the American spirit and the American West. According to Moran, at the turn of the 20th century, some 2 million roamed free. By the 1950s, their population dwindled to fewer than 20,000 due to poaching for pet food and human consumption in Europe and Asia.

"I believe that a generation from now we will shudder at how recklessly we treated these animals which are so symbolic of the spirit, the strength, the stamina of this country. In the event of survival, so many of them face neglect and abuse today, and that is the argument that is raised," Moran said. "But that is not an excuse not to pass this legislation nor to implement a more humane policy, because this policy is inhumane at every step in the process, from how they're purchased at auction, to their transportation to the slaughterhouse, to how they are killed."

Republicans and some Western Democrats countered that excess horse populations are causing significant environmental damage. "Even conservation groups such as the National Association of Conservation Districts, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Izaak Walton League, and a number of others have acknowledged the damage caused by this overpopulation of horses," Rep. Bill Sali (R-Idaho). "Balanced management, respecting recreation, watersheds, wildlife and grazing must be restored to the public lands where these horses roam."

Eighty-two Republicans broke party ranks and voted for the bill, more than making up for the 24 Democratic defectors. Thus, by a final vote of 277 to 137, legislation to ban the sale of wild horses to be slaughtered for meat easily passed the House. The legislation then moved to the Senate.


ENVIRONMENT Humane Treatment of Animals
Y Y Won
Roll Call 268
Apr 26, 2007
Prohibition on the sale of wild horses for meat (H.R. 249)/Motion to recommit with instructions to include language prohibiting the legislation from taking effect until the Interior secretary certifies that the long-term cost of caring for horses in federal facilities does not exceed $500,000 annually

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to force a vote on an amendment to a bill to prohibit the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from selling for meat horses that roam wildly on federal lands or currently are in federal holding facilities. Proposed by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the amendment would prohibit the legislation from going into effect until 60 days after the Interior secretary certifies to Congress that the long-term cost of caring for the animals not sold as a result of the bill does not exceed $500,000 annually.

In effect, Price's move was a way to gut the legislation. A previous attempt by Price to do so failed (see Roll Call 267).

This time, Price used a parliamentary tool called a motion to recommit with instructions, which, if passed, would have sent the legislation back to committee with specific directions to amend the bill.

Under current law, the bureau can sell wild horses that have been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least three times or are over 10 years old for $10 per animal. The provision was put into place through an amendment sneaked into a 2005 appropriations bill by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.).

According to Price, it costs BLM roughly $25 million a year to feed and shelter roughly 30,000 wild horses in its management program. In 2006, 100,000 horses were slaughtered for consumption, mostly to be shipped overseas.

"As of December 2004, 8,400 wild horses and burros became eligible for sale, and as of April 2007, the Bureau of Land Management has sold more than 2,300 horses," Price said. "If the remaining horses which are available for sale are safe for long-term care, then the secretary should be required to clarify that the care will not create an undue financial burden on the American people."

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) first chastised Price for offering his proposal as a motion to recommit instead of as a straight-up amendment to the bill, which would have been allowable under the rules for consideration. Motions to recommit are often used as parliamentary tools to legislate by surprise, as there is no requirement that the lawmaker (usually a member of the minority party) show the motion to anyone before offering it, a procedure that is required for regular amendments.

On the substance of Price's proposal, Rahall pointed out that there was no time limit on how long the secretary of Interior can take to certify to Congress that the care of unsold horses won't exceed $500,000.

"I am assuming that the gentleman is entrusting the same federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management, that has so mismanaged this whole process in the beginning, entrusting with that agency the same responsibility to do such certification," Rahall pointed out. "Again, there is no time limit. It could be 30 days, it could be 30 years, it could be 300 years before the secretary so certifies.

"So the amendment is purely a killer amendment," Rahall concluded.

Price's motion to recommit was easily defeated, with 39 Republicans joining all but 26 Democrats in voting against it. The proposal found support from some Democrats from Western states. Thus, by a vote of 182 to 234, the House rejected an amendment to require that the secretary of Interior certify that a bill to ban the slaughter of wild horses for meat not cost the federal government more than $500,000 annually for the care of the unsold horses - a provision designed to gut the bill. The legislation moved towards a final vote without language effectively nullifying it.


ENVIRONMENT Humane Treatment of Animals
N N Won
Roll Call 267
Apr 26, 2007
Prohibition on the sale of wild horses for meat (H.R. 249)/Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) amendment to prohibit the legislation from going into effect unless its cost would be offset elsewhere in the budget

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill to prohibit the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from selling for meat horses that roam wildly on federal lands or currently are in federal holding facilities. Proposed by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the amendment would prohibit the legislation from going into effect unless its cost would be offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.

Under current law, the bureau can sell wild horses that have been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least three times or are over 10 years old for $10 per animal. The provision was put into place through an amendment sneaked into a 2005 appropriations bill by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.).

Price said that without his amendment the legislation would cause the bureau to "lose the minimal revenue it is currently able to generate from the sale of the animals and incur additional costs by requiring it to provide long-term care for the animals that they otherwise wouldn't have to, essentially, by mandating a new responsibility."

According to Price, it costs BLM roughly $25 million a year to feed and shelter roughly 30,000 wild horses in its management program. In 2006, 100,000 horses were slaughtered for consumption, mostly to be shipped overseas. Price said his amendment was a "simple" pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) mandate that required the legislation to be revenue neutral for the federal government.

Democrats said Price's amendment was out of line on the grounds that the underlying legislation "neither authorizes nor contains any spending," the usual grounds to trigger PAYGO rules.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) said that the bill would merely return the law to the way it existed for 33 years before Burns got it changed without a hearing. Rahall added that both the Congressional Budget Office as well as the House Budget Committee "determined that there are no PAYGO implications with H.R. 249."

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) pointed out that Price's amendment was simply a way to gut the bill, and that "the reality is that this is not a bill that costs the Treasury money, but it does cost our country something of great value."

Moran went on to detail the history of wild horses in the United States: At the turn of the 20th century, some 2 million roamed free. By the 1950s, their population dwindled to fewer than 20,000 due to poaching for pet food and human consumption in Europe and Asia.

"I believe that a generation from now we will shudder at how recklessly we treated these animals which are so symbolic of the spirit, the strength, the stamina of this country. In the event of survival, so many of them face neglect and abuse today, and that is the argument that is raised," Moran said. "But that is not an excuse not to pass this legislation nor to implement a more humane policy, because this policy is inhumane at every step in the process, from how they're purchased at auction, to their transportation to the slaughterhouse, to how they are killed."

In the end, Price's proposal was easily defeated, with seventeen Republicans joining all but six Democrats in voting against it. Thus, by a vote of 186 to 238, the House rejected an amendment to require a bill to ban the slaughter of wild horses for meat to be revenue-neutral as a condition for enactment, and the legislation moved forward without the restriction.


ENVIRONMENT Humane Treatment of Animals
N N Won
Roll Call 265
Apr 25, 2007
Providing the rules of consideration for a fiscal 2007 emergency supplemental spending bill, including a March 2008 deadline for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq (H.R. 1591)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on adoption of the rules for consideration for an "emergency" supplemental spending bill for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other measures. The appropriations bill - $124.2 billion for fiscal 2007 that included language calling for the redeployment of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 2008 - was in the form of a conference report, a compromise package put together by lawmakers from the House and Senate after both chambers had passed similar but not identical versions of the various pieces of legislation combined in this measure.

In addition to $95.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the conference report also included $6.8 billion for hurricane recovery and relief efforts, $3.5 billion in crop and livestock disaster assistance and $2.25 billion for homeland security anti-terrorism programs. It also would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next two years and provide $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives.

The bill was controversial primarily because it included a timeline for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq by the end of March 2008 if the president could certify that the Iraq government is meeting certain benchmarks and by the end of 2007 if he could not.

Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said, "After four years of the administration's relentless mismanagement of the Iraq war, mismanagement that has needlessly endangered our soldiers and lost countless Iraqi lives, this new Democratic Congress is determined to exercise our constitutional duty and to change the nation's course in Iraq."

The ranking Republican on the Rules Committee, Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), called the conference report "a policy of failure."

"It is nothing more than a cheap attempt to score political points at a time when the American people have understandably become very weary of war," Dreier added.

Dreier said that the conference report was simply a "political charade," as President Bush threatened to veto any measure including a timetable for withdrawal, meaning Congress would have to reconsider the funding bill without that language the following week.

Regardless, Democrats were adamant about putting House lawmakers on record, even though they acknowledged in advance that they didn't have the necessary two-thirds of the House to override the president's promised veto. House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) said the intent of the legislation was to send a message to the Iraqi people that the United States will not be a permanent occupier of that country. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, he said, the president and Congress will have to find "a mutually agreed way of extricating ourselves from what has most assuredly become an Iraqi civil war."

The funding bill passed by a relatively close vote of 218 to 208. Thirteen Democrats bucked their party's leadership and voted against the measure, while only two Republicans broke party ranks and supported it. Nonetheless, a fiscal 2007 emergency spending bill that included a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq passed the House and moved to the Senate.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 264
Apr 25, 2007
Providing for consideration of the fiscal 2007 emergency supplemental spending bill, including a March 2008 deadline for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq (H.R. 1591)/On adoption of the rules package (H. Res. 332)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on adoption of the rules for consideration for an "emergency" supplemental spending bill for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other measures. The appropriations bill - $124.2 billion for fiscal 2007 that included language calling for the redeployment of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 2008 - was in the form of a conference report, a compromise package put together by lawmakers from the House and Senate after both chambers had passed similar but not identical versions of the various pieces of legislation combined in this measure.

This resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

The underlying bill to which the rules package would govern debate of was controversial because it included a timeline for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq by the end of March 2008 if the president could certify that the Iraq government is meeting certain benchmarks and by the end of 2007 if he could not.

In addition to $95.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the conference report also included $6.8 billion for hurricane recovery and relief efforts, $3.5 billion in crop and livestock disaster assistance and $2.25 billion for homeland security anti-terrorism programs. It also would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next two years and provide $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives.

Debate about the rules package was entirely focused on the contents of the legislation itself, specifically the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said, "After four years of the administration's relentless mismanagement of the Iraq war, mismanagement that has needlessly endangered our soldiers and lost countless Iraqi lives, this new Democratic Congress is determined to exercise our constitutional duty and to change the nation's course in Iraq."

The ranking Republican on the Rules Committee, Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), expressed his "strongest opposition to both this rule and the underlying conference report," which he described as implementing "a policy of failure."

"It is nothing more than a cheap attempt to score political points at a time when the American people have understandably become very weary of war," Dreier added.

On an almost complete party-line vote, the House passed the rules of consideration for the conference report. Only one Republican voted with all but three Democrats in passing the resolution. Thus, by a vote of 226 to 195, the House adopted the rules package for a fiscal 2007 supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 2008, and the paved the way to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 262
Apr 25, 2007
Expanding the number of federal loan programs available to small businesses (H.R. 1332)/Motion to recommit with instructions make small businesses determined by the Small Business Administration to have been adversely affected by the minimum wage hike eligible for federal loans

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill to expand the number of federal loans that are available to small businesses and reduced the loan costs to borrowers. Republicans motioned to send the bill back to committee with instructions to add language to allow small businesses that the Small Business Administration (SBA) determines have been adversely affected by the recent minimum wage hike to qualify for a federal loan program called Community Express.

Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.) offered the motion to recommit to make what he said was "an important point about how we treat small businesses, the engine that drives much of our economy and creates many of our jobs in this country."

The underlying legislation to which Republicans were seeking to amend would make permanent a the Community Express Program, which provides loans up to $250,000 to businesses which are owned by groups such as women, minorities, veterans, or socially or economically disadvantaged individuals. According to McCrery, the bill does not define what it means for a business owner to be "economically disadvantaged.''

McCrery's proposal would require the SBA to consider as economically disadvantaged "those business owners that can demonstrate that they have been adversely impacted by an increase in the federal minimum wage."

Republicans said they offered the measure as a way to compensate for the fact that the House did not approve a tax relief package to small businesses most impacted by an increase in the minimum wage. (See Roll Call 16.)

Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) responded that if McCrery was "so concerned about the state of small businesses in our country," why has he consistently voted against amendments she has proposed in the past to reduce the costs of the small business loan program?

"The problem with the gentleman from Louisiana is that he doesn't believe that the minimum wage should be raised, and that 10 years is not long enough," Velazquez continued, referring to the last time the minimum wage was raised. "So by supporting this motion to recommit, you are voting against providing relief to small businesses. What we are doing with this bill is reducing up to $50,000 in fees to borrowers in this country. That is real relief."

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.

Republican support for the motion to recommit was unanimous, and two Democrats joined them in voting for it. It did not have the votes to pass, however, and a motion to send a bill expanding the number of federal loans available to small businesses and reducing the fees for borrowers back to committee with instructions to allow businesses "adversely affected" by the recent minimum wage hike to qualify for a special program for certain businesses failed on an almost party-line vote. By a vote of 197 to 224, the House rejected the measure, and the underlying legislation moved towards a final up-or-down vote without the amendment.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Won
Roll Call 258
Apr 25, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 330 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 1332, to improve the access to capital programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 256
Apr 24, 2007
Providing new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers (H.R. 363)/Motion to recommit with instructions to add language giving priority to grants to expand domestic energy production and coal-to-liquid technology

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill to provide new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers. Republicans motioned to send the bill back to committee with instructions to add language to give priority to grants to expand domestic energy production and coal-to-liquid technology.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.

Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) made the motion to recommit because he said the country "must encourage new innovations in domestic energy supply." He said that the legislation he was seeking to amend "already emphasizes the need for increased science and engineer research grants, especially with regard to our nation's young people," but what it did not address, in his view, was "the need for further diversification of our energy sources."

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) acknowledged that the motion was designed to peel off supporter among Democrats from states with coal interests. "This is a call to my fossil fuel Democrats, my coal Democrats, to address the need of our energy security issues," Shimkus said.

Democrats complained that they were not given the "courtesy" of seeing the motion to recommit until seconds before it was introduced by Republicans - as they would have if Republicans had offered it instead as a straight-up amendment. "But, with that said, we will accept this motion, and we will consider it in conference where it can be considered under the light of more scrutiny," said Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), referring to the House-Senate conference committee that is convened after legislation passes both chambers in order to iron out any differences between the two versions.

By offering this amendment as a motion to recommit, Republicans were able to do what they may not have accomplished otherwise, which was bring coal interests to the table during the conference committee. Had the Democratic leadership seen the text of the motion in advance - as would have been required during a regular amendment process - it likely would have prevented the measure from being offered on the House floor through parliamentary maneuvers in the rule outlining consideration of the bill.

The Republican attempt to attract sufficient support from coal-state Democrats and side-step the Democratic leadership worked, however, and 75 Democrats voted for the motion, in addition to all but five Republicans. Thus, on a vote of 264 to 154, a motion to send legislation authorizing new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers back to committee with instructions to add language requiring priority to be given to grants to expand domestic energy production and coal-to-liquid technology passed the House, and the legislation was amended to reflect the change.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Coal Industry
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 255
Apr 24, 2007
Providing new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers (H.R. 363)/Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) amendment to authorize $281 million in scholarships for undergraduates specializing in science, technology, engineering or math

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to an education bill to authorize new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers. Proposed by Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), the amendment would authorize $281 million from in fiscal 2009 through 2013 to create a new scholarship program for undergraduates who are specializing in science, technology, engineering or math; whose family income is less than $75,000 per year; and who maintain at least a 3.0 grade point average.

"I offer this bipartisan amendment to build the pipeline for our country's future teachers, scientists, engineers and researchers by proposing 2,500 scholarships each year of full tuition to any state university or college," Gillibrand said, adding, "having a home-grown, educated workforce will be crucially important to the future strength of America's economy."

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas) said he while he is usually supportive of merit scholarships, the program Gillibrand proposed would be "duplicative" to an almost identical program within the Department of Education. The president's 2008 budget requested $1.2 billion for that program, Hall said, adding: "We don't need to add another $281 million scholarship program at another agency that achieves essentially the exact same thing."

Democratic support for Gillibrand's amendment was unanimous, however, and 26 Republicans joined them in voting to approve the measure. Thus, on a vote of 254 to 165, the House approved an amendment to education legislation aiming to foster math and science education and research that would create a $281 million scholarship program available to students who specialize in science, technology, engineering or math.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 249
Apr 24, 2007
Providing for consideration of a bill to authorize new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers (H. Res. 318)/On adoption of the rules package

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote determined the rules for debate for an education bill to authorize new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers, establish a new presidential science award, and create a new office to recommend funding for federal scientific research efforts.

Additionally, the legislation would require the National Science Foundation to allocate at least 3.5 percent of its research money to young-scientist programs.

The measure was proposed in response to a 2005 National Academies of Sciences report warning that without increased funding for math and science education, the United States would be likely to lose technology jobs to other nations.

This resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "structured rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor.

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) pointed out that the rules package made in order all three amendments that were submitted for consideration to the Rules Committee.

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) nonetheless questioned "the need once again for a structured rule when an open rule could have been granted for consideration of this bill." So, despite his support for the underlying legislation, he urged his colleagues to oppose the rule.

Regardless of which party happens to be controlling the House, the majority often aims to control the number of amendments that can be offered on the floor (that weren't pre-approved by the Rules Committee) because such amendments take up floor time that detracts from the majority's ability to quickly move through its agenda.

Democrats were unanimous in their support for the rules package, and Republicans were unanimous in their opposition. Thus, on a completely party-line vote of 219 to 187, the House approved the rules for consideration for a bill to authorize new grant programs for early-career scientists and engineers. Despite their objections to the rules package, the vast majority of Republicans ended up voting in favor of the legislation itself, and it went on to pass easily.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 248
Apr 24, 2007
Providing for consideration of a bill to authorize $1.5 billion in scholarships and continuing education for math and science teachers (H. Res. 327)/On adoption of the rules package

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote determined the rules for debate for an education bill to fund $1.5 billion in scholarships and continuing education for math and science teachers through fiscal 2012. Among other provisions, the legislation would provide $664 million in scholarships for those seeking undergraduate degrees in math and science who commit to teaching those subjects in "high-need" schools.

The measure was proposed in response to a 2005 National Academies of Sciences report warning that without increased funding for math and science education, the United States would be likely to lose technology jobs to other nations.

This resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "structured rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor.

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) pointed out that the rules package made in order all of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee - of which there were only two, both offered by Democratic lawmakers.

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) nonetheless said he was "disappointed" that the Rules Committee didn't allow for a totally open rule, meaning that any and all amendments could have been offered on the House floor. "And I frankly view this as another opportunity of the promises made by the new majority that were wasted with this bill," Hastings added.

Regardless of which party happens to be controlling the House, the majority often aims to control the number of amendments that can be offered on the floor (that weren't pre-approved by the Rules Committee) because such amendments take up floor time that detracts from the majority's ability to quickly move through its agenda.

Democrats were unanimous in their support for the rules package, and only one Republican voted against it. Thus, on a party-line vote of 220 to 188, the House approved the rules for consideration for a bill to provide scholarships and continuing education for math and science teachers, and the legislation moved toward a final vote. Despite their objections to the rules package, the vast majority of Republicans ended up voting in favor of the legislation itself, and it went on to pass easily.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
Y Y Won
Roll Call 244
Apr 20, 2007
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on a bill to require publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. The legislation would require that corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009.

Although the board of directors would not have to abide by the vote, the architect of the bill, Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), said shareholders should nonetheless have an opportunity to express their views. The legislation would also require companies to disclose executive severance pay plans in the event of an acquisition, merger, consolidation or proposed sale.

The bill was prompted by increased attention to the multimillion-dollar compensation packages awarded to top corporate executives, a practice that particularly enrages its critics when the company's performance has been poor.

Republican opponents of the legislation maintained that it was an unnecessary government intrusion into private business, and many worried aloud that the bill would serve as a stepping-stone for binding shareholder votes in the future. Many Republican critics also said Congress should observe the result of regulations put in place last year by the Securities and Exchange Commission requiring greater corporate disclosure of compensation packages before considering legislation.

The bill, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said, "constitutes an unnecessary and unwarranted federal intrusion into the free enterprise system and the private sector."

"The legislation that the Democrat majority has brought to the House today would create a new federal mandate on publicly held companies," Sessions continued, "but does so in a half-hearted way that would have absolutely no practical impact on its purported goal of improving disclosure and addressing 'excessive' executive compensation."

Frank responded that "letting people who own the company vote on information that the SEC has required the company to put forward as to whether or not they approve or disapprove that that's what the people they hired should be paid is not at all intrusive."

"We think it has had a reasonable effect in moderating corporate excesses," Frank added.

Despite the vocal Republican opposition, 55 Republicans ended up voting for the legislation, joining all but five Democrats in passing the bill. Thus, on a vote of 269 to 134, the House approved a measure requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 243
Apr 20, 2007
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Motion to recommit with instructions to clarify the nonbinding nature of the vote

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote represented Republicans' last attempt to modify a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) moved to recommit the bill with instructions, which would have sent the legislation back to committee in order to be amended to include language clarifying the nonbinding nature of the shareholder votes on executive pay.

The legislation Republicans were seeking to alter would require that all publicly traded corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. A company's board of directors could disregard the shareholders' say, but supporters of the bill, including Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said that was unlikely.

The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility.

Frank said repeatedly during the debate that "'This bill does not do what it does not do,'" meaning that the shareholder vote would be strictly advisory.

"I hope he is right," Feeney said. "Rather than hope, though, I offer this motion to recommit in order to be certain and to protect the directors in their discretionary exercise of their duties."

More specifically, Feeney said he wanted to make sure that no court would consider a board of director's refusal to follow the shareholders' advisory vote as a breach of the board's duties.

He added that he didn't care if the provision was redundant. "We do a lot worse here than redundancy. As Chairman Frank often advises, the law is filled with redundancies, and when Members oppose language in language in bills because they are redundant, they are typically being disingenuous."

Frank responded that "never has the willingness of the minority to abuse the process for purely political ends been truer than today," pointing out that Republicans had offered seven amendments to the bill under what's known as an open rule (meaning no relevant amendments were barred) and that very similar language to Feeney's was already in the bill after Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) successfully added it in committee.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. It is usually offered during legislative debates under what are known as closed rules, meaning few or no amendments are allowed.

Frank continued: "If the Members thought that the bill that we had voted on and which they had every chance to amend needed further amendment, the democratic procedure, the procedure that shows respect for the process, would have been to file an amendment. Members on the other side had every opportunity at the committee and in this open rule fully to debate this and to offer amendments. They chose not to. They chose instead to legislate by ambush."

Majority Democrats were unanimous in their opposition to the motion to recommit, while all but one Republican voted for it. Thus, on party-line vote of 184 to 222, the House rejected a Republican attempt to send legislation requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives back to committee with instructions to clarify that such votes would be nonbinding, and the legislation moved towards a final vote without the provision.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Won
Roll Call 242
Apr 20, 2007
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) amendment to require a study on whether the requirement would hinder a publicly traded company's ability to compete for executive candidates; if the study found that it did, the shareholder vote would not be required

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Proposed by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the amendment would have required the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to conduct a study on whether separate, non-binding shareholder votes on executive pay would hinder publicly traded companies' abilities to compete for the best available executive candidates. If the commission were to find that it would, the shareholder votes outlined in the underlying bill would no longer be required.

The legislation Price was seeking to amend would require that all publicly traded corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. A company's board of directors could disregard the shareholder's say, but supporters of the bill, including Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said that was unlikely.

The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility.

"I think that this amendment gets to what the consequences of this underlying bill are," Price said. "It would ensure that this legislation will not compromise fair competition and a level playing field for publicly traded companies."

Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) responded: "I think this amendment makes clear how radical an idea the minority party thinks democracy is, whether it is in corporations or in government, and how wary they are of voting, whether in corporations, by shareholders or in politics."

Democratic opposition to Price's amendment was near unanimous, with only two Democrats voting in support. Twenty-four Republicans also voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 162 to 242, the House rejected an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives that would have nullified the effect of the bill if the SEC determined it would have a detrimental impact on the ability of publicly traded companies to compete for top executives, and the legislation moved forward without the provision.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Won
Roll Call 241
Apr 20, 2007
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) amendment that would exempt companies that tie executive pay to performance

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Proposed by Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.), the amendment would have exempted companies that tie executive pay to performance.

The legislation Putnam was seeking to amend would require that all publicly traded corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility.

Putnam's amendment would have exempted companies from having to conduct a shareholder vote on executive pay if the majority of the executives' compensation were subject to revocation for individual poor performance of that of the company. This kind of pay structure is known as nonqualified, deferred compensation. "Those that have poor performance forfeit some of their compensation," Putnam said.

Putnam said he offered the amendment because Democrats were using as a rationale for the bill the presupposition that pay for top executives is disconnected from their performance. "I would argue that if you believe that, then you should support this amendment that focuses on performance and encourages greater accountability," he added. "My amendment gets to the heart of shareholder frustration, which is that if a CEO fails to fulfill their fiduciary duties, then they should be held accountable."

Frank rose to opposed the amendment on grounds that "it intrudes the Congress into the internal pay decisions of the corporation."

"We are strictly, scrupulously, completely neutral as to how the corporations pay their CEOs and others. We simply say that the market should work, that these shareholders should decide," Frank continued. In Frank's words, the underlying legislation, which he drafted, would create a "uniform, legally enforceable right" for shareholders to have a direct say in the compensation of the corporation's top executives.

Democratic opposition to Putnam's amendment was near unanimous, with only one Democrat voting in support. Twenty-three Republicans also voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 160 to 240, the House rejected an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives that would have exempted corporations that provide the majority of each of their top executive's pay in the form of nonqualified, differed compensation, and the legislation moved forward without the exemption.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Won
Roll Call 240
Apr 20, 2007
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) substitute that would replace the legislation with statement by the House that the SEC's rulemaking on executive pay was adequate

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on replacement text for a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Proposed by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the measure was what's known as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, meaning if enacted, it would replace the entire text of the bill with a finding stating that the Security and Exchange Commission's (SEC) 2006 ruling requiring the disclosure of executive compensation to shareholders provides a "complete and adequate mechanism for shareholder approval" of executive pay.

The legislation Price was seeking to strike would require that all publicly traded corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility.

Price related what he and many Republicans consider excessive federal regulations as the reason why an increasing number of U.S. companies are moving oversees, and stated that Congress should not add to the regulatory burden.

In 2006, the SEC ruled that publicly traded companies to publish executive compensation packages, including stock options and bonuses.

"My amendment is a vote for transparency," Price said. "It is a vote for disclosure over increased government expansion and regulation. A vote against this amendment will increase the incentives for companies to go from public to private and to move from onshore to offshore."

Frank said the amendment was simply a ruse. It would simply "let people vote against the bill without voting against the bill," he said. "Again, the effect of this amendment is exactly, exactly the same as voting 'no' on the bill. Why would you vote for an amendment that says you don't need a bill instead of simply voting `no'?"

Democratic opposition to Price's amendment in the nature of a substitute was unanimous. Thirty-four Republicans also voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 148 to 257, the House rejected an attempt to kill legislation requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives, and the measure moved forward intact.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Won
Roll Call 239
Apr 20, 2007
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) amendment to require pension plans to reveal to their beneficiaries how they voted

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Proposed by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), the amendment would have required that pension plans, which own large blocks of publicly traded stock, disclose to their plan members how they voted on executive compensation packages of the companies they invest in.

The legislation McHenry was seeking to amend would require that all publicly traded corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility.

"I think it is important that the managers of those pension funds disclose to the actual owners of those retirement funds, those pension funds, how their managers cast their votes," McHenry said. "Union leadership or pension fund leadership should have to inform their shareholders how they cast votes on their behalf. I think that is a matter of openness and transparency."

McHenry pointed out that mutual funds already have to disclose their votes on such matters to their members.

Frank actually agreed with McHenry on principle, but said he opposed the amendment because he didn't want to limit the disclosure requirement to pension funds, and because the scope of this legislation (and House rules regarding the relevancy requirement for amendments) limited the scope of amendments that could be attached, a broader requirement could not have been attached to this bill.

"I agree on the principle that a fiduciary's vote should have to be made public, but I wouldn't want to limit it only to pension funds," Frank said. He added that he would be happy to hold hearings on the subject.

Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) added that "a broader amendment, were it germane to this bill, would probably be received favorably by all of us because we believe that fiduciaries in general should be reporting to the people that they are representing." But by limiting it only to pension plans, many other fiduciaries, including foundations and family trusts, would be excluded "that should have the same obligation," Watt said. "And singling out pension plans in this context I think is the wrong thing to do."

Democratic opposition to McHenry's amendment was near unanimous, with only one Democrat voting in support. Seventeen Republicans also voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 164 to 236, the House rejected an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives that would have required pension funds to disclose how they voted to beneficiaries, and the legislation moved forward without the requirement.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Won
Roll Call 238
Apr 20, 2007
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) amendment to exempt companies whose directors are elected by a majority vote of the shareholders

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Proposed by Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), the amendment would have exempted companies whose directors are elected by a majority vote of the shareholders.

The legislation Campbell was seeking to amend would require that all publicly traded corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility.

Campbell said that during committee hearings on the bill, the witnesses stated they preferred that the reforms Congress sought on behalf of shareholders be accomplished through a democratically elected board of directors - which approve the pay packages of top executives - rather than an explicit vote on executive compensation by shareholders.

"All six witnesses preferred that to this very prescriptive executive compensation proposal," Campbell said. "Because, as we discussed earlier, that would actually give shareholders more rights, through the board, to express their displeasure with a company for excessive executive compensation or simply executive operations that they don't like: for a poor performance, for a bad union contract, for whatever they wanted to express their displeasure more effectively by voting against people who were proposed to be on the board."

Frank accused Campbell of being disingenuous in his intent, saying that if Campbell really wanted the substance of his amendment enacted - more shareholder say regarding the boards of directors of publicly traded companies - he would have filed it as separate legislation. As it were, Frank said, such legislation would have much more difficult time of passing that the bill to which he was seeking to amend.

"If he wants to file a bill to give shareholders the right to vote by a majority for directors, and I think there has to be further change, then I would be happy to guarantee a hearing," Frank said, adding, "I think it's going to be hard enough to get even this through."

"We have had people who said this is way too much. I do not think the gentleman speaks for his party in being supportive of something that will be far more opposed by a broader segment," Frank continued, explaining that he would not want to sacrifice the bill he crafted by attaching an amendment he knew would cause more Republicans to vote against the legislation on final passage.

Democratic opposition to Campbell's amendment was near unanimous, with only two Democrats voting in support. Twenty-two Republicans also voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 161 to 241, the House rejected an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives that would have exempted companies whose directors are elected by a majority vote of the shareholders, and the legislation moved forward without the exemption.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Won
Roll Call 237
Apr 20, 2007
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) amendment to require shareholder votes on executive compensation packages only when pay exceeds the industry average by 10 percent

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Proposed by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), the amendment would have limited the scope of the underlying bill to instances where executive pay exceeded the industry average by 10 percent.

The companies within the same industry to which the executives' pay would be compared would also have to have a comparable total market capitalization.

The legislation Garrett was seeking to amend would require that all publicly traded corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility.

Garrett said without his amendment the legislation was "excessive" and "interventionist." He said his proposal would simply install a trigger that would have to be met before companies would be required to allow shareholders a vote on executive compensation packages. Garrett's proposal would have tasked the Securities and Exchange Commission with deciding which companies meet the requirements laid out in the amendment.

"Essentially my amendment seeks to limit the required votes to instances where the disclosed excessive compensation in question grossly exceeds the norm and provides a quantitative guideline for what constitutes the norm and what constitutes gross excess," Garrett said. "If the underlying bill were to pass as it is currently drafted, we will be forcing literally thousands of public companies across this country to conduct shareholder votes on every single pay package for every single CEO of every single public company all the time."

Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) rose to oppose the amendment on grounds that it would require a complex calculation by the SEC and would undermine the purpose of the legislation.

"One of the first and most fundamental reasons why we oppose this amendment is because it is cleverly designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that is basically to gut this bill because it is totally unenforceable," Scott said, adding, "we should not single out any companies say if it is 10 percent of this or that, even if you could define the rather complicated formula that you have. What we are saying is every stockholder, every company with shareholders publicly traded, should have that opportunity to weigh in and have a say on the compensation packages."

Democratic opposition to Garrett's amendment was unanimous, and 23 Republicans joined them in opposition. Thus, on a vote of 155 to 244, the House rejected an amendment would have limited the scope of a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives to instances where executive pay exceeded the industry average by 10 percent, and legislation allowing shareholders a nonbinding vote in the pay of top executives moved forward without such a limitation.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Won
Roll Call 236
Apr 20, 2007
Requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H.R. 1257)/Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) amendment to prohibit shareholders' votes from being counted if they spent money trying to influence the votes of others without disclosure

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. Proposed by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), the amendment would have prohibited a shareholder's vote from being counted if the shareholder spent more than a minimal amount of money trying to influence the votes of others and did not fully disclose those activities to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The legislation Sessions was seeking to amend would require that corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009. The impetus for the bill was a growing concern among lawmakers as well as many economists that the widening discrepancy between pay for executives and working- and middle-class Americans was harmful for both the economy and social mobility.

Sessions described his amendment as a way to provide "sunshine and transparency for shareholders so that there is full disclosure about who is financing efforts to influence their vote on this new congressionally mandated, nonbinding shareholder resolution."

He said the purpose was not to impede the ability of organizations to influence the shareholder votes on executive pay but simply to provide everyone with access to information about who is spending money to influence that vote. The amendment would prompt the SEC to set a minimum spending threshold that would trigger the disclosure requirement.

"If an individual wants to spend more than this de minimis amount and not disclose their identity to shareholders, they are still perfectly able to do so," Sessions continued, saying that their votes simply would not count.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) said the amendment was designed to close down public discourse and conversations between shareholders about executive pay. Miller said Session's amendment would effectively silence individuals who donate money to a campaign aimed at swaying non-binding votes on executive pay.

"So what you are really doing here is, you are trying to chill the speech and freeze the speech by putting them and holding them responsible for the disclosure that they may not have any control over," Miller said. "They may know they just don't like that executive compensation or they want a discussion of it. They don't necessarily know the activities engaged in to influence the vote."

After Miller's lengthy discourse opposing the amendment, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) responded with a two-sentence observation about Republicans' definition of democracy, which, he said, "has recently frequently included throwing votes away."

To which Miller responded: "You mean those 13,000 in Florida that are missing?" referring the disputed results from the 2000 election.

Democratic opposition to Sessions' amendment was nearly unanimous. All but two Democrats voted against it, and all Republicans present but three voted for it, not enough to muster a majority. Thus, on a party-line vote of 177 to 222, the House rejected an amendment prohibiting shareholders' votes from being counted if they spent money trying to influence the votes of others without disclosure, and legislation requiring publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages proceeded without the provision.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Won
Roll Call 235
Apr 19, 2007
Emergency supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (H.R. 1591)/Motion to pick conferees and instruct them to include language requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops form Iraq by August 2008

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to select lawmakers from the House to be appointed to a House-Senate conference committee to iron out the differences between the two chambers' respective versions of a supplemental war-spending bill. The appointment of the conferees also carried instructions to insist on House-passed language to require a pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of August 2008.

This vote represented a Republican attempt to force an up-or-down vote in the House on the withdrawal timetable and force many previously uncommitted Democrats to take what Republicans thought was a politically risky stand on the war

In order for a bill to become law, it must pass both the House and the Senate in identical forms before being signed by the president. If the two chambers pass differing versions of legislation, what's known as a conference committee is convened to hammer out the differences between the two bills and draft consensus legislation, which then must in turn be approved by both the House and Senate.

In their individual versions of legislation funding the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both chambers included language that would require the pullout of combat troops from Iraq, but the House and Senate differed on the timetable for withdrawal and whether the timeframe would be binding. The House-passed spending bill would require combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of August 2008. The Senate set a non-binding goal of the end of March 2008. The House's version was also more restrictive in how it would allow the secretary of Defense to use the military in that country after the redeployment of troops.

Both House and Senate bills totaled more than $123 billion for the continuing war effort.

President Bush vowed to veto the measure if it contained any war restrictions. Most House Republicans also opposed a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, calling it a defeatist strategy. Democrats said it was past time for a change of course in the war.

Only one Republican, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (Md.), joined all but nine Democrats in voting for the motion. (Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio voted "present.") Thus, on a vote of 215 to 199, the House voted to instruct conferees to a House-Senate committee ironing out differences in a $123 billion war supplemental spending bill to insist on language requiring a pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq by August 2008.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 233
Apr 19, 2007
Water Resources Development Act (H.R. 1495)/Motion to recommit with instructions to amend the bill to require the secretary of the Army to promote the use of hydroelectric power and prevent the removal of dams for environmental purposes

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation authorizing almost $15 billion over the next five years for backlogged Army Corps of Engineers public works projects. Republicans sought to amend the bill to require the secretary of the Army to inventory, develop and maintain hydroelectric projects and make it difficult to remove hydroelectric dams for any reason, including for environmental purposes.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) proposed the amendment in the form of a motion to recommit. A motion to recommit with instructions seeks to send the bill back to committee for the purpose of making specific changes, in this case adding language requiring the secretary of the Army (who oversees the Army Corps of Engineers) to prioritize the development and maintenance of hydropower.

Walden said he offered the proposal because of "the issue of global warming and America's energy independence," as hydropower creates virtually no greenhouse gas emissions.

The amendment would require the Army secretary to quantify the effects of removing a particular dam on the costs of energy to consumers, as well as how much energy would need to be imported in order to replace it.

Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) rose to oppose the amendment on several grounds, the first of which being an agreement between Democrats and Republicans within his committee to not take action on new items that were not already included in a version of the legislation that was proposed in the previous congressional session.

"This proposal is not only new, but it is massive, it is huge, it is not a study of potential effects," Oberstar continued. "The language at the very outset prohibits any action that may be proposed, as is being considered along the Snake River, to remove dams for environmental purposes.

"This motion goes well beyond the intent of the Water Resources Development Act. It goes beyond the bipartisan agreement we have in bringing this bill to the floor. It authorizes unlimited projects without consideration of environmental impacts or consideration of taxpayer expense," Oberstar concluded, adding that the committee could consider Walden's proposal in future legislation.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. As such, votes on motions to recommit are usually party-line affairs, and this was no exception. Republicans unanimously supported the motion, and Democrats unanimously opposed it. Thus, on a vote of 194 to 226, the House rejected a Republican move to send a water projects infrastructure bill back to committee with instructions to include an amendment that would have required the secretary of the Army to prioritize hydropower projects, and a bill to authorize almost $15 billion worth of public works projects by the Army Corps of Engineers went forward without the requirement that would have prevented the removal of dams for environmental purposes.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 232
Apr 19, 2007
Increasing quarterly estimated tax payments for those with adjusted gross incomes of more than $5 million (H.R. 1906)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on companion legislation to a bill to give the citizens of the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House of Representatives and permanently expand the number of seats the House by two to 437. (See Roll Call 231.)

This legislation would increase the quarterly estimated tax payments for people with gross adjusted incomes of more than $5 million. The tax increase was designed to more than offset the cost of the two new lawmakers' offices and staff. The 1974 Budget Act requires that those costs be offset by either spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the federal budget (unless the House specifically votes to waive the act).

The Democratic leadership chose to bring the tax package up as a separate measure rather than rolling it into one bill because of a failed effort to pass two similar measures together as one bill in March. By including a tax provision, Democrats expanded what is known as the "germaneness" of the bill, meaning the scope of amendments that are considered sufficiently relevant to attach. This served as an opportunity for Republicans to seek to include an amendment on gun rights in the District, which included language aimed at killing the bill. This move created a parliamentary nightmare for Democrats, who ended up postponing a vote on the bill for a month. (See Roll Call 180.)

In order to avoid that problem again, Democrats separated the voting-rights bill and the tax legislation into two individual measures that would be immediately attached after the tax bill was passed. The tax legislation would require affected taxpayers to make estimated tax payments equal to 110.1 percent of their previous year's taxes or 90 percent of their anticipated taxes for this year, whichever was less. Under current law, those taxpayers were required to pay 110 percent of their previous year's taxes in an advanced payment.

Democrats such as Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) maintained that the legislation would not increase taxes for any individual, but instead changes "in a very minor way" the estimated tax payments that wealthy individuals (those with incomes of more than $5 million a year) are required to pay quarterly.

"No one will pay more taxes under the bill," Lewis said. "It makes a technical timing change to tax payments made by these individuals. H.R. 1906 is critical to the pay-as-you-go pledge of this Congress."

Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.) disagreed, saying that the measure was simply a back-door tax increase, representing "the first brick in a Chinese wall of tax increases."

"Generating revenue by assuming that Americans with more than $5 million in income will increase their annual withholding by one-tenth of 1 percent simply makes a mockery of PAYGO," he said. (Pay-as-you-go rules are also known as PAYGO.) "The majority is exploiting a statistical quirk in the way that the Joint Tax Committee does its revenue estimates, and will have accountants, not normally known for their high spirits and good humor, roaring with laughter all over the country."

English said Democrats would have had more credibility had they simply found a couple of million dollars to trim in a federal budget that runs in the trillions.

Fourteen Democrats joined all but three Republicans in voting against the legislation, but the Democrats still had the votes to pass the bill. Thus, by a vote of 216 to 203, the House approved a minor change to the way wealthy individuals estimate their quarterly tax payments, and the measure was attached to companion legislation giving residents of the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House of Representatives.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 231
Apr 19, 2007
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act (H.R. 1905)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on final passage of a bill to grant full voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia.

The legislation would give the 572,000 residents of Washington, D.C., a voting representative in Congress. Currently, citizens of D.C., who pay federal income taxes and fight in the armed forces, instead have only a delegate to the House of Representatives who doesn't have full voting privileges on the House floor.

In addition to granting a voting representative to the residents of the District of Columbia, the underlying bill would give Utah an additional at-large House seat until 2012, when House seats are to be reapportioned among the states based on the decennial census. (The number of Representatives in the House would permanently increase from 435 to 437.) This was done to make the bill party-neutral. Utah is a reliably conservative state, and the at-large district would likely be filled by a Republican lawmaker, whereas D.C. could be expected to send a Democrat to Congress.

In addition, the bill would also give Utah another vote in the electoral college for the 2008 presidential election.

Utah was chosen to offset the D.C. seat because the state missed getting an additional representative in the last round of redistricting by only a few hundred residents. The bill would expand the number of seats in the House by two, from 435 to 437. The bill would also give Utah an additional vote in the Electoral College for the 2008 election since electors are apportioned on the basis of the number of Senators and Representatives each state has.

Many Republicans questioned the constitutionality of the measure, as Article 1, Section 2 states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several states." The District of Columbia is not a state.

"The District was never meant to have the same rights as states," said Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.). Goodlatte also maintained that giving Utah an at-large seat in addition to the state's three congressional districts would allow the state's voters to cast two votes for Congress.

Democrats and some Republican supporters argued that it was high time the more than half million residents of D.C. had the same rights as everyone else, and pointed out that the framers of the Constitution never envisioned that the population of the District would rival that of several states.

"I view this as an issue of race because there are so many of color in this city who are not fully represented," said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.).

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), who drafted the bill, said the crux of the issue was not a constitutional one. Davis said the debate was not about "what Congress can do" but instead "about what Congress is willing to do."

In the end, 22 Republicans joined with all but six Democrats in voting to pass the measure. Thus, by a final vote of 241 to 177, the House passed a bill giving citizens of D.C. a full voting Representative in the House.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 230
Apr 19, 2007
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act (H.R. 1905)/Motion to recommit with instructions to include language providing for expedited judicial review

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a Republican amendment to a bill to grant full voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) moved to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to immediately send the bill back to the House floor with an amendment providing for expedited judicial review of the legislation. Legal action would have to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and that court's decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The bill had what's known as a non-severability clause, which means that if any provision were to be invalidated by a court, all remaining provisions would also be invalid.

The legislation Republicans were seeking to amend would give the 572,000 residents of Washington, D.C., a voting representative in Congress. Currently, citizens of D.C., who pay federal income taxes and fight in the armed forces, instead have only a delegate to the House of Representatives who doesn't have full voting privileges on the House floor.

In addition to granting a voting representative to the residents of the District of Columbia, the underlying bill would give Utah an additional at-large House seat until 2012, when House seats are to be reapportioned among the states based on the decennial census. The number of Representatives in the House would also permanently increase from 435 to 437.

Many Republicans questioned the constitutionality of the measure, as Article 1, Section 2 states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several states." The District of Columbia is not a state.

Democrats and some Republican supporters argued that it was high time the more than half million residents of D.C. had the same rights as everyone else.

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), who drafted the bill, said the crux of the issue was not a constitutional one. Davis said the debate was not about "what Congress can do" but instead "about what Congress is willing to do."

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. Such motions usually command total or near-complete party unity, even if individual lawmakers later break ranks with their respective party in voting on the legislation.

Despite support for the underlying bill from within Republican ranks, the motion divided the House neatly among party lines, typical of such procedural votes. Democrats were unanimous in their opposition to the Republican effort to send the bill back to committee with instructions to include language allowing for expedited judicial review. Republicans unanimously supported the motion, but the minority didn't have the votes to pass it. Thus, by a vote of 193 to 227, the House rejected a Republican attempt to amend a bill giving citizens of D.C. a full voting rights to allow for expedited consideration of its constitutionality by federal courts, and the legislation moved forward without the provision.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 229
Apr 19, 2007
Providing for the consideration of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act (H. Res. 317)/On adoption of the rules package

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on a resolution outlining the rules for debate for a bill to grant full voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia.

Known as the "rules package," this resolution determined how much time each side would be given for debate, what amendments would be considered in order and what procedural motions would be allowed.

The 572,000 residents of Washington, D.C., do not have a voting representative in Congress and instead have only a delegate to the House of Representatives who doesn't have full voting privileges on the House floor.

In addition to granting a voting representative to the residents of the District of Columbia, the underlying bill would give Utah an additional at-large House seat until 2012, when House seats are to be reapportioned among the states based on the decennial census.

The rule also outlined the consideration for a separate but related tax measure that would increase the quarterly estimated tax payments for people with gross adjusted incomes of more than $5 million. The tax increase was designed to offset the cost of the two new lawmakers' offices and staff. The 1974 Budget Act requires that spending increases be offset by either spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the federal budget (unless the House specifically votes to waive the act).

The Democratic leadership chose to bring the tax package up as a separate measure rather than rolling it into one bill because of a failed effort to pass two similar measures together as one bill in March. By including a tax provision, Democrats expanded what is known as the "germaneness" of the bill, meaning the scope of amendments that are considered sufficiently relevant to attach. This served as an opportunity for Republicans to seek to include an amendment on gun rights in the District, which included language aimed at killing the bill. This move created a parliamentary nightmare for Democrats, who ended up postponing a vote on the bill for a month. (See Roll Call 180.)

In order to avoid that problem again, Democrats separated the voting-rights bill and the tax legislation into two individual measures that would be immediately attached after the tax portion was passed. To do this, Democrats needed to waive the Budget Act for the passage of the voting-rights legislation, a proviso that was incorporated into the rules package under consideration in this vote.

So, in effect, this vote reflected the polarity between the parties on the underlying legislation to provide a full, voting Representative for the citizens of D.C. and an additional at-large seat for Utah. Many Republicans opposed giving the District of Colombia the same representational rights as states on grounds that it would be unconstitutional. Democrats and some Republican supporters argued that it was high time the more than half million residents of D.C. had the same rights as everyone else.

Procedural votes such as this one often draw near or total unanimity within each party, even if individual lawmakers later decide to break ranks and vote against the party line on the underlying legislation. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition to the rules package, and all Democrats present but four voted for it, and the resolution passed 219 to 196. Thus, the House approved the rules for debate for a bill to give the citizens of D.C. full voting representation in Congress and paved the way for the legislation to be brought to the floor for a vote.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 228
Apr 19, 2007
Providing for the consideration of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act (H. Res. 317)/On ordering the previous question (end debate and prohibit amendment)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This motion was offered to force a vote on a resolution outlining the rules for debate for a bill to grant full voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia. The 572,000 residents of Washington, D.C., do not have a voting representative in Congress and instead have only a delegate to the House of Representatives who doesn't have full voting privileges on the House floor.

Known as the "rules package," this resolution determined how much time each side would be given for debate, what amendments would be considered in order and what procedural motions would be allowed.

This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration.

In addition to granting a voting representative to the residents of the District of Columbia, the underlying bill would give Utah an additional at-large House seat until 2012, when House seats are to be reapportioned among the states based on the decennial census.

The rule also outlined the consideration for a separate but related tax measure that would increase the quarterly estimated tax payments for people with gross adjusted incomes of more than $5 million. The tax increase was designed to offset the cost of the two new lawmakers' offices and staff. The 1974 Budget Act requires that new spending be offset by either spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the federal budget (unless the House specifically votes to waive the act).

The Democratic leadership chose to bring the tax package up as a separate measure rather than rolling it into one bill because of a failed effort to pass two similar measures together as one bill in March. By including a tax provision, Democrats expanded what is known as the "germaneness" of the bill, meaning the scope of amendments that are considered sufficiently relevant to attach. This served as an opportunity for Republicans to seek to include an amendment on gun rights in the District, which included language aimed at killing the bill. This move created a parliamentary nightmare for Democrats, who ended up postponing a vote on the bill for a month. (See Roll Call 180.)

In order to avoid that problem again, Democrats separated the voting-rights bill and the tax legislation into two individual measures that would be immediately attached after the tax portion was passed. To do this, Democrats needed to waive the Budget Act for the passage of the voting-rights legislation, a proviso that was incorporated into the rules package under consideration in this vote.

So, in effect, this vote reflected the polarity between the parties on the underlying legislation to provide a full, voting Representative for the citizens of D.C. and an additional at-large seat for Utah. The motion to order the previous question, if passed, would have the effect of forcing a vote on the rules package, itself a parliamentary maneuver for the Democrats to sidetrack Republican opposition to the underlying bill.

Many Republicans opposed giving the District of Colombia the same representational rights as states on grounds that it would be unconstitutional. Democrats and some Republican supporters argued that it was high time the more than half million residents of D.C. had the same rights as everyone else.

Procedural votes such as this one often draw near or total unanimity within each party, even if individual lawmakers later decide to break ranks and vote against the party line on the underlying legislation. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition to the rules package, and every Republican present voted against the motion ordering the previous question. All Democrats present but three voted for the motion, and the resolution passed 219 to 196. Thus, the House moved to force an up-or-down vote on the rules for debate for a bill to give the citizens of D.C. full voting representation in Congress.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 225
Apr 18, 2007
Reforming federal disaster loans to small business (H.R. 1361)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on legislation to reform the way the Small Business Administration handles disaster assistance loans. The agency was widely critiqued for ineffectiveness and delays following the 2005 hurricanes to hit the Gulf Coast. The SBA loans represent the federal government's primary disaster-recovery assistance.

The bill would increase the limit for disaster loans from $1.5 million to $3 million. Supporters of the bill lauded it as much-needed reform in time for the 2007 hurricane season. Republicans as well as President Bush complained that the legislation would expose taxpayers to unacceptably high costs.

Chief sponsor Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) said the SBA was so ineffective following the 2005 storms that many entrepreneurs believed the agency was more hindrance than help. At one point, 204,000 applications for aid were unprocessed. Velazquez said her bill provided for disaster planning for the agency in order to "ensure they are prepared for a wide range of disasters."

"This legislation will streamline SBA's loan processing and disbursement, as well as establish a bridge financing program," Velazquez said. "After the Gulf Coast storms, we saw entrepreneurs not only getting declined for loans but having to wait far too long for relief. This bill requires that within 36 hours of a disaster, qualified small businesses are provided with emergency small dollar financing, allowing them to stay in business and spur economic growth."

Many Republicans supported the bulk of the legislation but found "fatal flaws" with two provisions they tried unsuccessfully to have removed from the bill, including language that would allow the SBA to provide $100,000 grants to small businesses affected by the 2005 hurricanes that were denied other assistance and another section that would allow 2005 hurricane victims to receive duplicate benefits as a way to compensate for an unforeseen interaction between federal and state programs that left many individuals without assistance.

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) tried to have both sections removed but his efforts failed (see Roll Calls 222-223). Many Republicans maintained that those portions of the legislation were wasteful and undermined their support for the bill.

"Unfortunately, the legislation has two critical provisions that, in my view, seriously undercut the otherwise excellent work of the committee in creating a structure that will ensure the SBA is prepared to respond irrespective of the scope of the disaster," Chabot said.

Some Republicans also balked at the overall price tag of the bill, which the Congressional Budget Office said would cost $347 million in from 2008 to 2012, not including the cost of the duplicate-benefits waiver.

In the end, however, 40 Republicans broke ranks with their party and voted for the legislation. Democratic support was unanimous. Thus, on a vote of 267 to 158, the House passed a bill that would overhaul the federal government's disaster-loan program for small businesses, create a disaster-preparedness task force within the agency and double the limits for individual disaster loans to $3 million.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Natural Disasters
Y Y Won
Roll Call 224
Apr 18, 2007
Reforming federal disaster loans to small business (H.R. 1361)/Motion to recommit with instructions to prohibit assistance to anyone convicted of a felony

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation aiming to reform the Small Business Administration's (SBA) disaster loan program, which was widely critiqued for ineffectiveness and delays following the 2005 hurricanes to hit the Gulf Coast. Republicans motioned to send the bill back to committee with language prohibiting federal monies from going to anyone convicted of a felony or who has pleaded "no contest" to a felony.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. Democrats charged that Republicans were using this parliamentary move as a ruse to kill the bill.

"If you vote against this motion to recommit, you are saying to your constituents back home that you don't care if these federal funds go to convicted murderers, rapists, or kidnappers for that matter," Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) said.

Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.), who authored the legislation, pointed out that McHenry didn't show up to the committee meeting during consideration of the legislation, in her view evidencing his false concern about the substance of the amendment.

"This amendment merely restates what the Small Business Administration does and could actually have the opposite effect and allow more individuals with questionable character to get SBA disaster loans," Velazquez (D-N.Y.) continued. She added that the SBA already has such regulations in place as part of its standard operating procedure.

"I will also note that adopting this motion will for all intents and purposes kill the bill, meaning a little over 1 month before hurricane season, the Federal Government will not have a plan to respond to disasters. Disaster victims will be trapped in the bureaucracy between [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] and SBA," she added.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) furthered Velazquez's contention that the Republicans' motion to recommit was simply a poison pill.

"This is an effort to kill this bill indirectly and without telling the public that that is what you are doing," Hoyer said.

Nonetheless, eight Democrats crossed party lines and voted for the amendment, joining all but one Republican to vote "aye." It still wasn't enough support to pass, however, and the motion to recommit failed by a vote of 204 to 218. Thus, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited felons from receiving disaster assistance from the Small Business Administration, duplicating regulations already practiced by the SBA. Had the measure been included in the legislation, Democrats almost certainly would have opposed the bill, effectively killing it. So by rejecting the motion to recommit, the House kept a bill to reform how the SBA handles disaster loans alive and the legislation moved towards final passage.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD People in Jails and Prisons
N N Won
Roll Call 223
Apr 18, 2007
Reforming the program providing federal disaster loans to small business (H.R. 1361)/Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) amendment to remove language allowing the Small Business Authority the ability to offer grants of up to $100,000 for certain businesses severely affected by hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation aiming to reform the Small Business Administration's (SBA) disaster loan program, which was widely critiqued for ineffectiveness and delays following the 2005 hurricanes to hit the Gulf Coast. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) proposed an amendment that would have removed the section of the bill allowing the SBA to offer grants of up to $100,000 for businesses severely affected by hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma that had been denied conventional disaster loans.

Chabot said such loans would represent "the height of fiscal irresponsibility."

"The SBA's determination of whether to grant a disaster loan is based on its determination of reasonable assurance that you can repay your loan, which is a direct quote from the SBA's rules found in the Code of Federal Regulations," Chabot said. "Thus, if the SBA has denied a business a disaster loan, it already has determined that it is unlikely, for whatever reason, to repay the loan. In other words, its capacity as a viable business is seriously called into question."

Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.), who authored the legislation, said Chabot's amendment would "eliminate an important tool for helping otherwise viable businesses rebuild."

"These businesses need financial assistance that the disaster loan program cannot provide," Velazquez continued. "This has been very narrowly tailored to ensure that grants only go to businesses located in communities most in need. Only a small number of businesses are expected to meet the requirements for one of these grants. If the administrator feels that grants are inappropriate, he will not need to exercise this authority. Furthermore, this program will not be carried forward to future disasters."

Only one Democrat supported Chabot's provision, and 23 Republicans crossed party lines to oppose it. Thus, on a vote of 174 to 252, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated a portion of a bill that would allow the Small Business Administration to provide $100,000 grants to small businesses affected by the 2005 hurricanes that were denied other assistance, and legislation to reform the federal small-business disaster loan program went forward with the provision intact.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Natural Disasters
N N Won
Roll Call 222
Apr 18, 2007
Reforming federal disaster loans to small business (H.R. 1361)/Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) amendment to remove language allowing duplicate benefits for the victims of the 2005 hurricanes

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation aiming to reform the Small Business Administration's (SBA) disaster loan program, which was widely critiqued for ineffectiveness and delays following the 2005 hurricanes to hit the Gulf Coast. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) proposed an amendment that would have removed the section of the bill allowing for the duplication of benefits for the 2005 hurricane victims.

The language Chabot wanted to excise would have given the SBA authority to waive the existing prohibition on duplicate benefits in the case of victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma who were not fully compensated for damages to their homes from other sources.

Chabot said the provision was wasteful as it would allow "a person to be compensated for the same damage twice."

Democrats pointed out that the language was originally inserted in the legislation to correct a problem that occurred with federal assistance following the 2005 storms. Some individuals received federal grants through state-run programs such as the Road Home program in Louisiana, but because the SBA requires recipients to repay disaster loans when they receive other benefits, Democrats said many recipients of the SBA loans had to use their Road Home or other grants to repay the loans, leaving them strapped.

Democrats were unanimous in their opposition to Chabot's amendment, and 17 Republicans joined them in opposing it. Thus, on a vote of 178 to 246, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited victims of the 2005 hurricanes from receiving duplicate benefits that were designed to compensate for an unforeseen interaction with federal and state programs. Legislation aimed at reforming the federal disaster loan program for small businesses went forward without the provision.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Natural Disasters
N N Won
Roll Call 220
Apr 18, 2007
Providing for the consideration of legislation to require publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H. Res. 301)/On adoption of the rules package

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on the rules for debate for a bill to require publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. The legislation would require that corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package primarily because of their opposition to the underlying bill. The Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as an "open rule," meaning that virtually all amendments would be allowed on the House floor if they were relevant to the subject of the underlying legislation.

In rising to support the rules package, Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) said it represented "a good, appropriate rule that allows any germane amendment to be debated and voted on by this body."

"This rule is appropriate because it allows for real debate and for up or down votes on matters related to this bill," McGovern continued. "I believe this is a good process."

He said he supported the underlying legislation because it "would allow the shareholders, those with the most vested interests, to express their approval or disapproval of a company's compensation practices."

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) rose to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation on grounds that the latter "constitutes an unnecessary and unwarranted federal intrusion into the free enterprise system and the private sector."

"The legislation that the Democrat majority has brought to the House today would create a new federal mandate on publicly held companies," Sessions continued, "but does so in a half-hearted way that would have absolutely no practical impact on its purported goal of improving disclosure and addressing 'excessive' executive compensation."

McGovern replied that even if Sessions and his Republican colleagues opposed the bill, they could easily support the rules for consideration, as it allowed virtually any relevant amendment. As evidence for his assertion, McGovern pointed out that 10 of the 13 amendments offered were put forth by Republicans.

This vote was on the adoption of the rules package. Even though 55 Republicans ended up voting for the legislation two days later, this procedural vote commanded almost total party unity, as is typical for such votes. Only one Republican voted against the rules package, and Democrats unanimously voted for it (even though five Democrats would go on to vote against the legislation itself). Leaders of both parties command the utmost discipline for these sorts of procedural votes but often give their members wider latitude when it comes to voting for or against the actual legislation.

Thus, on a vote of 227 to 195, the House adopted rules of debate for legislation to require publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a nonbinding say in the compensation packages of top executives beginning in 2009.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 219
Apr 18, 2007
Providing for the consideration of legislation to require publicly traded companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on compensation packages for top executives beginning in 2009 (H. Res. 301)/On ordering the previous question (ending debate and preventing amendment)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This motion was offered to force a vote on the rules for debate for a bill to require publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a say in the compensation packages of top executives. The legislation would require that corporations conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of their executives beginning in 2009.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration.

Republicans opposed the rules package primarily because of their opposition to the underlying bill. The Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as an "open rule," meaning that virtually all amendments would be allowed on the House floor if they were relevant to the subject of the underlying legislation.

In rising to support the rules package, Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) said it represented "a good, appropriate rule that allows any germane amendment to be debated and voted on by this body."

"This rule is appropriate because it allows for real debate and for up or down votes on matters related to this bill," McGovern continued. "I believe this is a good process."

He said he supported the underlying legislation because it "would allow the shareholders, those with the most vested interests, to express their approval or disapproval of a company's compensation practices."

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) rose to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation on grounds that the latter "constitutes an unnecessary and unwarranted federal intrusion into the free enterprise system and the private sector."

"The legislation that the Democrat majority has brought to the House today would create a new federal mandate on publicly held companies," Sessions continued, "but does so in a half-hearted way that would have absolutely no practical impact on its purported goal of improving disclosure and addressing 'excessive' executive compensation."

McGovern replied that even if Sessions and his Republican colleagues opposed the bill, they could easily support the rules for consideration, as it allowed virtually any relevant amendment. As evidence for his assertion, McGovern pointed out that 10 of the 13 amendments offered were put forth by Republicans.

If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all Democrats present but one voted for it, and the motion passed 226-199. Thus, on an almost completely party-line vote, the House ended debate and brought to a vote the rules for consideration for legislation that would require publicly traded companies to allow shareholders a nonbinding say in the compensation packages of top executives beginning in 2009.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 213
Mar 29, 2007

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 103 Providing for a conditional adjournment of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 212
Mar 29, 2007
Fiscal 2008 budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 99)/Final vote on a resolution to set spending and revenue targets for the next five years

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a final vote on a $3 trillion fiscal 2008 budget resolution, which would set spending and revenue targets for the next five years.

By law, Congress is supposed to pass a budget resolution every year by April 15. The Republican-led Congress failed to do so for the fiscal 2007 year, leading to what many in both parties acknowledged was a breakdown in the appropriations process. Even though the budget resolution does not have the force of law, it establishes broad financial guidelines for the upcoming debates on spending and thus serves as an agreed-upon framework for how Congress considers tax and spending decisions. The new Democratic majority in Congress sought to pass a fiscal 2008 budget resolution as a way to contrast its leadership style with its Republican predecessors.

The budget resolution written by the Democratic majority included a $1.1 trillion cap on discretionary spending, about $25 billion more than President Bush sought and $7 billion more than the budget resolution adopted by the Senate. The House Democrat's budget proposal - in keeping with pay-as-you-go budget rules -- was sufficient to allow inflationary increases in most programs as well as significant increases in education spending and veterans' benefits.

In the words of Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), the Democratic budget represents "the first time in a very long time that Congress has before it a budget that is fiscally responsible and in line with the needs of the American people."

In the past six years the country has gone from having a projected $5.6 trillion surplus to looking at a $9 trillion dollar deficit, and growing, Sutton said, adding that the Republican stewardship of the budget process in past years "goes far beyond having been drunk at the wheel. Our predecessors in the majority not only crashed the car into a ditch, they accelerated after landing there, allowing mud to cave in on top of it."

Republicans such as Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said the budget resolution assumed increased taxes and didn't deal with the upcoming retirement of 77 million baby boomers, which will put an enormous strain on an already stretched entitlement system.

"This Democrat budget, which is balanced on the backs of everyday taxpayers, will be used to finance bloated new government spending that my colleague just spoke about that will be well above the rate of inflation through 2012 while ignoring the brewing entitlement crisis," Sessions said.

Although Republicans argued that the budget resolution assumes "the largest tax increase in American history," in the words of Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), it actually assumes the same revenue as current law, under which the 2001 and 2003 income, estate and dividend tax cuts are set to expire after 2010.

"This budget does not raise a penny in new taxes, not one," said Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). Moreover, Hoyer said, the Republican alternative budget - which was put forth unsuccessfully as an amendment (see Roll Call 211) - proposed deep spending cuts that Republicans never sought to enact when they were in the majority.

Most of the Democratic opposition to the budget resolution came from members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of fiscally conservative House Democrats, and most of them waited to cast their votes until it was clear the measure had sufficient votes to pass. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) voted against the resolution because of its assumption of $195 billion in war funding for fiscal 2008 and 2009. "We are falling right into line with the president's plan for the war and his requests to fund it," he said in a statement released by his office. "The American people want the war to end now, not in 2008, and not in 2009."

By a vote of 216-210, Democrats eked out a narrow but significant victory in passing the fiscal 2008 budget resolution that projected a $153 billion surplus in 2012 by strictly adhering to pay-as-you-go spending rules and putting off divisive decisions on how to deal with tax cuts set to expire in 2010 and the expected growth in entitlement programs as the baby-boom generation retires. (Also known as PAYGO, pay-as-you-go spending rules require that any new programs or tax cuts be offset in other parts of the federal budget by revenue increases or spending cuts.)

Twelve Democrats joined all 198 Republicans present in voting against it. The measure then headed to a conference committee with the Senate, where Democrats were hoping for swift passage so they can move on to the fiscal 2008 appropriations bills.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 211
Mar 29, 2007
Fiscal 2008 budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 99), Ryan of Wisconsin substitute amendment offering the Republicans' alternative to the Democratic-drafted version/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a Republican alternative to the fiscal 2008 budget resolution drafted by the Democratic majority. It was offered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). The budget resolution sets spending and revenue targets for the next five years.

The Republicans' plan sought to pay for tax cut extensions by cutting Medicare and other entitlement programs by $279 billion over five years and freezing domestic discretionary spending. (There are two types of government spending: what's known as mandatory, which is determined by existing laws, such as Social Security and Medicare payments, and discretionary spending, which includes items such as highway projects and funding the military, which can fluctuate each year without other statutory changes.)

The Republican budget proposal also accounted for about $400 billion less revenue than the Democrats' plan because it assumed that the 2001 and 2003 income, estate and dividend tax cuts would be extended instead of ending, as planned for in current law. The Republican budget also accounted for hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue from the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) after 2007, even though most Republicans want to see that tax curtailed.

By law, Congress is supposed to pass a budget resolution every year by April 15. Even though the budget resolution does not have the force of law, it establishes broad financial guidelines for the upcoming debates on spending and thus serves as an agreed-upon framework for how Congress considers tax and spending decisions.

The budget resolution written by the Democratic majority included a $1.1 trillion cap on discretionary spending, about $25 billion more than President Bush sought and $7 billion more than the budget resolution adopted by the Senate. Democrats saw their 2008 budget resolution as the beginning of a period of responsible fiscal stewardship after six years under a Republican Congress with a Republican president. Democrats pointed out that in the past six years the country has gone from having a projected $5.6 trillion surplus to looking at a $9 trillion dollar deficit, and growing.

"It goes far beyond having been drunk at the wheel," Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) said. "Our predecessors in the majority not only crashed the car into a ditch, they accelerated after landing there, allowing mud to cave in on top of it."

Republicans said the Democrats' budget increased taxes and didn't deal with the upcoming retirement of 77 million baby boomers, which will put an enormous strain on an already stretched entitlement system, just a few of the reasons they offered an alternative.

"We don't believe we should tax, tax, tax and then tax more the American economy and the American family and the American workers," Ryan said. "We believe Washington has a spending problem, and that is why we are proposing to control spending, and that is how we achieve the balanced budget."

Ryan said that despite Democrat objections, the Republican budget did not seek to cut as much as it sought to reform. "Are we cutting Medicare? No, we are not cutting Medicare. We are growing Medicare. We are growing Medicare, not as fast as it is currently scheduled to grow because we are reforming Medicare. And what do we do? We extend the solvency of Medicare," Ryan continued.

The Republican substitute failed on a vote of 160-268. One Democrat joined 159 Republicans in voting for it, and 40 Republicans joined the Democratic majority in voting against it. Thus, the fiscal 2008 budget resolution went forward without a Republican-backed proposal to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and balance the budget by freezing discretionary spending and cutting the growth of Medicare and other entitlement programs by $279 billion over five years.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Preserving Social Security
N N Won
Roll Call 210
Mar 29, 2007
H. Con. Res. 99 (Fiscal 2008 Budget Resolution), Woolsey of California substitute amendment offering an alternative budget resolution authored by the Congressional Progressive Caucus/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an alternative budget resolution proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), of which Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) is a member, to the fiscal 2008 budget resolution. The budget resolution sets spending and revenue targets for the next five years.

The CPC's alternative budget resolution, offered in the form of a substitute amendment, would repeal tax cuts enacted in the past six years and move funding away from defense and war efforts towards domestic programs.

By law, Congress is supposed to pass a budget resolution every year by April 15. The Republican-led Congress failed to do so for the fiscal 2007 year, leading to what many in both parties acknowledged was a breakdown in the appropriations process. Even though the budget resolution does not have the force of law, it establishes broad financial guidelines for the upcoming debates on spending and thus serves as an agreed-upon framework for how Congress considers tax and spending decisions. The new Democratic majority in Congress sought to pass a fiscal 2008 budget resolution as a way to contrast its leadership style with its Republican predecessors. But the Progressive Caucus didn't feel that the Democrat leadership drafted budget resolution went far enough in supporting social programs and curbing defense spending.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus' substitute amendment would set non-defense, domestic discretionary spending at $483 billion for fiscal 2008. By assuming the repeal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to households earning in the top 1 percent of income, the budget would project a $22.7 billion surplus by fiscal 2010. It would also eliminate certain corporate tax breaks and assume full funding for programs under the No Child Left Behind Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education law. Furthermore, it would assume funding for the Iraq war would end in 2007, while making veterans health care a mandatory spending program funded for fiscal 2008 at 130 percent of the fiscal 2005 level.

Calling it the "peace and security budget alternative," Woolsey said the CPC's alternative would balance the budget "by the year 2010, which is 2 years ahead of the Democratic budget, 2 years ahead of the Republican substitute, and light years ahead of the administration's budget, a budget that doesn't balance anywhere in a 10-year horizon."

The CPC's budget would cut $108 billion out of President Bush's defense spending request, "all the while keeping America safe," in Woolsey's words. The resolution would assume $395 billion on defense, which Woolsey said was "a lot of money." At the same time, the CPC alternative would increase domestic discretionary spending to $483 billion. "Our spending is $89 billion over the President, $58 billion over the Democrats, and if you can believe this, it is $33 billion more than the social justice groups have been asking for," Woolsey continued.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) said the CPC's proposal was just one of "three different versions of essentially the same Democrat budget," all of which, he said, are "fiscally irresponsible."

"They all promote the federal budget over the family budget," Hensarling continued. "Each one would represent the single largest tax increase in the history of the United States of America."

By a vote of 81-340, the Congressional Progressive Caucus' proposed substitute budget resolution was rejected by the House. Eighty-one Democrats voted for the amendment, while 142 Democrats opposed it. The 81 Democrats who voted for it included many of the most progressive Democrats in the House. Opposition within Republican ranks was unanimous. Thus, the fiscal 2008 budget resolution went forward without an amendment by the CPC that would have tilted the federal budget away from defense and war spending towards increased spending on domestic programs.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 209
Mar 29, 2007
Fiscal 2008 budget resolution (H. Con. Res.), Kilpatrick of Michigan substitute amendment offering an alternative budget resolution authored by the Congressional Black Caucus/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an alternative budget resolution proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), of which Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.) is a member, to the fiscal 2008 budget resolution. The budget resolution sets spending and revenue targets for the next five years. The amendment was cosponsored by Rep. Robert Scott (D-Va.).

The CBC's alternative budget resolution, offered in the form of a substitute amendment, would repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and dramatically increase domestic spending, in contrast to the resolution outlined by the Democratic majority which would keep discretionary spending closer to inflation, with the exception of education funding and veterans' care.

By law, Congress is supposed to pass a budget resolution every year by April 15. The Republican-led Congress failed to do so for the fiscal 2007 year, leading to what many in both parties acknowledged was a breakdown in the appropriations process. Even though the budget resolution does not have the force of law, it establishes broad financial guidelines for the upcoming debates on spending and thus serves as an agreed-upon framework for how Congress considers tax and spending decisions. The new Democratic majority in Congress sought to pass a fiscal 2008 budget resolution as a way to contrast its leadership style with its Republican predecessors. But the CBC didn't feel that the Democrat leadership drafted budget resolution went far enough in supporting social programs.

The CBC alternative projected a budget surplus of $141 billion by fiscal 2012 by assuming the repeal of certain tax cuts resulting in $319 billion in additional revenue over five years, which the resolution would direct toward deficit reduction as well as education, jobs and health programs. It would include tax increases for married couples with incomes above $200,000, for single filers above $170,000.

"This budget changes our fiscal course from a sea of debt, deficit and despair to financial stability and responsibility," Kilpatrick said in a floor speech. "The Kilpatrick/Scott amendment confronts the crises faced by our senior citizens who will not have enough money to heat their homes in the winter or cool them in the summer; it will confront the crises faced by our veterans and those wounded warriors who do not have adequate health care, mental health treatment, or physical therapy; the Kilpatrick /Scott amendment to the budget continues the legacy of this Nation's historic mission of caring for the least of our sisters and brothers."

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) responded that the CBC's budget plan had the same flaws as the one introduced by the Democratic leadership. "They raise a lot of taxes, anywhere from $400 billion to $1 trillion just over the next 5 years," Ryan said. "We believe that we need to focus on spending and not on raising taxes."

The CBC was able to collect 115 votes from House Democrats, a bare majority of the Democrats in the House; 113 Democrats and all 199 Republicans present voted against the amendment. The 115 Democrats who voted for the CBC's budget resolution included many of the most progressive Democrats in the House.

Although the resolution failed by 115-312, the CBC achieved a symbolic victory by getting a majority of House Democrats to agree with the caucuses' budget priorities. Nonetheless, the fiscal 2008 budget resolution went forward without an amendment that would have increased domestic spending beyond what the resolution drafted by the Democratic majority sought.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 205
Mar 28, 2007
H.R. 835 (Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the third and final vote on a bill that would authorize through fiscal 2012 the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee programs, which provide grants for affordable housing for low-income Native Hawaiians as well as guaranteed loans to Native Hawaiian families living on homesteads.

One week prior, the bill had been taken up with a procedure known as a suspension of the rules, which is basically a time-saving method used for relatively noncontroversial legislation that is all but assured of passage. Bills taken up under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds majority for passage. The vote was 262-162, an insufficient majority to pass the measure under suspension of the rules. The Democratic leadership opted to bring the bill up again under regular order with what's known as a closed rule, meaning the bill couldn't be amended.

Republicans were against the bill because they said it could have the indirect effect of conferring tribal status on Native Hawaiians, a group currently classified as a racial group in the eyes of the federal government rather than an entity entitled to sovereignty within the United States. Many Republicans also said the bill was likely unconstitutional because directing money towards Native Hawaiians as a racial group could be considered discriminatory. Republicans opposed the rules package because of the prohibition on amendments. During committee markup of the bill, Republicans had tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to ensure that the legislation could not be interpreted as an indirect confirmation of tribal status, and they hoped to offer the same amendment on the floor.

"That Constitution, as we know, in almost all cases is opposed to racial set-asides," Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said. "So this disturbs many of my colleagues on my side of the aisle."

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) pointed out during debate on the House floor that the bill has always been relatively noncontroversial in the past. During the previous week's debate he decried "misconceptions or misperceptions" that made the bill controversial.

In the end, 45 Republicans crossed party lines and voted with all but one Democrat present to pass the legislation. Thus, by a vote of 272-150, the House voted to approve a bill to authorize funding for programs aiming to help low-income Native Hawaiians find affordable housing.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 204
Mar 28, 2007
H. Res. 274, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1538 (Wounded Warrior Assistance Act)/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a measure to provide floor consideration for a bill to improve the care of wounded military service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The legislation was prompted by reports of widespread instances of returning service members receiving inadequate or improper care, particularly at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. The bill would add caseworkers and counselors to the military's medical system, increase the number of physicians and require the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department to improve coordination of the transfer of service members to the care of one bureaucracy to the other.

"There is no doubt that the military medical system has been overwhelmed in meeting the demands of war over the past four years," Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said. The Pentagon has estimated that 25,000 service members have been injured in the conflict, many requiring long-term care.

"Supporting our troops does not mean that you simply salute as you send them off to war, ask them to serve in sacrifice for our great country, but it also means that they are supported when they come home, their families are respected, and our wounded warriors receive superior health care for their physical injuries and mental scars," said Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.).

This resolution outlined what's known as a structured rule, meaning that only amendments previously approved by the Rules Committee would be considered in order. The rules package also provided for 1 hour and 20 minutes of debate, with time divided equally between each side.

Although the House would go on to unanimously approve the underlying legislation, the rules package was opposed by some Republicans on grounds that it was too "restrictive," in the words of Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.), and didn't allow Republicans to offer all of the amendments they would have liked

Seventeen Republicans joined all 226 Democrats present in approving the rules package. Thus, by a vote of 243-179, the House outlined rules for floor consideration of a bill to improve care for wounded military service personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
Y Y Won
Roll Call 203
Mar 28, 2007
H. Res. 275, providing for the rules of consideration governing debate of the fiscal 2008 budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 99)/On agreeing to the rules package

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on adoption of a rule outlining the floor consideration of a fiscal 2008 budget resolution, which would set spending and revenue targets for the next five years.

By law, Congress is supposed to pass a budget resolution every year by April 15. The Republican-led Congress failed to do so for the fiscal 2007 year, leading to what many in both parties acknowledged was a breakdown in the appropriations process. Even though the budget resolution does not have the force of law, it establishes broad financial guidelines for the upcoming debates on spending and thus serves as an agreed-upon framework for how Congress considers tax and spending decisions. The new Democratic majority in Congress sought to pass a fiscal 2008 budget resolution as a way to contrast its leadership style with its Republican predecessors.

The rules for debate outline how much time will be allotted to each side, what amendments will be considered in order and what procedural motions will be allowed. The "rules package," as it is known, allowed for the introduction of three alternative budget plans, including proposals offered by the Republican Conference, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The budget resolution written by the Democratic majority included a $1.1 trillion cap on discretionary spending, about $25 billion more than President Bush sought and $7 billion more than the budget resolution adopted by the Senate. The House Democrats' budget proposal - in keeping with pay-as-you-go budget rules that require any new spending to be offset by tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget -- was sufficient to allow inflationary increases in most programs as well as significant increases in education spending and veterans' benefits.

Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) rose to support the Democratic proposal and the rules package outlining its consideration by pointing out in the past six years the country has gone from having a projected $5.6 trillion surplus to looking at a $9 trillion dollar deficit, and growing.

"It goes far beyond having been drunk at the wheel," Sutton said. "Our predecessors in the majority not only crashed the car into a ditch, they accelerated after landing there, allowing mud to cave in on top of it."

The Democratic budget, she said, represents "the first time in a very long time that Congress has before it a budget that is fiscally responsible and in line with the needs of the American people."

Republicans such as Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) rose to oppose the rules for consideration for the same reasons they opposed the underlying bill, because they said it increased taxes and didn't deal with the upcoming retirement of 77 million baby boomers, which will put an enormous strain on an already stretched entitlement system.

"This Democrat budget, which is balanced on the backs of everyday taxpayers, will be used to finance bloated new government spending that my colleague just spoke about that will be well above the rate of inflation through 2012 while ignoring the brewing entitlement crisis," Sessions said.

Although Republicans argued that the budget resolution assumes "the largest tax increase in American history," in the words of Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), it actually assumes the same revenue as current law, under which the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are set to expire after 2010.

"This budget does not raise a penny in new taxes, not one," said Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).

On a complete party-line vote, Republicans unanimously opposed the rules package for the fiscal 2008 budget resolution, and Democrats unanimously supported it. Thus, by a vote of 229-197, the House approved the rules package and paved the way for the budget resolution to come to the floor, including final votes on the alternative proposals put forth by the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and by the Republican Conference, as well as the original Democratic proposal


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 202
Mar 28, 2007
H. Res. 275, providing for the rules of consideration for the fiscal 2008 budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 99)/Procedural motion to end debate and prohibit amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a measure to provide floor consideration for a fiscal 2008 budget resolution, which would set spending and revenue targets for the next five years.

By law, Congress is supposed to pass a budget resolution every year by April 15. The Republican-led Congress failed to do so for the fiscal 2007 year, leading to what many in both parties acknowledged was a breakdown in the process of appropriating money for the government to function. Even though the budget resolution does not have the force of law, it establishes broad financial guidelines for upcoming debates on spending and thus serves as an agreed-upon framework for how Congress considers tax and spending decisions. The new Democratic majority in Congress sought to pass a fiscal 2008 budget resolution as a way to contrast its leadership style with its Republican predecessors.

This motion was to order the previous question (a parliamentary tool to end debate and the possibility of amendment) on a rule to provide for floor consideration of the budget resolution. The rules for debate outline how much time will be allotted to each side, what amendments will be considered in order and what procedural motions will be allowed. The "rules package," as it is known, allowed for the introduction of three alternative budget plans, including those offered by Republicans, the Congressional Black Caucus as well as the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The budget resolution written by the Democratic majority included a $1.1 trillion cap on discretionary spending, about $25 billion more than President Bush sought and $7 billion more than the budget resolution adopted by the Senate. (There are two types of government spending: what's known as mandatory, which is determined by existing laws, such as Social Security and Medicare payments, and discretionary spending, which includes items such as highway projects and funding the military, which can fluctuate each year without other statutory changes.) The House Democrat's budget proposal - in keeping with pay-as-you-go budget rules that require any new spending to be offset by tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget -- was sufficient to allow inflationary increases in most programs as well as significant increases in education spending and veterans' benefits.

On a party-line vote, Republicans unanimously opposed the motion ordering the previous question, and all but one Democrat present voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 225-196, debate on the rules for consideration for the fiscal 2008 budget resolution ended and the rules package moved towards an up-or-down vote.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 201
Mar 27, 2007
H.R. 1401 (Rail and Public Transportation Security Act)/On Passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on legislation to authorize over $6 billion to improve bus and rail security in the United States.

Hailed by one of its drafters, Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), as "an important milestone" in protecting the countries transit systems, the bill would authorize $2.5 billion for rail, $3.4 billion for urban mass transit and $87 million for buses over the next four years. Many Republicans complained that the bill was potentially wasteful, and in the words of the ranking Republican on the Transportation panel, Rep. John Mica (Fla.), would distribute funds "willy-nilly."

Democrats said the bill would make the country safer, as it would require the Homeland Security Department to develop regulations for rail transportation of toxic materials and require operators to assess alternative routes as well as extend whistleblower protection to transportation employees.

Republicans were critical of whistleblower protections included in the legislation. The House already passed similar protections barring retribution against employees who expose fraud, waste and corruption in an earlier bill that had yet to make it to the president's desk. The White House threatened to veto this legislation on account of the whistleblower provision, claiming that it would undermine the government's ability to protect information related to national security.

The legislation was a marker for the House's position on transportation security in anticipation of a House-Senate conference committee on broader legislation to enact recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Putting this legislation to a vote was the Democratic leadership's way of getting the House on record with a majority-backed position on transportation security so that the chamber's representatives at the upcoming House-Senate conference committee could use the fact that the majority of the House supported the approach outlined in the bill as a negotiating point in talks over the larger 9/11 Commission legislation. The Senate version of that bill (S. 4) would authorize a total of $4 billion for transportation security, and the intent of this legislation was to give House negotiators firm footing to say that the House supported more funding for transit security.

The legislation passed by a vote of 299-124, and thus the House approved funding for more than $6 billion in improvements to rail and bus transportation. Seventy-four Republicans joined all 225 Democrats present in passing the measure.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 200
Mar 27, 2007
H.R. 1401 (Rail and Public Transportation Security Act)/On motion to recommit with instructions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a procedural motion to amend a bill authorizing $6 billion over the next four years to improve transit security. Republicans successfully sought to include an amendment to give people who report suspicious activity on rail or bus lines immunity from lawsuits.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. It's usually a symbolic vote, as the minority rarely wins. The Democrats almost always failed to pass motions to recommit under more than a decade of Republican rule in the House. But increasingly Republicans have been winning motions to recommit. When that happens, the bill is sent back to committee with instructions to include specific language outlined in the motion, and the change is then agreed to by voice vote on the House floor.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) moved to recommit the bill to the Homeland Security panel with instructions to include the amendment. He said during a floor speech that the amendment was prompted by an incident in November 2006 in which passengers on a U.S. Airways flight reported what they believed to be suspicious activity that resulted in six Muslim imams being removed from the plane. The removal prompted a lawsuit by the imams on grounds of what they believe to be discrimination, including a legal attempt to learn the identities of those who reported their activities as suspicious. King called such litigation "absolutely disgraceful." The citizens who reported them "acted in good faith," King said. The amendment would give legal immunity to any citizen who reports suspicious activity in good faith.

Rep. Bernie Thompson (D-Miss.) said he was opposed to the language partially on procedural grounds -- Republicans did not make it available until minutes before it was introduced. The bulk of his objection was substantive, however, as he pointed out that the imams have not been charged with a crime, and thus "why shouldn't they be able to seek remedy in a court of law?"

Thompson added that if people are profiled illegally, "they absolutely should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law." Furthermore, the language introduced by King did not define "good faith" sufficiently to prevent people from being singled out on the basis of their "religion, custom, or what have you."

A majority of the House sided with King, however, including 105 Democrats. Most of the House's most progressive Democrats voted against it. Republicans were unanimous in support of the amendment. By a vote of 304-121 a bill to authorize $6 billion for transit security was amended to include language giving persons who report suspicious activity on a rail or bus line in "good faith" immunity from lawsuits.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 199
Mar 27, 2007
H.R. 1401 (Rail and Public Transportation Security Act), Cohen of Tennessee amendment to establish a program to minimize rail transport of hazardous materials that are toxic when inhaled/Revote on agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a revote on an amendment offered by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) that had been previously approved (see Roll Call 195) by the Committee of the Whole. The amendment was attached to a $6 billion transportation security bill. Under House rules, any lawmaker -- in this case Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) -- can demand a revote by the full House on an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.

The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to get things done. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.)

Cohen's amendment sought to require the federal government to coordinate with state and local governments to minimize the transport of hazardous materials that are toxic when inhaled.

Every year, over 100,000 carloads of toxic chemicals and 1.6 million carloads of hazardous materials such as explosives and radioactive items are transported across the country by rail, Cohen said in a floor speech. Several derailments in 2007 and 2006 pointed to the dangers to local communities from such transport, Cohen added. "While rail is clearly the safest means of transport for such materials, we must work to ensure this transit is as secure, efficient and is as considerate towards the safety of our communities as possible," Cohen said.

Cohen said his amendment would support the state and local communities that have enacted bans on the transportation of certain toxic substances through their areas, prompting litigation from the rail industry. The language of his proposal would require the Transportation Department to minimize the time and frequency such materials pass through communities.

Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-Calif.) said Cohen's amendment was a "do-good amendment that either does nothing or does harm." Lungren said the substance of the amendment was already covered in the bill and Cohen's addition would only tie the Transportation Department's hands by requiring the secretary to minimize the transport of such materials on rail only, "which will maximize the travel on our highways." Lungren said Cohen's amendment would undermine the intent of the bill, which is to have the Transportation Department minimize threats across different modes of transport.

Cohen's amendment was approved the first time in the Committee of the Whole on a vote of 237-188. This time the vote was 234-184. Nine Republicans joined all but one Democrat in voting for it. Thus, legislation aiming to improve transit security went forward with an amendment that would require the Transportation Department to minimize the rail transport of hazardous materials that are dangerous when inhaled.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Railroads
Y Y Won
Roll Call 198
Mar 27, 2007
H.R. 1401 (Rail and Public Transportation Security Act), manager's amendment by Thompson of Mississippi to give the Transportation Department control over administering bus and rail security grant funding/Revote on agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a revote on an amendment offered by Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) that had been previously approved (see Roll Call 194) by the Committee of the Whole. The amendment was previously attached to a $6 billion transportation security bill. Under House rules, any lawmaker -- in this case Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) -- can demand a revote by the full House on an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.

The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct business. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.)

Thompson was a cosponsor of the legislation, and this amendment was what's known as "manager's amendment." In this case, the manager's amendment reflected compromise language that Thompson and Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) agreed upon after both panels had written their own versions of the transit security legislation. The principle disagreement was over whether the Transportation or Homeland Security department should distribute the funds outlined in the bill.

The compromise language included in this amendment would give the Transportation Department control over administering the grants, which would still be technically housed in the Homeland Security Department. The latter would make funding recommendations based on the agency's vulnerability assessments, and both departments would audit the programs.

Thompson hailed the legislation as "an important milestone" in protecting the countries transit systems and expressed his gratitude that the two committees were able to overcome the jurisdictional fights that had stalled the bill for weeks. Many Republicans complained that the bill was potentially wasteful, and in the words of the ranking Republican on the Transportation panel, Rep. John Mica (Fla.), would distribute funds "willy-nilly."

Many Republicans were also critical of strengthened whistleblower protections included in the manager's amendment. The House already passed similar protections barring retribution against employees who expose fraud, waste and corruption in an earlier bill that had yet to make it to the president's desk. The White House threatened to veto this legislation on account of the whistleblower provision, claiming that it would undermine the government's ability to protect information related to national security.

Republicans were further opposed to the manger's amendment because it sought to prevent state and local first-responders ineligible to receive direct grant funding.

Thompson's amendment was approved the first time in the Committee of the Whole on a vote of 224-199. This time the vote was 222-197, and as with the previous vote, three Democrats joined all Republicans present in voting "no." Thus, a bill to authorize over $6 billion over four years to improve bus and rail security went forward with previously passed compromise language that settled internal party squabbles as to how the grant money in the $6 billion transportation security bill was to be distributed.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Won
Roll Call 196
Mar 27, 2007
H.R. 1401(Rail and Public Transportation Security Act), Sessions of Texas amendment to prohibit Amtrak from using funds authorized by the bill on the 10 long-distance routes that have lost the most revenue/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) to a bill to authorize $6 billion to improve transit security. Sessions' amendment would prohibit Amtrak from using money authorized in the bill to add security measures, with the exception of fire and life-safety improvements, to the 10 long-distance routes that have lost the most revenue.

"What this amendment does, and it does it very simply, is stop adding unnecessary costs to the 10 worst routes that already cost Amtrak $161 million a year," Sessions said during floor debate. "The worst route in Amtrak's system, called the Sunset Limited, which runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles, had a net loss of $20.4 million last year, or, on a cost basis to taxpayers, 25.5 cents per seat for every mile of that journey."

The amendment, Sessions said, "provides the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security with the flexibility to waive this provision should that secretary deem that a security upgrade on one of these most unprofitable routes, or even a partial part of it, would be deemed to be critical to Homeland Security."

"All in all, it says that if Amtrak wants to compete for the $4 billion worth of funds made available under this Act, they must ensure that they are being used for routes that cost the taxpayer less than 10.4 cents per seat over every single mile, a hurdle that is hardly unreasonable," Sessions continued.

Democrats countered that the amendment would cause the federal government to fail in its obligations to protect its citizens. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said it was "baffling."

"I ask the question of my colleagues, what is one life worth?" Jackson Lee asked. "What is one life worth that travels along the Nation's transit corridors, the intense Northeast corridor that deals with Amtrak long distance routes, 2 million people?"

Amtrak is part of a system, Democrats maintained, and a security breech in one part of the system affects the integrity of the whole organization.

Sessions failed to find a majority for his amendment, and 72 Republicans joined all but three Democrats in voting against it. Since Session's amendment lost by a vote of 130-299, the $6 billion transportation security bill went forward without his amendment prohibiting Amtrak from using funds from the legislation to update security measures on its least profitable lines.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
N N Won
Roll Call 195
Mar 27, 2007
H.R. 1401(Rail and Public Transportation Security Act), Cohen of Tennessee amendment to establish a program to minimize rail transport of hazardous materials that are toxic when inhaled/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) to a $6 billion bill to improve transit security. Cohen's amendment sought to require the federal government to coordinate with state and local governments to minimize the transport of hazardous materials that are toxic when inhaled.

Every year, over 100,000 carloads of toxic chemicals and 1.6 million carloads of hazardous materials such as explosives and radioactive items are transported across the country by rail, Cohen said in a floor speech. Several derailments in 2006 and 2007 pointed to the dangers to local communities from such transport, Cohen added. "While rail is clearly the safest means of transport for such materials, we must work to ensure this transit is as secure, efficient and is as considerate towards the safety of our communities as possible," Cohen said.

Cohen said his amendment would support the state and local communities that have enacted bans on the transportation of certain toxic substances through their areas, prompting litigation from the rail industry. The language of his proposal would require the Transportation Department to minimize the time and frequency such materials pass through communities.

Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-Calif.) said Cohen's amendment was a "do-good amendment that either does nothing or does harm." Lungren said the substance of the amendment was already covered in the bill and Cohen's addition would only tie the Transportation Department's hands by requiring the secretary to minimize the transport of such materials on rail only, "which will maximize the travel on our highways." Lungren said Cohen's amendment would undermine the intent of the bill, which is to have the Transportation Department minimize threats across different modes of transport.

By a vote of 237-188, the House passed Cohen's amendment. Eleven Republicans joined all but one Democrat in voting for it. Thus, legislation aiming to improve transit security went forward with an amendment that would require the Transportation Department to minimize the rail transport of hazardous materials that are dangerous when inhaled.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Railroads
Y Y Won
Roll Call 194
Mar 27, 2007
H.R. 1401 (Rail and Public Transportation Security Act), manager's amendment by Thompson of Mississippi to give the Transportation Department control over administering bus and rail security grant funding/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) on a bill to authorize over $6 billion over four years to improve bus and rail security.

Thompson was a cosponsor of the legislation, and this amendment was what's known as "manager's amendment." In this case, the manager's amendment reflected compromise language that Thompson and Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) agreed upon after both panels had written their own versions of the transit security legislation. The principle disagreement was over whether the Transportation or Homeland Security department should distribute the funds outlined in the bill.

The compromise language included in this amendment would give the Transportation Department control over administering the grants, although they would still be technically housed in the Homeland Security Department. The latter would make funding recommendations based on the agency's vulnerability assessments, and both departments would audit the programs.

Thompson hailed the legislation as "an important milestone" in protecting the country's transit systems and expressed his gratitude that the two committees were able to overcome the jurisdictional fights that had stalled the bill for weeks. Many Republicans complained that the bill was potentially wasteful, and in the words of the ranking Republican on the Transportation panel, Rep. John Mica (Fla.), would distribute funds "willy-nilly."

Many Republicans were also critical of strengthened whistleblower protections included in the manager's amendment. The House already passed similar protections barring retribution against employees who expose fraud, waste and corruption in an earlier bill that had yet to make it to the president's desk. The White House threatened to veto this legislation on account of the whistleblower provision, claiming that it would undermine the government's ability to protect information related to national security.

Republicans were further opposed to the manager's amendment because it sought to prevent state and local first-responders from receiving grant funding directly.

Republicans unanimously opposed the multi-faceted amendment to the $6 billion transit security bill, and three Democrats joined them in voting "no." The Democratic majority had enough cushion to pass the amendment anyway, and by a vote of 224-199 the House passed compromise language that settled internal party squabbles as to how the grant money in the $6 billion transportation security bill was to be distributed.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Won
Roll Call 192
Mar 27, 2007
H. Res. 269, providing for consideration of H.R. 835 (Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act)/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the second vote on a bill that would authorize through fiscal 2012 the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee programs, which provide grants for affordable housing for low-income Native Hawaiians as well as guaranteed loans to Native Hawaiian families living on homesteads.

One week prior, the bill had been taken up with a procedure known as a suspension of the rules, which is basically a time-saving method used for relatively uncontroversial legislation that is all but assured of passage. Bills taken up under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds majority for passage. The vote was 262-162, an insufficient majority to pass the measure under suspension of the rules. The Democratic leadership opted to bring the bill up again under regular order with what's known as a closed rule, meaning the bill couldn't be amended.

Republicans were against the bill because they said it could have the indirect effect of conferring tribal status on Native Hawaiians, a group currently classified as a racial group in the eyes of the federal government rather than an entity entitled to sovereignty within the United States. Many Republicans also said the bill was likely unconstitutional because directing money towards Native Hawaiians as a racial group could be considered discriminatory. Republicans opposed the rules package because of the prohibition on amendments. During committee markup of the bill, Republicans had tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to ensure that the legislation could not be interpreted as an indirect confirmation of tribal status, and they hoped to offer the same amendment on the floor.

"That Constitution, as we know, in almost all cases is opposed to racial set-asides," Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said. "So this disturbs many of my colleagues on my side of the aisle."

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) pointed out during debate on the House floor that the bill has always been relatively uncontroversial in the past. During the previous week's debate he decried "misconceptions or misperceptions" that made the bill controversial.

In the end, 12 Republicans crossed party lines and voted with all but one Democrat present to pass the rules package. Thus, by a vote of 234-188, the House voted to approve the rules of consideration for a bill to authorize funding for programs aiming to help low-income Native Hawaiians find affordable housing.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 191
Mar 27, 2007
H. Res. 270, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1401 (Rail and Public Transportation Security Act)/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote determined the rules for debate on a bill to authorize over $6 billion over four years to improve bus and rail security in the United States.

Known as the "rules package," the resolution determined how much time each side would get to debate the measure, what amendments would be considered in order and what procedural motions would be allowed.

The legislation this resolution outlined rules of debate for was hailed by one of its drafters, Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), as "an important milestone" in protecting the countries transit systems. Many Republicans complained that the bill was potentially wasteful, and in the words of the ranking Republican on the Transportation panel, Rep. John Mica (Fla.), would distribute funds "willy-nilly."

Many Republicans were also unhappy because the Democrat-dominated Rules Committee did not determine that all Republican-sponsored amendments would be allowed on the House floor.

)On a party-line vote of 223-199, with only one Democrat joining every Republican present in voting "no," the House passed a rules package for a bill to authorize $6 billion over the next four years to improve transit security.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 190
Mar 27, 2007
H. Res. 270, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1401 (Rail and Public Transportation Security Act)/On ordering the previous question

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for debate on a bill to authorize over $6 billion over four years to improve bus and rail security in the United States.

Known as the "rules package," the resolution determined how much time each side would get to debate the measure, what amendments would be considered in order and what procedural motions would be allowed.

The legislation this resolution outlined rules of debate for was hailed by one of its drafters, Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), as "an important milestone" in protecting the countries transit systems. Many Republicans complained that the bill was potentially wasteful, and in the words of the ranking Republican on the Transportation panel, Rep. John Mica (Fla.), would distribute funds "willy-nilly."

Many Republicans were also unhappy because the Democrat-dominated Rules Committee did not allow all Republican-sponsored amendments to be offered on the House floor.

This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all but two Democrats present voted for it, and the motion passed 222-199. Thus, the House moved towards a vote on a resolution outlining the rules for debate on a bill to authorize over $6 billion to improve transit security.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 186
Mar 23, 2007
H.R. 1591 "Emergency" supplemental appropriations for the ongoing war in Iraq/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote represented the first time either chamber of Congress voted to set a timeline for pulling U.S. troops out of the ongoing war in Iraq. It was a nail-biter until the end, as more than a dozen Democrats refused to vote for a measure that would continue to fund the war at least until 2008, and it wasn't clear whether the Democratic leadership would be able to find a majority. The seventh "emergency" spending bill to make its way through Congress during President Bush's term, the bill would send another $124.3 billion towards the Iraq war effort while taking the first steps toward ending the 4-year-old conflict. Another, more massive supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is expected in the fall. ("Emergency" supplemental appropriations bills are so named because they are handled outside of the regular annual Congressional processes that fund the activities of the U.S. government.) A group of progressives calling themselves the "Out of Iraq" caucus had attempted to offer an amendment that would have limited the use of funds in the supplemental to only protecting soldiers on the ground and the "safe and complete withdrawal" of all troops by the end of 2007 instead of agreeing to fund the war through the end of 2008. But the proposed amendment -- offered by California Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters -- was rejected by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee, thus preventing it from coming to a vote on the floor. The bill contains a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops beginning in 2008, a move opposed almost uniformly within the Republican Party. Bush promised to veto the measure if it is sent to his desk. The Democratic leadership described the bill as a significant effort towards ending the war, even as critics within the party decried the measure for sending more money to a war they believe is already lost. Woolsey, one of the 14 Democrats to vote against the measure, said that the language in the bill meant to reign in Bush's conduct of the war had no enforceability and was thus meaningless. Knowing Bush's veto awaited, the debate within the Democratic Party became one of tactics. The Democratic leadership asserted that voting to give Bush additional funding for the war, with restrictions and a timetable with withdrawal, was the best way to solidify the opposition to the war in a way that could win majority support. Others, including many in the "Out of Iraq" caucus, stated that another year of a failed war was unacceptable. By contrast, the majority of the Republicans in Congress support Bush's planned troop surge as a tactic to gain control over the country's growing insurgency. "Rather than sending more troops into the chaos that is the Iraqi civil war, we must be focused on bringing the war to an end," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said. "The American people do not support a war without end and neither should this Congress." Republicans also blasted what they deemed "pork-barrel" projects aimed at sweetening the bill for undecided Democrats. The supplemental included billions for programs unrelated to the war effort, including monies for shrimpers, spinach growers and peanut farmers. In the end, the House voted 218-212 to pass the supplemental appropriations bill and continue funding the war, but with a specific timeline to begin redeployment of American troops. Any measure containing a withdrawal timeline awaited a threatened veto by Bush, which would require the supplemental appropriations process to start all over again.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 182
Mar 22, 2007
H. Res. 261 Providing for consideration of a bill (H.R. 1591) to make "emergency" supplemental appropriations for the war in Iraq/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote that laid the groundwork for the House's consideration of a mid-year funding bill to appropriate money for ongoing military operations in Iraq. The seventh "emergency" spending bill to make its way through Congress during President Bush's term, the bill would send another $124.3 billion towards the Iraq war effort while taking steps toward ending the 4-year-old conflict. Another, more massive supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is expected in the fall. ("Emergency" supplemental appropriations bills are so named because they are handled outside of the regular annual Congressional processes that fund the activities of the U.S. government.) This resolution, often referred to as a "rules package," laid out the rules for consideration for how the supplemental funding bill would be taken up on the House floor. It dictated how much time each side was to be given for debate, and more importantly, what amendments were to be considered in order. The issue of amendments was a critical one among House Democrats, as many Progressives oppose any more funding for the war. A group of Progressives calling themselves the "Out of Iraq" caucus attempted to offer an amendment that would have limited the use of funds in the supplemental to only protecting soldiers on the ground and the "safe and complete withdrawal" of all troops by the end of the year. That amendment -- offered by California Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters -- was rejected by the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee, which drafted the rules for debate without allowances for the three to bring their amendment to the floor. (Of the three, only Waters ended up voting against the rules package, however.) The overall bill contains a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops beginning in 2008, a move opposed almost uniformly by Republicans. And because the funding measure contains language requiring troop withdrawals, Bush has promised to veto the measure if passed. Likely because it was a procedural vote, which usually command near-total conformity within each party's respective ranks, even Democrats who wanted to vote on an amendment to begin troop withdrawals this year instead of waiting until next year ended up voting with the majority in passing the rules package. The resolution passed easily, with one Republican (North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones) voting with 224 Democrats in passing the measure. Five Democrats, including two very progressive members, voted against the procedural resolution. The final vote was 225-201, setting the rules for debate for a bill to provide an additional $124.3 billion for the Iraq war with a timetable for withdrawal. The supplemental appropriations bill was thus readied for floor consideration, where it wound up passing by an extremely close vote (see Roll Call 186).


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 180
Mar 22, 2007
H. Res. 260, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1433, (District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act)/On agreeing to the resolution governing the rules of debate

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote determined the rules for debate for a bill to grant full voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia. The 572,000residents of Washington, D.C., do not have a voting representative in Congress and instead have only a delegate to the House of Representatives who doesn't have voting privileges on the House floor. Known as the "rules package," this resolution determined how much time each side would be given for debate, what amendments would be considered in order and what procedural motions would be allowed.

The rules package included a tiny, obscure tax provision that sought to offset a $2.5 million price tag that the Congressional Budget Office put on the bill. Because of the House's "pay-as-you-go" spending rules, the Democratic majority had to decide whether to try to waive those rules (and risk loosing that vote) or offset the cost elsewhere in the federal budget. They chose the latter, and inserted language into the rules for debate that would offset the price of the bill with a .003 percentage point increase to a federal withholding tax.

By including a tax provision, Democrats expanded what is known as the "germaneness" of the bill, meaning the scope of amendments that are considered relevant enough to attach. This would later serve as an opportunity for Republicans to seek to include an amendment on gun rights in the District, which included language aimed at killing the bill. This move created a parliamentary nightmare for Democrats, who ended up postponing a vote on the bill for a month. (The rules package included a provision allowing the majority to put off the vote on the bill for an undetermined period.)

In addition to granting residents of D.C. a voting representative in Congress, the underlying legislation would give Utah an additional at-large House seat until 2012, when House seats are to be reapportioned among the states based on the decennial census. This was done to make the bill party-neutral. Utah is a reliably conservative state, and the at-large district would likely be filled by a Republican lawmaker, whereas D.C. could be expected to send a Democrat to Congress.

Utah was chosen to offset the D.C. seat because the state missed getting an additional representative in the last round of redistricting by only a few hundred residents. The bill would expand the number of seats in the House by two, from 435 to 437. The bill would also give Utah an additional vote in the Electoral College for the 2008 election since electors are apportioned on the basis of the number of Senators and Representatives each state has.

"I hope that those who have not supported the bill can come to see that extending voting rights to residents of Washington, D.C., is the right and savvy thing to do," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis (R-Va.), a cosponsor of the bill. "The people's House should have room for all Americans to be represented."

Many other Republicans questioned the constitutionality of the measure, however, as Article 1, Section 2 states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several states." The District of Columbia is not a state.

Votes on rules packages are almost always party-line votes, and this was no exception. All but one Republican voted against the rules for consideration, and all Democrats voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 226-195, the House passed rules for debate for a measure to grant the residents of the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House of Representatives. Because of subsequent Republican parliamentary maneuvers, however, the bill would not come for a final vote for another month, as Democrats worked out a way to bring up the legislation without a provision allowing semi-automatic weapons in the District that was designed by Republicans to kill the bill.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 179
Mar 22, 2007
H. Res. 260, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1433, (District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act)/On ordering the previous question

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural motion on a resolution outlining the rules for debate for a bill to grant full voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia. The 572,000 residents of Washington, D.C., do not have a voting representative in Congress and instead have only a delegate to the House of Representatives who doesn't have voting privileges on the House floor.

Known as the "rules package," this resolution determined how much time each side would be given for debate, what amendments would be considered in order and what procedural motions would be allowed.

This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

In addition to granting a voting representative to the residents of the District of Columbia, the underlying bill would give Utah an additional at-large House seat until 2012, when House seats are to be reapportioned among the states based on the decennial census. This was done to make the bill party-neutral. Utah is a reliably conservative state, and the at-large district would likely be filled by a Republican lawmaker, whereas D.C. could be expected to send a Democrat to Congress.

Utah was chosen to offset the D.C. seat because the state missed getting an additional representative in the last round of redistricting by only a few hundred residents. The bill would expand the number of seats in the House by two, from 435 to 437. The bill would also give Utah an additional vote in the Electoral College for the 2008 election since electors are apportioned on the basis of the number of Senators and Representatives each state has.

"I hope that those who have not supported the bill can come to see that extending voting rights to residents of Washington, D.C., is the right and savvy thing to do," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis (R-Va.), a cosponsor of the bill. "The people's House should have room for all Americans to be represented."

Many other Republicans questioned the constitutionality of the measure, however, as Article 1, Section 2 states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several states." The District of Columbia is not a state.

As is almost always the case on motions ordering the previous question, the vote almost perfectly divided the two parties. All of the Republicans present voted against the measure and all Democrats present but one voted for it, and the motion passed 228-198. Thus, the House moved towards a vote on a resolution outlining the rules for debate on a bill to grant full voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 173
Mar 21, 2007
H.R. 835, Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act/On motion to suspend the rules and pass

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a bill that would authorize through fiscal 2012 the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee programs, which provide grants for affordable housing for low-income Native Hawaiians as well as guaranteed loans to Native Hawaiian families living on homesteads.

The bill was taken up with a procedure known as a suspension of the rules, which is basically a time-saving method used for relatively noncontroversial legislation that is all but assured of passage. Suspending the rules means that the measure cannot be amended and debate is limited to forty minutes on each side. Bills taken up under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds majority for passage.

Although no Republicans stood up on the House floor and spoke against the legislation, clearly there was opposition from within Republican ranks, as a majority of Republicans voted against it.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) alluded to what he referred to "misconceptions or misperceptions" that made the bill controversial. "There are some issues with respect to questions about favoritism or reverse discrimination, et cetera," Abercrombie said, referring to the limitation on the grants and loans to "Native Hawaiians."

Abercrombie also pointed out that the bill was the result of a request of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, under the leadership of Governor Linda Lingle, who is a Republican. Abercrombie said that the issue was institutional in nature, meaning that governor-appointed commissioners are obligated to bring these issues to the Congress for final adjudication because of the unique legal status of the Hawaiian homelands.

Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) also rose to support the measure, saying that reauthorizing the legislation allows Native Hawaiian families living at or below 80 percent of the median income level to finance homes and is funneled through programs such as Habitat for Humanity.

Although no Republicans spoke out against the legislation, 162 Republicans voted against it. Thirty-four Republicans joined all 228 Democrats present in voting for the bill. Although the final vote of 262-162 was far beyond a simple majority, the suspension rules under which the measure was considered required a two-thirds majority. (In order to pass under suspension of the rules, the bill would have had to receive 283 votes.) The Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act thus failed on this round, although the House leadership would bring it up again a week later under normal rules and it would pass easily.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 172
Mar 21, 2007
H.R. 1227, Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a vote for final passage on a bill to provide housing assistance to the residents affected by the 2005 hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast. The measure would prevent the demolition of damaged public housing in New Orleans until the federal government comes up with replacement units. The legislation would also grant displaced public housing tenants an absolute right of return and remove restrictions on the approximately $110 billion already appropriated for hurricane recovery.

The final vote came after two days of debate during which Republicans tried unsuccessfully to limit the scope of voucher programs (Roll Call 168) and made a successful attempt to amend the bill to prohibit those convicted of drug or violent crimes from living in rebuilt public housing in New Orleans (Roll Call 171).

The bill, sponsored by Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), would extend the disaster housing voucher program run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) until January 2008. The House also adopted an amendment by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) to extend a separate housing assistance program run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency until the end of 2007 and then transfer eligible families into the Section 8 housing assistance program run by HUD (Roll Call 166).

Many Republicans opposed passage of the bill on the grounds that Congress and the American taxpayers had already been adequately generous to those who lost their homes in the 2005 storms affecting the Gulf Coast. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) said that Democrats were using the disaster relief bill to work on "other agendas," such as expanding the Section 8 federal housing assistance program. Moreover, he said, Congress has already authorized more than $110 billion for recovery efforts. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) further stated that extending housing assistance vouchers does not give people an incentive to "get moving" to get their lives back together.

Democrats countered that such arguments were ludicrous and that the legislation simply made up for the failed efforts during the previous legislative session to adequately jump-start recovery in the region and help people get back on their feet.

Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) responded that the residents displaced by the hurricanes are not "appropriate candidates for tough love. These are not people who are in some situation through their own lack of character. They are people who were displaced by a great physical disaster."

Frank added that unless the federal government helps to fix the problem of lack of housing, the region is going to continue to be plagued by a "chicken-and-egg" problem of unemployment and lack of housing, as employers are moving out of the region because there are not enough places for workers to live.

All 230 Democrats present, joined by 72 Republicans, voted to pass the legislation. By a final vote of 302-125, legislation to extend housing assistance to residents affected by the 2005 hurricanes and prevent the demolition of damaged public housing until more can be built passed the House and moved on to the Senate.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Famine Relief
Y Y Won
Roll Call 171
Mar 21, 2007
H.R. 1227, Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007/On motion to recommit with instructions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a motion to send a bill to provide housing assistance to residents affected by the 2005 hurricanes back to the Financial Services Committee with instructions that the bill be amended to include language barring households that include convicted drug dealers, sex offender or perpetrators of other violent crimes from occupying rebuilt public housing in New Orleans. Furthermore, the amendment would require that priority for public housing be given to employed individuals who agree to contribute to community service. The motion was made by Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La.), who represents a suburban area outside of New Orleans.

The underlying bill would prevent the demolition of damaged public housing in New Orleans until the federal government comes up with replacement units. The measure would also grant displaced public housing tenants an absolute right of return and remove restrictions on the approximately $110 billion already appropriated for hurricane recovery.

In support of his amendment, Jindal said that the government "must make certain that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. This includes ensuring that our public housing system does not force residents to live in unacceptable conditions, and replacing the old public housing units with safe, habitable and affordable housing for the future."

Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass) said it appeared to him that the amendment was just a restatement of current law, and thus unnecessary, but if it was a change to current housing law, then it was just a change for the residents of New Orleans, in which case it was unreasonable and unfair. Frank pointed out that Jindal and the Republicans gave the majority Democrats no notice on the substance of the motion, and it appeared to him that Jindal could not answer his questions as to its exact content. "I don't think this is very well considered," Frank concluded.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. Fifty-five Democrats joined all but one Republican present in voting to send the housing assistance bill back to the Financial Services Committee with specific directions to include Jindal's amendment. The motion to recommit with instructions was thus successful, and a bill to provide housing relief to residents affected by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes was amended to prohibit convicted drug dealers and perpetrators of other violent crimes from occupying rebuilt public housing in New Orleans.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL War on Drugs
N N Lost
Roll Call 170
Mar 21, 2007
H.R. 1227, Al Green of Texas amendment to allow low-income residents in areas affected by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes to receive Section 8 housing grants/Revote on agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a revote on an amendment offered by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) that had been previously approved (see Roll Call 166) by the Committee of the Whole. The amendment was attached to a housing assistance bill for those affected by the 2005 hurricanes along the Gulf Coast. Under House rules, any lawmaker -- in this case Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) -- can demand a revote by the full House on an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.

The Committee of the Whole is used to expedite the business of the House and utilizes a lower quorum threshold, restricted time for debate and limits on the kinds of parliamentary maneuvers allowed. (A quorum is the minimum number of lawmakers required to get things done. In the full House a quorum is 218 Members whereas a quorum in the Committee of the Whole is only 100.)

Green's amendment was approved the first time in the Committee of the Whole on a vote of 246-184. The amendment would extend Federal Emergency Management Agency housing assistance for evacuees of the 2005 hurricanes until the end of 2007, after which time evacuees would be transferred into a temporary Section 8 voucher program for rental assistance. (Landlords would not be required to accept the vouchers.)

The revote yielded much of the same result as the first vote, as 13 Republicans joined all 229 Democrats present in voting for it. The final tally was 242-184, onlyfour votes different from the first roll call. Thus, a housing assistance bill for those affected by the 2005 hurricanes along the Gulf Coast maintained a previously added provision that would extend FEMA housing assistance until the end of 2007 and then allow displaced residents who qualify for Section 8 rental assistance to receive it from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 168
Mar 21, 2007
H R 1227. Neugebauer of Texas Amendment to delete provision in Gulf Coast housing relief bill that would give families receiving temporary disaster vouchers Section 8 vouchers instead/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This amendment, proposed by Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), sought to strike a section of a bill to provide housing assistance to Gulf Coast residents affected by the 2005 hurricanes. The section Neugebauer wanted to strike would allow low-income residents who are receiving temporary disaster vouchers through FEMA to qualify for the Section 8 voucher program run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Neugebauer said in floor debate that "this is not the place to debate whether we need to add additional vouchers to the voucher section 8 program."

Neugebauer said that the legislation as it was written would not just extend disaster vouchers but essentially make them permanent, by putting those in need of temporary relief in a permanent program. "The problem making these vouchers permanent is we are giving preference to [displaced] folks that are living in communities where other people have been in line" for the same Section 8 assistance, Neugebauer added.

Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) responded that exactly the opposite was true. The newly created Section 8 housing vouchers would only be "permanent" so long as the 12,000 recipients of FEMA assistance who prior to the hurricane were in the HUD program require aid. (Housing advocates estimate that 30,000 to 37,000 people are receiving disaster-related housing assistance of some kind.) "But as the people in that category no longer need them or are ineligible, [the vouchers] will disappear," said Frank. "This is a separate category of vouchers for people who were victims of disasters."

The real question, Frank said, was whether the federal government was willing to punish those currently receiving FEMA aid who previously received Section 8 assistance for what amounted to the government's failure to get its act together. If the government were to let the aid run out at the end of 2007, the displaced low-income residents would be competing with non-displaced low-income residents for Section 8 aid. "Abolish this separate category as of December 31, and then these people will be competing with other people," Frank said, exactly the scenario Neugebauer said he wanted to prevent.

Fourteen Republicans joined all but one Democrat present in voting to defeat Neugebauer's amendment. Thus, by a vote of 247-185, a bill to provide housing assistance to those affected by the 2005 hurricanes along the Gulf Coast went forward with a provision that allows low-income residents displaced by the natural disasters to qualify for Section 8 rental assistance.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
N N Won
Roll Call 167
Mar 21, 2007
Motion to allow Taylor of Mississippi to participate in floor debate for the rest of the day after a ruling that he had impugned another Member's character

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This motion followed a heated debate between Reps. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) and Tom Price (R-Ga.) over an amendment to a bill providing housing assistance to Gulf Coast residents affected by the 2005 hurricanes.

Proposed by Price, the amendment would have removed language in the bill allowing cities and states receiving federal disaster aid to use other government grants to meet requirements to match the federal money with local government contributions. In Price's words, the amendment "would make certain that local and state individuals have a responsibility, have an incentive to make sure these programs are sound."

Taylor was incensed with the suggestion that Gulf Coast states would misuse the funds, and he told Price that he should "have the decency" to visit Mississippi "before you hold them to a standard that you would never hold your own people to and you have failed to hold the Bush administration to."

The acting chairman of the House ruled that Taylor had impugned Price's character by questioning his decency and required that the words be stricken from the record. House rules dictate that Members whose words have been struck are prohibited from participating in floor debate for the rest of the day. In order for Taylor to continue participating in floor, a majority of the House had to vote to allow it.

By a vote of 265-160 the House moved to do just that, and Taylor was allowed to participate in the rest of the day's debate. Taylor later admitted that his words were "a little bit too strong" but reaffirmed his opposition to the amendment. "How does a town that is gone come up with matching funds?" Taylor asked. (Price's amendment ended up failing by a vote of 98-333.)


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Won
Roll Call 166
Mar 20, 2007
H.R. 1227, Al Green of Texas amendment to allow low-income residents in areas affected by the 2005 hurricanes along the Gulf Coast to receive Section 8 housing grants/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) that would extend housing assistance provided the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma through the end of 2007. After that time, the amendment would give housing assistance to evacuees through the housing-assistance program run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The bill which Green sought to amend would prevent the demolition of damaged public housing in New Orleans until the federal government comes up with replacement units. The underlying measure would also grant displaced public housing tenants an absolute right of return and remove restrictions on the approximately $110 billion already appropriated for hurricane recovery.

Green said his amendment was meant to take FEMA out of "the Katrina long-term housing crisis" and put the low-income residents still receiving FEMA housing assistance in a federal program run by HUD that is better equipped to meet their needs. The amendment would allow people living in FEMA trailers who are eligible for section 8 housing vouchers to receive them. (Section 8 refers to a federal program providing assistance to low-income families in the form of rental assistance vouchers.) Landlords would not be required to accept the vouchers, however, as they are under the law governing other Section 8 housing assistance.

Green said that the reason there is a housing crisis is because 7 out of 10 households receiving rental assistance have annual incomes below $15,000 per year and over 40 percent have health care problems that impact upon their abilities to work. Green said that FEMA has responded to this crisis by "moving real people with real problems from one deadline to another deadline."

The amendment, he added, has a budget score of zero, meaning that it has no cost to the taxpayer.

Rep. Judy Biggert (D-Ill.) said that turning FEMA assistance into Section 8 housing concerned her. Deadlines for assistance to run out, she said, encourage families to make decisions about their future rather than continuing the expectation that the federal government will provide for them.

All Democrats presented voted with Green to pass his amendment, and they were joined by 14 Republicans. By a vote of 246-184, the House voted to grant Section 8 housing vouchers to displaced low-income residents after their extended FEMA assistance expires. Thus, a bill to prevent the demolition of damaged public housing in New Orleans until the federal government comes up with replacement units was amended to include a provision extending FEMA housing assistance until the end of 2007 and then allow displaced residents who qualify for Section 8 rental assistance to receive it from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 165
Mar 20, 2007
H.R. 1227, Biggert of Illinois amendment to limit the number public house units to be rebuilt to the number that were occupied before Hurricane Katrina/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This amendment, offered by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), sought to limit the reconstruction of public housing projects in New Orleans to those units that were occupied before Hurricane Katrina.

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) said the amendment was necessary because the bill requires the rebuilding of all public housing units that existed before the storm, regardless of whether they were occupied, and recreating large numbers of public housing units would hamstring recovery efforts and "create huge pockets of poverty."

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said such arguments are ludicrous. "This is an issue not about whether you live in the existing units. This isn't about rehabbing existing units," he said. "This is as to what is the obligation to replace the units."

Frank said that Biggert's amendment would reduce by 2,000 the number of units that would have to be built before tearing down things that now exist. "All we are saying is do whatever destruction you want after you have found places to live."

The final tally was an almost entirely party-line vote, with all but two Democrats voting to defeat Biggert's amendment, and all but 2 Republicans voting for it. By a vote of 198-232, Biggert's amendment was defeated, and a bill to provide housing assistance to residents of areas affected by the 2005 hurricanes went forward without a requirement to limit the number of reconstructed public housing units to the number occupied before the storms.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
N N Won
Roll Call 164
Mar 20, 2007
H.R. 1227, Hensarling of Texas amendment to require federal housing recipients in the region affected by the 2005 hurricanes to work 20 hours per week/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment offered by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) that would require all those receiving federal aid as part of a bill to improve access to affordable housing in the region affected by the 2005 hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast to work at least 20 hours per week.

Hensarling offered his amendment as a way to bring the federal housing aid under the bill in line with welfare reforms Congress instituted a decade ago.

"Now we have the same chance to extend this," Hensarling said on the House floor, "to empower people who have been impacted by these terrible gulf coast hurricanes, some who have been stuck in public housing for 10, 15 or 20 years." He added that "no one is required to get a job if the jobs don't exist" and there would be 12 distinct categories of work-related activities to satisfy the requirement, including attempting to find work, vocational education, community service and, in some instances, providing child care services to others.

Democrats replied that the amendment was misguided and racist.

"It is about race and poverty," said Rep. David Scott (D-Ga). After the Sept. 11 attacks, he said, "Nobody said, 'Make them work before we help them.' "

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said the amendment was unnecessary and improper: "It is not the time that should be utilized to try and do something that really has already been taken care of in welfare reform. We should be about the business of returning people to their homes."

Thirty-nine Republicans joined all but four Democrats present in defeating Hensarling's amendment. By a vote of 162-266, the measure was defeated and a proposal to require that recipients of federal aid work 20 hours per week was not added to a bill aiming to provide for housing assistance to those affected by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
N N Won
Roll Call 160
Mar 20, 2007
H. Res. 254, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1227) to assist in the provision of affordable housing to low income families affected by the 2005 hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote outlined the rules for debate on legislation to supply $237 million worth of tax credits to help replace low-income housing units destroyed by hurricanes to hit the Gulf Coast in 2005.

Co-sponsored by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the bill would prohibit the demolition of public housing that is damaged or otherwise uninhabitable until the Department of Housing and Urban Development develops a plan to replace it. It gives the agency until July 2008 to provide adequate housing and authorizes the department to provide relocation assistance to those displaced families.

The rules for consideration determine how much time is awarded to each side for debate and what amendments would be considered in order. The "rules package," as it is known, was drafted by the Democrat-dominated Rules Committee and was a closed-rule, meaning that only amendments outlined in the rules package could be brought up on the House floor. In contrast, open rules allow any lawmaker to offer amendments on the House floor, regardless of whether they were approved by the Rules Committee.

"I think it is appropriate to point out that the majority is failing to live up to its commitment to run the House in an open and fair manner," said Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.). "I believe it is fair to say, if the majority is serious about their commitment to openness, they should allow for open rules on the underlying legislation and the supplemental appropriations bill which is coming forth soon."

Diaz-Balart went on to explain that Republicans were concerned that the bill goes beyond its stated intent of helping hurricane victims and essentially turns a temporary disaster voucher program into a permanent entitlement. In response to those concerns, Republicans offered several amendments to the Rules Committee, "however, the majority once again closed them out," prompting Republicans to oppose the rule.

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) responded that "this pretty much is an open rule," and the only amendments that were prohibited were not "germane" (relevant to the bill) or had been previously voted down on the floor. Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) responded further that although it was not "a fully open rule," it was far more open "than any that the majority allowed in the previous Congress on major legislation from the Financial Services Committee."

In the end, two Republicans joined all 226 Democrats present to pass the rules of debate for a bill to provide housing relief to victims of the 2005 hurricanes along the Gulf Coast. Thus, by a vote of 228-190, the House approved the rules package and moved the measure one step towards debate and passage.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 155
Mar 15, 2007
H.R. 1362, Accountability in Contracting Act/On motion to recommit with instructions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was a procedural motion to amend a bill requiring federal agencies to minimize their use of no-bid contracts. Republicans sought to prohibit the federal government from contracting with colleges that allow private employers to recruit on campus while at the same time as denying similar access to U.S. military recruiters.

The overall bill would limit no-bid contracts of $1 million or more to one year, unless the head of a federal agency determines that an extension was necessary.

Democrats say the legislation is necessary after what they deem to be abuses of no-bid federal contracts by firms supplying goods and services in Iraq and on the Gulf Coast after the 2005 hurricanes.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. It's usually a symbolic vote, as the minority rarely wins. The Democrats almost always failed to pass motions to recommit under more than a decade of Republican rule in the House.

The Republicans' motion to recommit was aimed at remedying what they maintained are unfair exclusions of military recruiters at colleges and universities. Many of such institutions rely on grants from the federal government to fund their programs, so the amendment Republicans sought to add would use that leverage to ensure that colleges and universities that accept such monies give equal access to military recruiters as they do private employers.

Many schools have barred the presence of military recruiters at recruiting events, and some have cited opposition to the war in Iraq as the rationale. Critics countered that Republicans were trying to mask the military's inability to recruit sufficient numbers of young people to fight in an increasingly unpopular war.

The Republicans' argument ultimately won out, however, as they drew enough Democrats to pass the motion to recommit with instructions and thus amend the bill. One hundred and fifteen Democrats joined all 194 Republicans present to pass the measure.

By a vote of 309-114, the motion to recommit with instructions was agreed to and thus the bill to revise federal contracting policy was amended to prohibit colleges that contract with the federal government from denying military recruiters access to their campuses when that same access is provided to private companies.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Lost
Roll Call 154
Mar 15, 2007
H RES 242. Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1362, Accountability in Contracting Act/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote set the rules for debate for legislation aimed at increasing the oversight of government contracts and fixing procurement issues at the Defense Department and other federal agencies. The bill requires federal agencies to minimize their use of no-bid contracts and limits the duration of large noncompetitive contracts to one year.

The resolution, commonly known as a "rules package," outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order.

Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. Republicans wanted to offer amendments that the Rules Committee did not allow.

Many Republicans also opposed the underlying legislation because they believe it would unduly burden the entire federal contracting sector, instead of just punishing the actions of a few "bad actors," in the words of Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas). Democrats said the bill was necessary to restore adequate oversight to government contracts at the Defense Department, many of which - totaling billions of dollars -- have been handed out without a competitive bidding process.

Procedural votes are almost always strict party-line affairs, and this one was true to form. All 222 Democrats present voted to approve the rules package, and all Republicans present but one voted against it. The total vote was thus 223-190, and the resolution outlining rules for consideration of a bill to require federal agencies to minimize their use of no-bid contracts and improve oversight of the procurement process passed the House, making way for the bill to come up for a vote.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 151
Mar 14, 2007
H.R. 985 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act/Stupak of Michigan amendment to include government-funded scientists among the federal employees granted whistleblower protections for exposing wrongdoing

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) that would extend whistleblower protections to those involved with the publication of federally funded scientific research.

The underlying bill aims to make it easier for federal employees to expose wrongdoing, corruption and fraud without repercussions for their own jobs. The bill would grant most federal employees the right to have retaliation claims heard in federal court.

Stupak asserted at a news conference announcing his amendment that many cases have been documented of government officials suppressing the publication of federally funded research and prohibiting scientists from attending conferences.

"Publication in peer-reviewed journals and participation at conferences is a key part of the scientific process, and when senior agency officials attempt to prevent these activities, it represents an attack on the integrity of government-funded research," Stupak said. He specifically cited the case of FDA whistleblower David Graham who was prohibited by his superiors from publishing the early warnings that the drug Vioxx was causing heart attacks and deaths. The drug was eventually taken off the market after 28,000 people who took the drug had heart attacks between 1999 and 2003, according to the FDA.

FDA scientist and whistleblower David Graham estimated that Vioxx may have caused heart attacks in as many as 140,000 Americans, leading to as many as 55,000 deaths in the United States.

Stupak's efforts were lauded by the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Federal scientists working to protect our health and safety must have the right to publish the results of their research," the organization said in a statement.

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) rose to oppose Stupak's amendment on the grounds that it would allow federal researchers and scientists "to publicize the results of their federally funded research without any input from the agency paying their salaries and employing them." He added that it was "inappropriate to shoehorn the debate about public policy influencing science into a bill about protecting whistleblowers." Davis echoed Republican concerns that the amendment would turn science and public policy into a "personnel issue to be litigated in the courts."

The House voted 252-173 to pass Stupak's amendment. All of the opposition came from within Republican ranks. Twenty-three Republicans joined all 229 Democrats present in passing the measure. Thus, a bill to expand federal whistleblower protections moved forward with a provision to include scientists conducting federally funded research.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Scientific Inquiry
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Won
Roll Call 150
Mar 14, 2007
H.R. 985 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act/

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This amendment to the Whistleblower Protection Act was proposed by Rep. William Sali (R-Idaho) and would remove language from the bill that gives whistleblower protections to government-funded scientists. Whistleblower protections aim to ensure that federal employees who report corruption or wrongdoing are not retaliated against or lose their own jobs.

Sali said the motivation for his amendment was his belief that it's "inappropriate to attempt to shoehorn the debate about public policy influencing science into this legislation, thus turning it into a personnel issue to be litigated in the courts."

The underlying bill makes disseminating "false or misleading technical information" an "abuse of authority," which triggers whistleblower protections for those who expose it. The problem, Sali said on the House floor, is that in science, "the question of what is false or misleading is often a difficult question on which reasonable people can disagree, and on which sometimes scientific authorities have a hard time making up their minds." Whistleblower protection, Sali said, means the threat of lawsuits for alleged abuses, and he asserted that turning science into a personnel issue to be litigated in the courts "is not good public policy."

During floor debate, Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) responded that the Bush administration, by exerting unprecedented political interference on government-funded science, has put Congress in the position of having to legislate this issue.

"We have seen scientific findings manipulated or outright rejected when they don't bolster favored policies. And we have seen government agencies put out information about health that is entirely false, but politically advantageous," Braley said, adding: "In one EPA report on the environment, the White House made so many edits to downplay the discussion of global warming that scientists at the agency said the draft no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change."

Braley pointed out that 52 Nobel Laureates, 62 National Medal of Science winners, 194 members of the National Academies of Science and thousands of other American scientists have signed a statement speaking out against political interference in science, and in order to remedy the problems, "we have to know about them." This legislation does that, he asserted, without effecting legitimate political or policy decisions related to scientific issues. All it does is prevent retaliation against employees who report political interference with science, Braley said.

By a vote of 159 in favor and 271 opposed, the House voted against Sali's amendment. All 232 Democrats present, as well as 39 Republicans, voted against it. Thus, provisions protecting government-funded scientists from retaliation for speaking out against undue political influence or other wrongdoing remained in the House's version of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Scientific Inquiry
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
N N Won
Roll Call 149
Mar 14, 2007
H.R. 985 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act/Stupak of Michigan amendment to clarify that political interference with science is covered under the bill

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) to the Whistleblower Protection Act that specifically stated that instances of political interference in government-funded science are to be considered "abuses of authority," making their disclosure covered under the terms of the act.

The amendment gives an example of political interference in the scientific process: preventing federally funded scientists or grantees from publishing or presenting their research. There have been numerous allegations of political appointees within the Bush administration doing that, including suppressing research on global climate change that didn't support the White House's stated position.

The underlying bill aims to make it easier for federal employees and contractors to expose wrongdoing without repercussions for their own jobs. The bill would grant most federal employees the right to have retaliation claims heard in federal court. A separate amendment by Stupak approved by the House (Roll Call 151) added scientists who engage in federally funded research to the list of those eligible to whistleblower protections.

A majority of House Republicans opposed the measure, and Democrats unanimously supported it. In the end, the House voted 250-178 to approve Stupak's amendment, and thus the bill moved toward final passage with a provision specifying that political interference with government-funded science would be covered under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Scientific Inquiry
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Won
Roll Call 146
Mar 14, 2007
Providing for the consideration of H.R. 985, Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a measure establishing the rules for debate for a bill to grant whistleblower protections to federal employees and contractors who expose waste, fraud and corruption.

The rules for consideration govern the floor management of the bill, including how much time will be granted to each side for debate and what amendments will be considered in order. It is commonly known as the "rules package."

Prompted by the failure to expose faulty intelligence prior to the Iraq war, the underlying bill aims to make it easier for federal employees to expose wrongdoing without repercussions for their own jobs. The bill would grant most federal employees the right to have retaliation claims heard in federal court. The measure's protections also cover employees of federal contractors, airport screeners and government scientists who claim retaliation for reporting undue political influences or other corruption.

Republicans wanted to have amendments proposed by their side considered in order, which the Democratic-run Rules Committee that drafted the House's consideration of the bill did not allow. These sorts of procedural votes are almost always highly disciplined on each side, and little dissent is tolerated by each party's respective leadership. As such, Republicans unanimously voted against this rules package, even though 102 of them ended up voting for the final bill.

All 223 Democrats presented voted for the resolution outlining the rules for debate, and all 193 Republicans voted against it. The measure thus passed on a party-line vote, and a bill to grant federal workers and contractors whistleblower protections for reporting corruption made its way towards final passage.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Won
Roll Call 145
Mar 14, 2007
Providing for the consideration of H.R. 985 (Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act)/On ordering the previous question and bring to a vote

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a procedural motion on a resolution establishing the rules for debate for a bill to grant whistleblower protections to federal employees and contractors who expose waste, fraud and corruption.

Prompted by the failure to expose faulty intelligence prior to the Iraq war, the bill aims to make it easier for federal employees to expose wrongdoing without repercussions for their own jobs. The bill would grant most federal employees the right to have retaliation claims heard in federal court. The measure's protections also cover employees of federal contractors, airport screeners and government scientists who claim retaliation for reporting undue political influences or other corruption.

This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all Democrats present but one voted for it, and the motion passed 224-197.

Thus, a resolution outlining the terms for debate for a measure to grant whistleblower protections for federal workers and contractors moved one step closer towards a final vote on the measure itself.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Won
Roll Call 144
Mar 14, 2007
H.R. 1309 Legislation to amend the Freedom of Information Act/On the motion to suspend the rules and pass

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This bill represented the most comprehensive reform of the nation's freedom of information laws in more than a decade. The 1966 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) originally gave citizens a right to view the operations of their government in the open by granting access to documents and information from federal agencies. That system has been widely acknowledged to be broken, however, although up until this year there has not been a majority consensus in Congress as to how to move forward.

Many federal agencies are years and even decades behind in responding to FOIA requests, and the agencies' delays have left requestors with little other choice but costly litigation to get the information they seek. This bill -- sponsored by Reps. William Macy Clay (D-Mo.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Todd Platts (R-Pa.) -- aims to improve the efficiency of the FOIA system by streamlining the request and retrieval processes and implementing punitive measures as well as financial incentives for agency compliance.

Reforms include expanding the range of individuals and organizations eligible to receive information; enforcing a 20-day deadline for agencies to respond to FOIA requests; instituting tracking numbers for requests and status information as well as a public hotline to track requests; requiring agencies to issue reports on the number of denied requests; establishing an ombudsman's office to settle disputes so as to avert litigation; and giving requestors the right to recover attorney fees after successful litigation. The bill also reverses a 2001 order by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft that restricted public disclosure of information in cases with legal uncertainty, thus restoring FOIA's long-established "presumption of disclosure."

The White House expressed opposition to the bill, saying that it was "premature and counterproductive" to put new requirements on federal agencies until they have a chance to implement changes the president made in an executive order a year an a half ago. Some Republicans also expressed concerns about the potential of disclosing information that related to national security.

The bill was taken up by a procedure known as a suspension of the rules, basically a time-saving method used for relatively noncontroversial legislation that is all but assured of passage. Suspending the rules means that the measure is not amendable and debate is limited to forty minutes on each side. (Although bills brought up under suspension are by definition not amendable, a motion to suspend the rules may propose passage of the measure in an amended form, as this motion did.) Bills taken up under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds majority for passage.

The measure passed with the support of all 228 Democrats present as well as 80 Republicans; 117 Republicans voted against it. Thus, a measure to reform the Freedom of Information Act to expand the range of individuals and organizations eligible to receive information, improve the responsiveness of federal agencies, and institute measures to require executive branch compliance was sent to the Senate.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Won
Roll Call 135
Mar 09, 2007
H.R. 720 (Water Quality Financing Act of 2007)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on legislation to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize $14 billion over the next 5 years to local agencies to fight water pollution, and an additional $2 billion from fiscal 2008 through 2012 for three other existing clean-water Environmental Protection Agency programs.

State and locals governments pressed Congress to reauthorize the revolving fund, which matches federal and state contributions to provide low-interest loans for construction of wastewater treatment facilities and other projects designed to reduce pollution.

The bill was opposed by the White House and many House Republicans because it included language expanding the scope of federal prevailing-wage requirements. Known as the Davis-Bacon Act, it mandates that workers on federally-funded construction projects receive locally prevailing wages and benefits, which is generally defined to mean wages received by unionized workers in the area. The legislation would expand the reach of that law to include wastewater construction projects paid for with non-federal funds. The White House threatened to veto the bill.

Republicans maintained that local governments could not afford the construction projects if the Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirements were included. Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas) and other Republican lawmakers claimed that the inclusion of the language was a giveaway to labor interests at the expense of the American people.

Democrats said the language was pro-family and pro-worker, and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said the provision was "fair and appropriate."

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said the Davis-Bacon provisions prevent lower-cost out-of-state contractors from having an unfair ability to compete for local publicly funded construction, and thereby "protects local interests and construction workers."

By a vote of 303-108, a measure to authorize money for a federal- and state-backed revolving fund to provide low-interest loans to municipalities to finance local infrastructure projects aimed at reducing water pollution easily passed the House. The measure included a provision expanding the scope of federal prevailing-wage requirements under the Davis-Bacon Act that mandate that workers on federally funded projects receive comparable wages to unionized workers in the area. The bill had yet to be taken up in the Senate.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 134
Mar 09, 2007
H.R. 720 (Water Quality Financing Act)/On motion to recommit with instructions to include an amendment barring certain felons from boarding ships with a transportation-worker identification card

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a procedural motion on legislation authorizing $16 billion for a federal and state revolving fund to help local governments fight water pollution. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) sought to attach an amendment to bar individuals with a transportation worker identification card from boarding a maritime vessel if they have been convicted of felonies including espionage, treason, sedition, murder, racketeering and crimes dealing with explosives or incendiary devices.

The overall legislation would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize $14 billion over the next 5 years to local agencies to fight water pollution, and an additional $2 billion from fiscal 2008 through 2012 for three other existing clean-water Environmental Protection Agency programs.

Cantor's motion sought to send the bill back to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with instructions to include his amendment.

Cantor said his amendment was "intended to protect our maritime workforce, our national security, and ultimately the ports that serve and provide commerce to our great nation."

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) responded during floor debate that the minority did not make the language of the amendment available for the majority's review until just before submitting it, and thus he could not make comments, adding that the House should not amend port security policy "on 30 seconds notice."

"There may be very good and valid provisions of this motion to recommit that we might very well be in support of, but only in due course, only in a proper forum," Oberstar said, adding that Cantor couldn't even answer his questions about the precise nature of the amendment. "I object to the procedure that has been followed, not perhaps to the substance of it."

Despite Oberstar's objections, Republicans scored a rare parliamentary victory and successfully sent the measure back to the Transportation panel with instructions to add Cantor's amendment. The House then adopted Cantor's amendment by voice vote.

By a vote of 359-56, the motion to recommit with instructions was agreed to and thus the bill to provide federal- and state-backed loans to municipalities to prevent water pollution was amended to bar certain felons from boarding ships with a transportation-worker identification card.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Assisting Crime Impacted Communities
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
Y N Lost
Roll Call 133
Mar 09, 2007
H.R. 720 (Water Quality Financing Act), Baker of Louisiana amendment to strike the provision in the bill applying Davis-Bacon local wage parity requirements to wastewater construction projects financed with non-federal funds/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation authorizing $16 billion for a federal and state revolving fund to help local governments fight water pollution. The amendment, offered by Rep. Richard Baker (R-La.), sought to remove the portion of the bill that would require the wastewater construction projects funded through the bill to abide by the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that workers on federally-funded construction projects receive locally prevailing wages and benefits which is generally defined to mean the wages received by unionized workers in the area.

Unamended, the legislation would expand the reach of that law to include wastewater construction projects paid for with non-federal funds. The White House threatened to veto the bill over the Davis-Bacon language.

State and locals governments pressed Congress to reauthorize the revolving fund, which matches federal and state contributions to provide low-interest loans for construction of wastewater treatment facilities and other projects designed to reduce pollution, but Baker and other Republicans maintained that the local governments could not afford the construction projects if the Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirements were included. Republicans such as Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) claimed that the inclusion of the language was a giveaway to labor interests at the expense of the American people.

Democrats said the language was pro-family and pro-worker, and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said the provision was "fair and appropriate."

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said the Davis-Bacon provisions prevent lower-cost out-of-state contractors from having an unfair ability to compete for local publicly funded construction, and thereby "protects local interests and construction workers."

Democrats were unanimous in their opposition to the amendment, and 50 Republicans joined all 230 Democrats present in voting against it. Thus, by a vote of 140-280, a bill authorizing funding for a revolving fund to help finance local wastewater projects went forward without an amendment that would strike a provision in the bill requiring that the workers on such projects receive locally prevailing wages.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 132
Mar 09, 2007
H. Res. 229, providing for consideration of a bill (H.R. 720) to authorize funds for state water pollution control/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for legislation to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize $14 billion over the next 5 years to local agencies to fight water pollution, and an additional $2 billion from fiscal 2008 through 2012 for three other existing clean-water Environmental Protection Agency programs.

State and locals governments pressed Congress to reauthorize the revolving fund, which matches federal and state contributions to provide low-interest loans for construction of wastewater treatment facilities and other projects designed to reduce pollution.

The rules for debate include how much floor time is granted to each side and which amendments are considered in order. The resolution is thus commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. The six amendments pre-approved by the Rules Committee included three each to be offered by Republicans and Democrats.

The bill was opposed by the White House and many House Republicans because it included language expanding the scope of federal prevailing-wage requirements. Republicans wanted to offer more amendments than were allowed to strip or alter this provision. Republicans opposed Democratic attempts to expand the scope of the Davis-Bacon wage law, which mandates that workers on federally-funded construction projects receive locally prevailing wages and benefits. The legislation would expand the reach of that law to include wastewater construction projects paid for with non-federal funds. The White House threatened to veto the bill because of the wage provision.

Democrats said the language was pro-family and pro-worker, and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said the provision was "fair and appropriate."

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said the provision would actually hurt the very people Democrats said they were trying to protect - the least advantaged - because their communities would not be able to afford the projects with the Davis-Bacon wage requirements. "If you support fiscal responsibility, small business, States' rights, rural communities, women- and minority-owned businesses, and the environment, you will join with me in opposing this rule," Sessions said.

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) complained that the Rules Committee did not allow his amendments to exempt certain rural and disadvantaged communities from the Davis-Bacon requirements and to give "our small communities a chance to access these funds."

"Sure, we don't agree on Davis-Bacon, and having an up-and-down vote is fine, but that is a political vote. We are all frozen in our positions," Boustany said. "But we could have taken a chance to protect our small and disadvantaged communities by creating some exemptions.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said that just the opposite is true. "The Davis-Bacon Act prevents lower-cost out-of-state contractors from having an unfair ability to compete for local publicly funded construction, which protects local interests and construction workers."

The rules for debate passed on a party-line vote, 229-179, with nine Republicans joining all but two Democrats present in voting for the resolution. Thus, a measure outlining the rules for debate for a bill to authorize funds for state water pollution control passed the House, making way for the legislation to move to the floor.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 131
Mar 08, 2007
H. Res. 202, providing for House committee expenses in the 110th Congress/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on passage of a $280 million resolution to fund the operations of 20 committees during the 110th Congress, a 7.4 percent overall increase over committee spending over the most recent two-year Congress. The most controversial elements of the measure were funding for a new select committee to investigate the threats of global warming and the level of funding for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, also known as the ethics committee.

The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming was a priority of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.). Even though the panel does not have legislative authority and instead is designed simply to make recommendations, it faced some opposition in both parties. Republican opposition was centered both on the party's skepticism of policies to reduce greenhouse gases generally and objections as to how the panel was created (through a parliamentary maneuver embedded in the rules for debate of the committee funding resolution, see Roll Call 127). Some Democratic chairman of existing committees with jurisdiction over the issue of climate change were worried that the new panel would trample on their turf, although Pelosi was able to earn their support before the vote on the resolution.

The ranking Republican member on Rules Committee, Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), said the process was "outrageous," as he said Republicans had been shut out of the discussions. Republicans also indicated that the money for the panel ($3.7 million over the next two years) would be better spent on the ethics committee.

Dreier said during floor debate that while most committees can get by with a "very modest increase" of 2.6 percent over their funding levels during the 109th Congress (the amount of increase when the new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee's funding is not included in that percentage), the ethics committee "absolutely cannot."

The House Committee on Standards and Official Conduct was slated to receive $5 million under the resolution, a small increase over the previous Congress but $1 million less than the committee requested. Democrats defended the funding levels as adequate and reflective of the difficult choices foisted upon them by the ever-growing federal deficit.

In the rules package for the 110th Congress, the House imposed on the ethics committee "substantial new responsibilities," Dreier said. "And they are still in a position where they have to now provide timely advice to every single Member who makes a request for the application of this rule," in addition to the committee's obligation to investigate "allegations of wrongdoing whenever they do occur," Dreier added.

The panel, he said, has already fallen behind. "Appropriation season is well under way, and we have absolutely no guidance whatsoever about the new ethics standards for earmarks. We have new travel and gift rules, but those regulations created as many questions as they answered," Dreier continued.

"Today we'll see where Democrats' true priorities lie," added Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas).

An angry Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), who chairs the ethics committee, responded: "You're not going to use my committee on the floor," said, accusing Sessions of political gamesmanship and leaving the House floor in haste.

The resolution funding House committees, including funding for a new committee on climate change, passed the House by 269-150. All but one Democrat voted for the funding measure, and 44 Republicans broke ranks to support the resolution. Thus, House committees were granted $280 million for operating costs for the next two years.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
Y Y Won
Roll Call 128
Mar 08, 2007
H.R. 700 (Healthy Communities Water Supply Act), Price of Georgia amendment to require offsets to the bill's cost in other parts of the federal budget/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a clean-water bill that would revive a $125 million pilot program aimed at developing alternative water sources. The legislation would provide grants to local governments, water agencies and non-governmental organizations.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) proposed an amendment that would have required the bill to include fiscal offsets in other parts of the federal budget so that there would be no net increase in the federal budget. Price said his amendment was a matter of "responsibility." Price also proposed a similar amendment to another piece of water-quality legislation that would have required that cost of that bill to be offset, as well. (See Roll Call 123.)

"For some in this Chamber, $125 million may not be very much money," Price said in a floor speech, "but for folks in my district, and I suspect for folks around this Nation, $125 million is a lot of money."

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) responded that Price's amendment mixes up the issue of authorization of appropriations.

All federal programs must be authorized before money is appropriated for them. This bill was such an authorization, and thus no money was to be appropriated at this time. The amendment, however, would require that any authorization find a corresponding offset in the federal budget, regardless of whether the program ever receives any funding. Democrats maintained that any provision to require offsets (also known as pay-as-you-go rules) should be debated as part of the funding bill itself, not in the legislation to authorize it.

"This is an authorization committee, and actual funding of these programs through the appropriations process, which is where this will be more appropriate," Johnson said. "This amendment would require that any authorization of appropriations be considered with corresponding offsets regardless of whether the program ever receives any funding. It is possible that it won't.

"This is an inappropriate limitation on the ability of Congress to address the needs of the Nation," she added.

Price responded that his amendment would require Congress to find offsets only if "there should be money spent for these grant projects." Regardless, he said, adopting his amendment would put the House on record that any appropriations that would result from the bill should be offset.

A majority of the House did not agree. By a vote of 176-256, lawmakers defeated his amendment. Only one Democrat joined with 175 Republicans in voting for it, and 22 Republicans crossed party lines to vote against it. Thus, a clean-water bill that would revive a $125 million pilot program aimed at developing alternative water sources went forward without a provision to require future appropriations to be offset by cutting other programs.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Won
Roll Call 127
Mar 08, 2007
H. Res. 219, providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 202) providing for House committee expenses in the 110th Congress/On ordering the previous question

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This resolution outlined the rules for debate for a measure to provide $276.4 million to fund the operations of 20 committees during the 110th Congress, a 7.4 percent overall increase over committee spending over the most recent two-year Congress. More controversially, the measure also would create a new select committee to investigate the threats of global warming.

The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming was a priority of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.). In order not to threaten the turfs of existing House chairman, Pelosi set up the committee as an advisory panel that lacks legislative authority. Many Republicans opposed it on general grounds of the party's skepticism of legislation to reduce greenhouse gases. Additionally, some Democratic chairman of existing committees with jurisdiction over the issue of climate change were worried that the new panel would trample on their authority.

Due to this opposition from both Republicans and within her own party, Pelosi chose to create the panel through a parliamentary maneuver: putting the provision in a rule governing debate of a measure funding House committees (including staff pay and office expenses).

"Simply put, people the world over can breathe easier, because this resolution will institutionalize the commitment of the House of Representatives to confronting global warming," said Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.).

The ranking Republican member on the panel, Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), said the process was "outrageous," as he said Republicans had been shut out of the discussions. Republicans also indicated that the money for the panel ($3.7 million over the next two years) would be better spent on the ethics committee.

"Today we'll see where Democrats' true priorities lie," said Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas).

An angry Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), who chairs the ethics committee, responded: "You're not going to use my committee on the floor," said, accusing Sessions of political gamesmanship and leaving the House floor in haste.

The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is slated to receive $5 million under the resolution, a small increase over the previous Congress but $1 million less than the committee requested. Democrats defended the funding levels as adequate and reflective of the difficult choices foisted upon them by the ever-growing federal deficit.

This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case for this vote, and only one lawmaker from each party broke ranks, and the motion passed 228-195. Thus, a measure outlining rules for debate on a resolution providing for committee expenses for the 110th Congress was passed with a provision creating a new select committee on climate change.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
Y Y Won
Roll Call 123
Mar 07, 2007
H.R. 569 (Water Quality Investment Act), Price of Georgia amendment that would prohibit the bill's authorization levels from taking effect unless the cost of those provisions would be offset /On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a $1.7 billion to replace aging sewer systems over five years. The legislation would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize grants to help local governments increase municipal sewer overflow controls and prevent untreated sewage from being dumped into rivers and other public areas.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) proposed an amendment that would have required the bill to include fiscal offsets by spending reductions or revenue-increasing measures in other parts of the federal budget.

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said during a floor speech supporting the bill that over 700 cities around the country have what are known as combined sewer overflow systems, which means they collect wastewater and storm runoff in the same pipes and do not have the capacity of more modern infrastructure. During heavy storms, they often back up and overflow, sending untreated wastewater into the streets and rivers.

"Raw sewage seeps into basements, public parks and other areas where young children play. Public health is severely impacted," Matsui said, and not investing in these upgrades could create a public health problem far more expensive.

Price didn't disagree with the need for the bill in a speech on the House floor, just how Congress was going to fund it. His amendment would have required that any new spending authorized in this bill would be required to be offset to make it so that there would be no net increase in federal spending.

"It is a matter of accountability," Price said.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) responded that Price's amendment "confuses the issue of authorization of appropriations and actual funding of these programs through the appropriations process."

All federal programs must be authorized before money is appropriated for them. This bill is such an authorization, and thus no money was to be appropriated at this time. According to Johnson, Price's amendment would require that any authorization find a corresponding offset in the federal budget, regardless of whether the program ever receives any funding. Democrats maintained that any provision to require offsets (also known as pay-as-you-go rules) should be debated as part of the funding bill itself, not in the program to authorize it.

Price responded that adopting his amendment would put the House on record that any money that would result from the bill should be offset.

A majority of the House did not agree. By a vote of 166-260, lawmakers defeated his amendment. Only one Democrat joined with 165 Republicans in voting for it, and 32 Republicans crossed party lines to vote against it. Thus, the $1.7 billion legislation to replace aging sewer systems went forward without a provision to require future appropriations to be offset by cutting other programs or raising taxes.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Won
Roll Call 118
Mar 01, 2007
H.R. 800 The Employee Free Choice Act/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Perhaps the most dramatic indication yet of how the new Democratic Congress intends to distinguish itself from more than a decade of Republican control, the House passed a sweeping labor reform bill that would make it easier for unions to organize. The bill passed with almost unanimous support from Democrats, with additional votes from moderate Republicans. Democrats successfully beat back a handful of amendments authored by Republicans that Democratic leaders said would essentially have gutted the bill. Republicans failed in their strategy to peel off enough moderate Democrats to weaken portions of the bill most anathema to business interests. Overall, the legislation would make it easier for workers to join unions by requiring employers to recognize a new union through what's commonly known as a card-check procedure. Under current law, if a majority of workers within a given organization sign union cards to organize themselves, the union is only formed after employer consent. Instead of doing so, companies often steer the election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a process that makes it considerably difficult for a union to be recognized. The legislation mandates that companies recognize unionizing efforts among their workers if a majority of employees sign cards supporting the union. The business lobby, with a heavy push by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such a requirement effectively ends secret balloting in union elections, as the cards do not have to be collected blindly, and opens up the possibility of labor unions coercing employees. Labor interests countered that such a change is necessary because the current system allows employers to coerce workers away from unions and to hold up legitimate organizing efforts for years. Several moderate Republicans, under heavy pressure from their leadership to vote against the bill, said that the bill's compromise of the secret ballot is what ultimately determined their "no" votes. "There are parts that I would like to see move forward and I very much support," including tougher penalties for companies that violate the law, said Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.). But for Diaz-Balart, as for Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) , the secret ballot was tantamount. "I believe strongly in that fundamental right" to join a union, Capito said, "but I also believe that the right to a secret ballot is just as important." Ultimately, 13 Republicans joined 228 Democrats in voting to make it easier for workers to join a union. Two Democrats joined ranks with 183 Republicans in voting against the measure. The bill thus passed by a vote of 241-185, and moved to the Senate. The president also threatened to veto the measure.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Won
Roll Call 117
Mar 01, 2007
H R 800 The Employee Free Choice Act/On motion to recommit with instructions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote represented a last-ditch effort by Republicans to alter a bill to make it easier for workers to join unions before the legislation headed to a final vote. The overall bill would require employers to recognize a new union through what's commonly known as a card-check procedure. Under current law, if a majority of workers within a given organization sign union cards to organize themselves, the union is only formed if the employer consents to its formation. Instead of doing so, companies often steer the election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a process that makes it considerably more difficult for a union to be recognized. The legislation would mandate that companies recognize unionizing efforts among their workers if a majority of employees sign cards supporting the union. The business lobby, with a heavy push by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such a requirement would effectively end secret balloting in union elections, as the cards do not have to be collected blindly, and would open up the possibility of labor unions coercing employees. Labor interests countered that such a change is necessary because the current system allows employers to coerce workers away from unions and to hold up legitimate organizing efforts for years. In the majority-drafted rules of debate, which passed by a separate vote, Democrats permitted Republicans to offer three amendments, all three of which failed. One of those amendments, offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), would have required the NLRB to allow employees to put their names on a "do not call" list if they didn't want to be contacted by union organizers. A largely symbolic vote, a motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. All but eight Republicans voted to send the bill back to committee with specific directions to include the minority's amendments. And although Republicans picked up 13 Democratic "ayes," it was insufficient to pass the motion to recommit, and the effort thus failed by a vote of 202-225. The failure of the motion to recommit meant that Republicans were shut out of their attempts to amend the measure in the House, and legislation making it easier for unions to organize headed for final passage without House Republicans' desired changes.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Won
Roll Call 116
Mar 01, 2007
H.R. 800 (Employee Union Card Check), Republican amendment in the nature of a substitute that would prohibit the recognition of a union by the card check method and require that unions be recognized only after secret ballot elections/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a substitute amendment to a bill aiming to make it easier for workers to join unions. Substitute amendments attempt to replace the text of a bill in its entirely with different language. It is a procedural tactic often used by the minority to put forth its own version of legislation.

The bill Republicans were seeking to change would require employers to recognize a new union through what's commonly known as a card-check procedure. Under current law, if a majority of workers within a given organization sign union cards to organize themselves, the union is only formed if the employer consents to its formation. Instead of doing so, companies often steer the election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a process that makes it considerably more difficult for a union to be recognized because the union has to win an election in which it is opposed by the employers,, which hire skilled consultants to wage antiunion campaigns.

The legislation would mandate that companies recognize unionizing efforts among their workers if a majority of employees sign cards supporting the union. The business lobby, with a heavy push by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such a requirement would effectively end secret balloting in union elections, as the cards do not have to be collected blindly, and would open up the possibility of labor unions coercing employees. Labor interests countered that such a change is necessary because the current system allows employers to coerce workers away from unions and to hold up legitimate organizing efforts for years.

In this vote, Republicans were seeking to change the bill to prohibit the recognition of a union by the card check method and require that a union be recognized and certified only after a secret ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. The amendment was proposed by Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.).

The amendment in the nature of a substitute failed on a vote of 173-256. All but one Democrat present voted against it, and 26 Republicans joined 230 Democrats in defeating the amendment. Thus, a bill to make it easier for employees to organize themselves in unions proceeded without provisions making that effort more difficult for employees.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Won
Roll Call 115
Mar 01, 2007
H.R. 800 (Employee Union Card Check), Foxx of North Carolina amendment that would allow employees to be put on a "do not call or contact" list to avoid solicitation by a union/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill aiming to make it easier for workers to join unions. Offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the language would require the National Labor Relations Board to promulgate standards so that an employee could request to be on a "do not call or contact" list to avoid solicitation by a union.

The bill Foxx was seeking to change would require employers to recognize a new union through what's commonly known as a card-check procedure. Under current law, if a majority of workers within a given organization sign union cards to organize themselves, the union is only formed if the employer consents to its formation. Instead of doing so, companies often steer the election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a process that makes it considerably more difficult for a union to be recognized because the union has to win an election in which it is opposed by the employers, which hire skilled consultants to wage antiunion campaigns.

The legislation would mandate that companies recognize unionizing efforts among their workers if a majority of employees sign cards supporting the union. The business lobby, with a heavy push by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such a requirement would effectively end secret balloting in union elections, as the cards do not have to be collected blindly, and would open up the possibility of labor unions coercing employees. Labor interests countered that such a change is necessary because the current system allows employers to coerce workers away from unions and to hold up legitimate organizing efforts for years.

Foxx's amendment failed on a vote of 173-256. All but two Democrats present voted against it, and 26 Republicans joined 230 Democrats in defeating the amendment. Thus, a bill to make it easier for employees to organize themselves in unions proceeded without provisions allowing employees to be put on a "do not call or contact" list to avoid solicitation by a union.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Won
Roll Call 114
Mar 01, 2007
H.R. 800 (Employee Union Card Check), King of Iowa amendment that would provide that employers are not required to hire individuals seeking employment for the sole purpose of organizing other employees into a union/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill aiming to make it easier for workers to join unions. Offered by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the language would provide that employers are not required to hire individuals seeking employment for the sole purpose of organizing other employees into a union, a practice known as "salting."

The bill King was seeking to change would require employers to recognize a new union through what's commonly known as a card-check procedure. Under current law, if a majority of workers within a given organization sign union cards to organize themselves, the union is only formed if the employer consents to its formation. Instead of doing so, companies often steer the election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a process that makes it considerably more difficult for a union to be recognized because the union has to win an election in which it is opposed by the employers, which hire skilled consultants to wage antiunion campaigns. The legislation would mandate that companies recognize unionizing efforts among their workers if a majority of employees sign cards supporting the union.

Generally, Republicans oppose more expansive collective bargaining rights and many within the party support a rollback of laws guaranteeing workers have the right to join unions. Democrats are generally supportive of such rights and support their expansion.

King's amendment failed on a vote of 164-264. All but two Democrats present voted against it, and 34 Republicans joined 230 Democrats in defeating the amendment. Thus, a bill to make it easier for employees to organize themselves in unions proceeded without language allowing employers to refuse to hire individuals seeking employment for the sole purpose of organizing other employees into a union.


LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Won
Roll Call 113
Mar 01, 2007
H. Res. 203 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote determined the rules for debate on a bill to make it easier for workers to join unions. In order for legislation to be taken up in the House, the chamber decides on ground rules for which amendments will be considered in order and how much time will be allotted each side for debate. The rules package, as it is known, is drafted by the majority-dominated Rules Committee. The bill in question makes significant changes to existing labor law and would require employers to recognize a new union through what's commonly known as a card-check procedure. Under current law, if a majority of workers within a given organization sign union cards to organize themselves, the union is only formed if the employer consents to its formation. Instead of doing so, companies often steer the election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a process that makes it considerably more difficult for a union to be recognized. The legislation would mandate that companies recognize unionizing efforts among their workers if a majority of employees sign cards supporting the union. The business lobby, with a heavy push by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such a requirement would effectively end secret balloting in union elections, as the cards do not have to be collected blindly, and would open up the possibility of labor unions coercing employees. Labor interests countered that such a change is necessary because the current system allows employers to coerce workers away from unions and to hold up legitimate organizing efforts for years. In the majority-drafted rules package, Democrats permitted Republicans to offer three amendments. One of those amendments, offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) would have required the NLRB to allow employees to put their names on a "do not call" list if they didn't want to be contacted by union organizers. Votes on rules packages are usually party-line affairs, with the majority party voting in favor of the rules it drafted, and the minority party voting against it. Such was the case in this vote, with every Democrat present voting for the resolution and all Republicans present but one voting against it. (Rep. John McHugh was the lone dissenter among Republicans; his New York district has a heavy labor presence.) The rules package thus passed by a vote of 230-195, and the bill to make it easier for unions to organize was subsequently brought to the floor.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Won
Roll Call 112
Mar 01, 2007
H. Res. 203 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act/On ordering the previous question

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was a procedural precursor to a vote that would determine the rules for debate on a bill to make it easier for workers to join unions. In order for legislation to be taken up in the house, the chamber decides on ground rules for which amendments will be considered in order and how much time will be allotted to each side for debate. The rules package, as it is known, is drafted by the majority-dominated Rules Committee. The bill in question would make significant changes to existing labor law and would require employers to recognize a new union through what's commonly known as a card-check procedure. Under current law, if a majority of workers within a given organization sign union cards to organize themselves, the union is only formed if the employer consents to its formation. Instead of doing so, companies often steer the election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a process that makes it considerably more difficult for a union to be recognized. The legislation would mandate that companies recognize unionizing efforts among their workers if a majority of employees sign cards supporting the union. The business lobby, with a heavy push by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such a requirement would effectively end secret balloting in union elections, as the cards do not have to be collected blindly, and would open up the possibility of labor unions coercing employees. Labor interests countered that such a change is necessary because the current system allows employers to coerce workers away from unions and to hold up legitimate organizing efforts for years. In the majority-drafted rules package, Democrats permitted Republicans to offer three amendments. One of those amendments, offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), would have required the NLRB to allow employees to put their names on a "do not call" list if they didn't want to be contacted by union organizers. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all Democrats present voted for it, and the motion passed 228-197. Thus, Democrats effectively shut down Republican objections to the rules package, and a bill making it easier for unions to organize came one step closer to floor consideration.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Won
Roll Call 109
Feb 28, 2007
H.R. 556 The National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act/On motion to recommit with instructions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote dealt with a bill attempting to improve the security review required for foreign investments in the United States. A similar measure was first introduced last year after it was reported that the Bush administration had approved a deal allowing Dubai Ports World - a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates - to manage six of the largest ports in the United States. The deal was approved with minimal review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). It went forward despite security concerns raised by the Homeland Security Department and without the input of key cabinet officials. (After widespread criticism of the way the deal was approved, Dubai Ports World eventually withdrew its bid.) This bill attempted to rectify those perceived security gaps by formalizing the role of the director of national intelligence in the CFIUS process, ensuring senior officials are involved in approving transactions and establishing more formal communications between the executive branch and Congress in order for the latter to provide adequate oversight. Although there was virtually no opposition to the general framework of the legislation, many Republicans protested the fact that they were prevented from offering their own amendments. Some Republican proposals dealt with the main thrust of the bill, such as three offered by Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) that incorporated suggestions by the White House to eliminate a requirement that CFIUS members approve deals by roll call vote. "Currently, the different agencies that make up the CFIUS committee work as a team until they arrive at a consensus view," Davis said during floor debate. "It is my understanding that the committee does not take roll call votes agency-by-agency on each transaction deal that is examined. The current CFIUS approach is much more holistic and fosters a team effort." This vote was on a Republican motion to recommit, which would have sent the bill back to committee with instructions to add the Republican-backed provisions. A largely symbolic vote, a motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. All 226 Democrats presented voted against the motion to recommit, and all but three Republicans present voted for it. Thus, with a vote of 193-229, the measure failed. The bill then moved to a final vote, and it passed unanimously, demonstrating that Republican's objections to the details of the bill were not enough to prevent them from voting for a politically popular measure. Other Republican amendments highlighted issues, not related to national security, that Republicans believe serve to discourage foreign investment, such as tax, legal and regulatory burdens. The failure of the motion to recommit meant that Republicans in the House were shut out of their attempts to amend legislation to strengthen the process for national security reviews of foreign investments in the United States. The bill headed to the Senate.


WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
N N Won
Roll Call 108
Feb 28, 2007
H.R. 556 (National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act), McCaul of Texas amendment to require annual reporting on the number of jobs in the United States related to foreign investment/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill attempting to improve the security review required for foreign investments in the United States. The amendment, offered by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), would require the annual report to Congress by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to include a detailed annual reporting on the number of jobs in the United States related to foreign investment.

The bill to which McCaul was seeking to amend was prompted by reports in 2006 that the Bush administration had approved a deal allowing Dubai Ports World - a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates - to manage six of the largest ports in the United States. The deal was approved with minimal review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). (After widespread criticism of the way the deal was approved, Dubai Ports World eventually withdrew its bid.)

McCaul said his amendment would improve the oversight requirements included in the underlying bill and would allow Congress to be better informed on how future legislation would affect foreign investment.

"It is hard for me to conceive why the Congress wouldn't want this kind of information in evaluating our national security policies as they relate to economics," McCaul continued, adding that it was difficult for him "to differentiate and dissect how national security is not impacted by our economic security and economic viability."

Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) replied, "The gentleman said he is unable to differentiate. I agree. He asked why don't I want this information. Mr. Chairman, I want lunch too, but I am not asking CFIUS to bring it to me.

"We want these people to thoroughly vet whether or not there is a purchase by foreign investors in America that could lead to national security issues in the narrow definition," Frank said, adding that lots of things were important to national security, but this bill was not the venue to debate them. He called the series of amendments McCaul offered to the bill a "diversion."

By a vote of 197-231, the amendment failed on a party-line vote. Two Democrats and two Republicans didn't vote with their respective parties, but otherwise Republicans supported McCaul's effort, and Democrats near unanimously opposed it. Thus, the House defeated an amendment to require annual reporting on the number of jobs in the United States related to foreign investment, and a bill to improve the security review required for foreign investments in the United States proceeded without the provision.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Won
Roll Call 107
Feb 28, 2007
H.R. 556 (National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act), McCaul of Texas amendment to require annual reporting on the amount of regulation in the United States compared to other countries/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill attempting to improve the security review required for foreign investments in the United States. The amendment, offered by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), would require the annual report to Congress by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to include a detailed discussion of the amount of regulation in the United States as compared to other countries.

The bill to which McCaul was seeking to amend was prompted by reports in 2006 that the Bush administration had approved a deal allowing Dubai Ports World - a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates - to manage six of the largest ports in the United States. The deal was approved with minimal review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). (After widespread criticism of the way the deal was approved, Dubai Ports World eventually withdrew its bid.)

McCaul said his amendment would improve the oversight requirements included in the underlying bill and would allow Congress to be better informed on how future legislation would affect foreign investment.

"The underlying bill again is about foreign investment," McCaul said on the House floor. "I believe foreign investment affects national security. Issues relating to taxation and regulation certainly impact the foreign investments that are made both in this country and outside."

Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said the amendment was not relevant to the bill. He called the series of amendments McCaul offered to the bill a "diversion."

"The fact is that if you define everything as national security, you really can't do the piece by piece that you want to," Frank said. The amendment, Frank said, was basically a requirement that the administration undertake an annual study on the effect of regulation on business. That discussion had no place in this debate, which is why the White House opposed it, Frank added.

By a vote of 197-231, the amendment failed on a party-line vote. Three Democrats and three Republicans didn't vote with their respective parties, but otherwise Republicans supported McCaul's effort, and Democrats near unanimously opposed it. Thus, the House defeated an amendment to require annual reporting on the amount of regulation in the United States, and a bill to improve the security review required for foreign investments in the United States proceeded without the provision.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Won
Roll Call 106
Feb 28, 2007
H.R. 556 (National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act), McCaul of Texas amendment to require annual reporting on the effective rate of taxation on entrepreneurs and businesses compared to other countries/On agreeing to the amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to a bill attempting to improve the security review required for foreign investments in the United States. The amendment, offered by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), would require the annual report to Congress by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to include a detailed discussion of the effective rate of taxation on entrepreneurs and businesses in the United States compared to other countries.

The bill to which McCaul was seeking to amend was prompted by reports in 2006 that the Bush administration had approved a deal allowing Dubai Ports World -- a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates -- to manage six of the largest ports in the United States. The deal was approved with minimal review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). (After widespread criticism of the way the deal was approved, Dubai Ports World eventually withdrew its bid.)

McCaul said his amendment would improve the oversight requirements included in the underlying bill and would allow Congress to be better informed on how future legislation would affect foreign investment.

"The underlying bill is about how foreign investment affects national security, and there is no way to understand why foreign investments would be made here, or what it would do to our economy, without understanding the economic factors such as taxes," McCaul said during floor debate.

Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said aligning the amendment to the overall intent of the legislation took "ingenuity."

"This is a requirement that the administration do a report about taxation as it affects business," Frank said, adding that McCaul only tied it to foreign investment in order to meet restrictions that any amendments be germane (relevant) to the bill. "This is a call for an annual report on the effective taxation on business," Frank continued, calling the amendment a "diversion."

Frank further pointed out that the White House did not support the amendment, as all parties concerned wanted to keep the bill narrowly targeted to deal with the national security implications of foreign investment.

Generally, however, Republicans are opposed to what they believe are excessive taxation on businesses, and so this amendment allowed them a venue to express displeasure at the current tax structure in the United States.

On a party-line vote, the House voted down the amendment. All but one Republican voted for it, and all but two Democrats voted against it, with a final tally of 198-228. Thus, the House defeated an amendment to require annual reporting on the effective rate of taxation on entrepreneurs and businesses, and a bill to improve the security review required for foreign investments in the United States proceeded without the provision.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Won
Roll Call 101
Feb 16, 2007
H. Res. 161, providing for consideration of small-business tax bill under suspension of the rules/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote determined whether a small-business tax relief bill would be taken up under suspension of the normal rules in the House. Suspension of the rules is saved for relatively noncontroversial legislation that is all but assured of passage. Suspending the rules means that the measure can't be amended and debate is limited to forty minutes on each side. Bills taken up under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds majority for passage.

Republicans criticized Democrats for using the expedited procedure to move the bill quickly through the House, as doing so prevented Republicans from being able to offer so much as a procedural motion. Republicans were upset at the limited scope of the tax breaks and wanted a change to offer more expansive tax relief for small businesses.

Republicans were opposed to bringing up the measure under suspension of the rules, which permits expeditious passage, because of their underlying opposition to the minimum wage hike, which they said would hurt small businesses.

The small-business tax break package was actually part of an elaborate dance between the House, the Senate and the White House over a bill to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour over the next two years. The House passed a minimum wage bill in January that fell short of the 60 votes necessary to end debate and pass Senate. Republicans in the Senate wanted to include amendments giving tax breaks to small businesses, which Republicans insist will be hard-hit by an increase in the minimum wage.

Since all bills dealing with revenue (which includes tax measures) are constitutionally required to originate in the House, the legislative process had to begin anew in that chamber. This small-business tax relief bill was understood in both chambers as the likely vehicle for a Senate-passed version of the legislation that would eventually include both a minimum wage hike and tax breaks for small businesses. Differences in the House and Senate's respective versions then would be worked out in conference committee.

By a strict party-line vote of 220-184 the House passed the rules package for the small business tax relief bill and thus made way for the legislation to be taken up expeditiously under suspension of the rules.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 100
Feb 16, 2007
H. Res. 161, providing for floor consideration of a small-business tax bill (H.R. 976) under suspension of the rules/On ordering the previous question

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote dealt with the rules for debate for a $1.3 billion package of small-business tax breaks. More specifically, the vote was on a parliamentary procedure to end debate as to whether the House would take up the legislation under suspension of normal rules.

The small-business tax break package was actually part of an elaborate dance between the House, the Senate and the White House over a bill to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour over the next two years. The House passed a minimum wage bill in January that fell short of the 60 votes necessary to end debate and pass Senate. Republicans in the Senate wanted to include amendments giving tax breaks to small businesses, which Republicans insist will be hard-hit by an increase in the minimum wage.

Since all bills dealing with revenue (which includes tax measures) are constitutionally required to originate in the House, the legislative process had to begin anew in that chamber. This small-business tax relief bill was understood in both chambers as the likely vehicle for a Senate-passed version of the legislation that would eventually include both a minimum wage hike and tax breaks for small businesses. Differences in the House and Senate's respective versions then were expected to be worked out in conference committee.

The question at hand was whether the House would take the bill up under what's known as suspension of the rules, basically a time-saving method used for relatively noncontroversial legislation that is all but assured of passage. Suspending the rules means that the measure can't be amended and debate is limited to forty minutes on each side. Bills taken up under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds majority for passage.

Republicans were opposed to bringing up the measure under suspension of the rules, which permits expeditious passage, because of their underlying opposition to the minimum wage hike, which they said would hurt small businesses.

This vote - which needed a simple majority to pass -- was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration, in this case the "rules package" for the small-business tax bill. If the motion had been defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present but one voted against the measure and all Democrats present but five voted for it, and the motion passed 218-188. Thus, a measure outlining the rules of consideration for taking up a small-business tax relief bill under suspension of the rules passed the House on a party-line vote, brining the legislation one step closer to consideration in the House.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 99
Feb 16, 2007
H Con. Res. 63. Disapproving of President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on a nonbinding measure criticizing President Bush's stated intention to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by more than 20,000. The resolution, put forth by the Democrats, expressed support for the troops currently serving in Iraq as well as those who have previously served there while also disapproving of Bush's plan to increase troop levels. House Republicans wanted to offer an alternative to the Democrats' resolution in the form of a binding measure that would have established benchmarks for improving the security situation in Iraq to be overseen by a bipartisan panel. The Democratic leadership said that since the majority of Americans oppose the troop surge, the House should reflect that clarity by simply offering one resolution opposing it. The question, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said, is a simple one: "Do you support the escalation of troops in Iraq?" The House Republican leadership argued that the language would have a demoralizing effect on the troops in combat while also emboldening enemies of the United States. Republicans also criticized the resolution as a likely first attempt to cut off funding for military personnel in the field, an accusation that Hoyer said was flatly untrue. In the end, 17 Republicans joined all but two Democrats in voting for the resolution, and the measure passed 246-182. Thus a resolution criticizing Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq by more than 20,000 passed the House with a clear majority, making clear that the House does not support Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. The Senate had plans to take up a similar measure the following day.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 97
Feb 13, 2007
H. Res. 157 Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res 63) disapproving President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq/On agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote laid out the rules for debate for a nonbinding measure criticizing President Bush's intention to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by more than 20,000. This resolution, often referred to as a "rules package," outlined the rules for consideration for how the resolution to send more troops to Iraq would be taken up on the House floor. It dictated how much time each side will be given for debate, and more importantly, what amendments or alternatives would be considered in order. House Republicans wanted to offer an alternative to the Democrats' resolution in the form of a binding measure that would have established benchmarks for progess in improving the security situation in Iraq to be overseen by a bipartisan panel. The Democratic leadership said that since the majority of Americans oppose sending additional troops to Iraq, the House should reflect that clarity by simply offering one resolution opposing it. The question, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said, is a simple one: "Do you support the escalation of troops in Iraq?" The resolution put forth by the Democrats expresses support for the troops currently serving in Iraq as well as those who have previously served there while also disapproving of Bush's plan to increase troop levels. The House Republican leadership argued that the language would have a demoralizing effect on the troops in combat while also emboldening the country's enemies. Republicans also criticized the resolution as a likely first attempt to cut off funding for military personnel in the field, an accusation that Hoyer said was flatly untrue. In the end, four Republicans joined all but one Democrat in voting for the rules package, and the measure passed 232-192. Thus a resolution criticizing Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq by more than 20,000 moved forward towards a final up-or-down vote.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 96
Feb 13, 2007
H. Res. 157 Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) disapproving of President Bush's plan to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq/Ordering the previous question

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was a procedural attempt by Republicans to bring up alternative language to a Democratic resolution expressing disapproval of President Bush's plan to send more than 20,00 more troops to Iraq. The alternative proposal, drafted by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), was a nonbinding resolution stating that Congress would not vote to restrict or cut off funding for troops already deployed in Iraq. A motion ordering the previous question is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, in this case Johnson. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present but one voted against the measure and all Democrats present but one voted for it, and the motion passed 227-197. Thus, a Republican procedural maneuver attempting to force consideration of a resolution stating that Congress wouldn't vote to cut off funding for troops in Iraq failed. The House then proceeded with a Democratic proposal to express disapproval of Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 91
Feb 08, 2007
Advanced Fuels Research and Development Act (H.R. 547)/Motion to recommit to the Science and Technology Committee with instructions to add coal-based liquids to a list of "alternative fuels" promoted in the underlying legislation

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote represented a Republican attempt to modify legislation to authorize $10 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency to research how to make alternative fuels more compatible with the nations existing petroleum-based fuel infrastructure. Offered using a parliamentary maneuver called a motion to recommit, the move would have sent the bill back to the Science and Technology Committee with instructions to include coal-based liquids in a bill promoting "biofuels" and change the measure's terminology instead to "alternative fuels."

The underlying legislation directs the federal government to help retailers make the infrastructure changes necessary to transition to biofuels. The bill would instruct the EPA to investigate additives and other technologies to ease such issues. The legislation would also direct the agency to develop a way to test the sulfur content of low-sulfur diesel fuel at fuel stations to make sure it complies with the needs of new low-sulfur diesel engines.

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) offered the motion to recommit. "By leaving this out, this bill discriminates not only on coal-to-liquid technologies ... but also natural gas and hydrogen," Shimkus said of the bill.

Science and Technology Chairman Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), the bill's sponsor, said the motion was "another effort to try to undermine this good bill today." He said that while "clean" coal may be part of future energy supplies, it "is not available now." Adding it to this bill would only undermine the legislation, he said, as the bill was intended to be a "very narrow" fix to redesign existing infrastructure.

Shimkus' amendment was likely a political maneuver designed to put coal-state Democrats on the defensive, requiring them to buck their party's leadership or seemingly vote against the interests of their own states' economies.

In the end, nine Democrats -- including West Virginia Reps. Nick Rahall and Alan Mollohan, who represent a coal-producing state -- voted for Shimkus' motion. Only one Republican, Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.) opposed it.

Some coal-state Democrats did not take the bait, however. "I'm not taking anything serious that Republicans are doing today," said Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.). Doyle represents a coal-producing state and supports expanding coal-to-liquids technology.

The final vote was 200 to 207, and the motion to recommit failed. Thus, Republicans were unsuccessful in their effort to send biofuel-infrastructure legislation back to committee with instructions to include liquid-coal among the "alternative fuels" promoted in the measure. The bill to direct the EPA to develop technology to facilitate the implementation of biofuels and low-sulfur diesel went forward without an amendment promoting coal.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Coal Industry
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Won
Roll Call 84
Feb 08, 2007
Advanced Fuels Research and Development Act (H.R. 547)/Rep. Charles Dent (R-Pa.) amendment that would direct the Energy Department to consider the infrastructure challenges to arise from the advancement of hydrogen fuel

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation that would authorize $10 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency to research how to make alternative fuels more compatible with the nations existing petroleum-based fuel infrastructure. The amendment would direct the Energy Department to consider the infrastructure challenges to arise from the advancement of hydrogen fuel.

The underlying legislation that this amendment tried to modify directs the federal government to help retailers make the infrastructure changes necessary to transition to biofuels. The bill would instruct the EPA to investigate additives and other technologies to ease such issues. The legislation would also direct the agency to develop a way to test the sulfur content of low-sulfur diesel fuel at fuel stations to make sure it complies with the needs of new low-sulfur diesel engines.

Dent's amendment sought, in his words, "to acknowledge and address the infrastructure challenges that will be presented by the advancement of hydrogen fuel, which can be made from a variety of feedstocks, including biomass." It would direct the Energy secretary, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to consider the challenges for design, reforming storage, handling and dispensing hydrogen fuel from various feedstocks.

"As we address the important infrastructure challenges raised by the promotion of biofuels and ultra-low sulfur diesel, I also believe it is incumbent upon us to start paving the way for the hydrogen economy," Dent said. "These are consistent technologies that are complementary and that promote alternative development."

Opponents of the amendment, most of whom were Democrats, maintained that it was outside the scope of legislation dealing with the infrastructure implications of biofuels and low-sulfur diesel.

"The gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment, in contrast, deals with problems of containing hydrogen, a fuel now derived from natural gas rather than biomass, and distributing it if and when hydrogen vehicles become available," said Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas). "Hydrogen would require a new distribution infrastructure. So while the amendment uses similar words related to distribution, it is talking about an entirely new generation of distribution technology."

Lampson added that while it is possible that hydrogen could eventually be developed from biomass, "it is not today."

Dent replied that biomass can be used in the production of hydrogen. "Again, as you develop an infrastructure for biomass and biodiesel, developing one for hydrogen is just as essential," he continued.

Despite the opposition from the much of the Democratic majority, Dent's amendment was passed with 38 Democratic supporters. Eight Republicans voted against it. Thus, on a vote of 226 to 201, legislation to direct the EPA to help develop the technology to facilitate the implementation of biofuels and low-sulfur diesel was amended to include a provision directing research into the infrastructure needs of hydrogen fuel.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
N N Lost
Roll Call 81
Feb 08, 2007
Advanced Fuels Research and Development Act (H.R. 547)/Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) amendment to require the EPA to consider strategies to minimize emissions that may be released when biofuels are blended, stored and transported

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment to legislation that would authorize $10 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency to research how to make alternative fuels more compatible with the nations existing petroleum-based fuel infrastructure. The amendment would require the EPA to consider the effect on emissions for any new technology to facilitate the implementation of biofuels.

Biofuels such as ethanol (usually made of corn) are regarded by many in Congress as a cleaner-burning alternative to fossil fuels. This is not a universally accepted notion, however, as it takes as many as seven barrels of petroleum in the form of fertilizer and other inputs to create eight barrels of ethanol, according to the Cato Institute. And the Sierra Club maintains that ethanol is actually worse than gasoline in producing smog.

The premise of this legislation was that biofuels such as ethanol are desirable alternatives to fossil fuels, but because they can corrode, contaminate or clog the infrastructure designed for petroleum products, the federal government should help retailers make the transition. The bill would instruct the EPA to investigate additives and other technologies to ease such issues. The legislation would also direct the agency to develop a way to test the sulfur content of low-sulfur diesel fuel at fuel stations to make sure it complies with the needs of new low-sulfur diesel engines.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) sought to amend the bill to ensure that the EPA considers the impact on emissions when developing additives and technologies to ease the way for biofuels. More specifically, her amendment would require the EPA to consider the emissions occurring as the result of evaporation and exchange with the air while the fuel is held in storage tanks or transferred on and off tanker trucks.

Eshoo's amendment is what as known as a second-degree amendment, which means that was an amendment to an amendment. In this case, Eshoo sought to amend an amendment put forth by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) that would require the EPA, as part of its research and development program, to consider strategies to minimize emissions as the result of the combustion of additives to biofuels.

Eshoo pointed out that fuels containing ethanol actually emit more volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or air pollutants than conventional gasoline when burned. She said her amendment went further than Burgess' because it took into account both the burning as well as transport and storage of biofuels.

Burgess countered that his amendment was actually stronger because it addressed the "mobile sources, as well as the static sources, that may be a source of emissions." By mobile sources he was referring to the airborne particulates created by the burning of the fuel, and static sources are the result of storage and transport.

He also said he would have supported Eshoo's amendment if it was offered as a stand-alone amendment and was not instead a second-degree amendment in the nature of a substitute to his. (Substitute amendments essentially replace the text of the bill or amendment with new language, as was the case here.)

Republicans maintained that Burgess' amendment would address both stationary and mobile sources of emissions. Democrats said that Eshoo's language was more comprehensive.

Eshoo herself pointed out that the underlying bill focused on infrastructure, and that's why her amendment focused on storage and transport. "We all want VOCs minimized. It is the way biofuels are going to become effective in our country, and how they are stored and how they are handled is going to give rise to what we are all seeking," she said, adding that Burgess and Republicans did not cooperate in making the amendment "a bipartisan effort."

In the end, eleven Republicans crossed party lines to support Eshoo's amendment, and Democrats were unanimous in their support. By a vote of 242 to 185, an amendment to require the EPA to consider the impact biofuel additives have on emissions during storage and transport was added to a bill to give the agency $10 billion to study how to convert the nation's pumps to biofuels.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Won
Roll Call 72
Jan 31, 2007
Fiscal 2007 continuing resolution to fund the federal government (H. J. Res. 20)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on final passage of a spending bill to fund the federal government through fiscal 2007, which ends Sept. 30.

The resolution would provide $463.5 billion for the programs covered by the nine outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations bills that Republicans left unfinished at the end of their tenure in the leadership of both chambers of Congress in January 2007. Rather than pass individual bills for the nine leftover fiscal 2007 spending measures, the new Democratic leadership chose to roll them all into one bill. Without another continuing resolution to fund the departments and agencies, a large portion of the federal government would have to shut down by Feb. 15.

The measure would generally hold funding at fiscal 2006 levels but provide some funding increases for certain programs, including: veterans' health care, the National Institutes of Health, low-income housing, education, military housing and military base realignment and closing. The legislation also would block a scheduled 2007 cost-of-living pay increase for lawmakers, which by law happens automatically unless Congress passes legislation to prohibit it.

Republicans complained both about the substance of the bill - principally the long list of Democratic priorities, including such items as funding for low-income housing vouchers and Amtrak, both of which are opposed by many Republicans - and the prohibition on any floor amendments (see Roll Call 67).

Republicans also objected to what they asserted were earmarks in the bill - individual spending items that benefit a particular locale, institution or interest (see Roll Call 70). Democrats maintained that there were no new earmarks in the legislation, just continued funding for programs enacted under previous Republican control of Congress. Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said it was not the Democrats' responsibility to clean up the "silly things" approved by past Republican-led Congresses.

In the end, 57 Republicans joined all but two Democrats in voting for the spending bill, likely because they were afraid to vote to shut down the government, theoretically a possibility if the measure did not pass. Thus, by a final vote of 286 to 140, the House passed a $463.5 billion spending bill to fund the portions of the federal government covered by the nine appropriations bills for fiscal 2007 left outstanding by the previous Republican-led Congress. The measure then headed to the Senate.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HEALTH CARE Medical Research Funding
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Won
Roll Call 71
Jan 31, 2007
Fiscal 2007 continuing resolution to fund the federal government (H. J. Res. 20)/Motion to recommit to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to cut more than $500 million for various projects and increase funding by $275 million for military housing, $50 million to combat illicit drugs, $86 million for military construction and family housing and direct $178 million toward deficit reduction

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote represented Republicans' only chance to amend legislation to fund the federal government through fiscal 2007, which ends Sept. 30.

The resolution would provide $463.5 billion for the programs covered by the nine outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations bills that Republicans left unfinished at the end of their tenure in the leadership of both chambers of Congress in January 2007.

Since the majority Democrats prevented Republicans from amending the bill (see Roll Call 67), this motion to recommit with instructions was the minority's only chance to make substantive changes to the bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.

Republicans were particularly incensed that the Democrat-drafted bill contained what they believed to be earmarks - individual spending items that benefit a particular locale, interest or organization - in violation of House rules (see Roll Call 70). The motion to recommit was the Republicans' way of trying to remove some of those earmarks and legislative priorities with which they disagreed.

In outlining his motion to recommit, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) said in addition to the problem with earmarks, "a number of critical programs affecting new law enforcement, military construction and military families have been shortchanged." In order to rectify those perceived errors, the motion to recommit would send the bill back to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to eliminate, in Lewis' words, over $500 million in earmarks and "other unnecessary spending," and instead use those funds to "fund the Drug Enforcement Administration's effort to combat methamphetamines and other illicit drugs, restore critically needed funds to military construction and military family housing accounts, and reduce the federal deficit."

Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) countered that the motion was simply "nitpicking," and would effectively deny the ability to provide additional funds for veterans health care, education and veterans housing.

"I would also say that in a new found and sudden burst of false piety, we are now being chastised because we did not reach back and eliminate" a so-called earmark that was actually approved under Republicans two years ago, Obey said, adding that it was Lewis who chaired the Appropriations Committee at that time.

"I don't mind clearing up the mistakes for last year, of the gentleman, I do mind being asked to go back 2 years to clear up your mistakes," Obey said.

In the end, the House rejected the motion to recommit on a near-unanimous party-line vote. Only one Republican voted against it, and two Democrats crossed party lines to support the measure. Thus, on a 196 to 228 vote, a Republican effort to send a fiscal 2007 spending bill back to committee with instructions to cut various Democratic-supported projects and increase funding for military housing, combating illicit drugs, military construction and debit reduction failed and the spending bill went forward without amendment.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HEALTH CARE Medical Research Funding
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Won
Roll Call 70
Jan 31, 2007
Fiscal 2007 continuing resolution to fund the federal government (H. J. Res. 20)/Democratic motion to table (kill) an appeal to the ruling of the chair against a Republican point of order against the bill on grounds that it violates House rules

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a procedural motion to legislation to fund the federal government for the remainder of the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2007. Republicans complained that the bill violated a new House rule prohibiting what are known as earmarks - provisions tucked into legislation that benefit a particular interest, organization or locale.

The resolution would provide $463.5 billion for the programs covered by the nine outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations bills that were not completed by the previous Republican-led Congress. The legislation did not contain funding for any new earmarks, but it continued to fund earmarks inserted into previous spending bills.

Democrats expressed their pride that the bill was crafted without new earmarks. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) said it was the first time in a generation, or perhaps in modern history, that such a spending bill did not include earmarks. "It's a political miracle that Democrats should get credit for. We have already shown more backbone in 150 hours than Republicans did in six years," Cooper said.

But Republicans were relentless in their insistence that the bill did contain earmarks.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) raised a point of order against the measure on the grounds that it contained earmarks. Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), who chairs the Appropriations Committee that crafted the measure, responded that he previously inserted a statement in the Congressional Record that the legislation "does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits" as prohibited by House rules.

To which McHenry replied: "Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is stating, simply because legislation states that there are no earmarks, that you can contain thousands of earmarks after that statement. It defies logic and defies reason."

McHenry accused Obey of parliamentary shenanigans. "Therefore, it is a very crafty way, and I have got to compliment the gentleman for putting together a very crafty piece of legislation to try to slip this by," McHenry said. "But under these House rules, this is a clear violation of the anti-earmarking provision that is very important to the rules of debate, even when the minority is not able to offer any amendments, even when the minority has no other means of removing congressional earmarks."

The Speaker Pro Tempore (a member of the majority party designated by the Speaker to chair the debate in her absence) ruled against McHenry's point of order on grounds that House rules dictate that it is not in order to consider the question of earmarks unless the referring committee chairman had indicated that the legislation contains earmarks. According to the ruling, a point of order may be brought only if the chairman fails to make such a statement in the Congressional Record, which Obey had done.

At this point, McHenry appealed the rule of the chair, and Obey moved to table (kill) the appeal. The vote was on the motion to table.

In almost a complete party-line vote, the House moved to table the appeal. Only two Republicans crossed party lines to vote with a unanimous Democratic majority to vote to table. Thus, by a vote of 226 to 184, the House dispensed with an appeal of a ruling by the chair that a spending bill to fund the government for the remainder of 2007 did not contain earmarks in violation of House rules, and the legislation proceeded towards an up-or-down vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HEALTH CARE Medical Research Funding
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Won
Roll Call 69
Jan 31, 2007
Fiscal 2007 continuing resolution to fund the federal government (H. J. Res. 20)/Motion to table (kill) the motion to reconsider

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was another motion by Republicans protesting the way the Democratic majority had handled the crafting and floor consideration of legislation to fund the federal government for the remainder of the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2007. (See also Roll Call 68.)

As a way to continue tying up the House and prevent the majority Democrats from swiftly moving through a bill that was all but assured of passage, the Republicans moved to reconsider the previous protest vote, which was a question of whether the House would take up the spending bill. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) moved to reconsider, which essentially asks the House to vote again. Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) then moved to table (kill) the motion to reconsider. This vote was on Obey's motion to table.

Republicans bitterly protested because the Democratic majority passed rules for debate on the continuing resolution that prevented amendment (see Roll Call 67). Republicans said that was egregious because the continuing resolution (CR) amounted to an omnibus appropriations bill, in which they had very little say. An omnibus is a number of spending bills rolled together in one piece of legislation for expediency. Typically, CRs are one-page documents that just carry forward last year's funding levels into the next fiscal year with mere inflationary adjustments. This legislation carried 137 pages of budgetary changes to veterans' benefits, health care and education, codifying many Democratic priorities with which Republicans didn't agree.

The appropriations bill was necessary at all only because the Republicans did not finish the mandatory spending bills at the end of their tenure in the leadership of both chambers of Congress in January 2007 and instead passed a continuing resolution funding the government until Feb. 15. Rather than pass individual bills for the nine leftover fiscal 2007 spending measures, the new Democratic leadership chose to roll them all into one bill. Without another continuing resolution to fund the departments and agencies, a large portion of the federal government would have to shut down.

The continuing resolution would provide $463.5 billion for the programs covered by the nine outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations bills.

Democrats defended their approach by pointing out that continuing resolutions typically are passed without the opportunity for amendment. Republicans countered that was only true when they were true continuing resolutions, unlike this legislation that included many changes over fiscal 2006 funding levels.

Obey, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, said Republicans abdicated their responsibilities by leaving the fiscal 2007 spending bills to the next Congress. "You forfeited any right to squawk about how we cleaned up your mess," he said.

On an almost completely party-line vote, the House affirmed its previous decision to proceed with the spending bill. Only one Democrat voted against it, and two Republicans joined with the remaining Democrats present to vote for the motion. Thus, by a vote of 226 to 180, the House dispensed with a procedural tactic by Republicans to further delay consideration of a spending bill to fund the government through the remainder of fiscal 2007.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HEALTH CARE Medical Research Funding
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Won
Roll Call 68
Jan 31, 2007
Fiscal 2007 continuing resolution to fund the federal government (H. J. Res. 20)/Question of consideration

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a procedural motion to a bill to fund the government through the end of the 2007 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. Raising the question of consideration is literally asking whether the House will take up a particular measure and, as in this case, usually represents a protest motion by the minority. Such procedural motions serve to tie up the business of the House and prevent the majority from getting through its agenda quickly.

Republicans bitterly protested because the Democratic majority passed rules for debate that prevented amendment (see Roll Call 67). Republicans said that was egregious because the continuing resolution (CR) amounted to an omnibus appropriations bill, in which they had very little say. An omnibus is a number of spending bills together in one piece of legislation for expediency. Typically, CRs are one-page documents that just carry forward last year's funding levels into the next fiscal year with mere inflationary adjustments. This legislation carried 137 pages of budgetary changes to veterans' benefits, health care and education.

The appropriations bill was necessary at all only because the Republicans did not finish the mandatory spending bills at the end of their tenure in the leadership of both chambers of Congress in January 2007 and instead passed a continuing resolution to fund the government until Feb. 15. Rather than pass individual bills for the nine leftover fiscal 2007 spending measures, the new Democratic leadership chose to roll them all into one bill. Without another continuing resolution to fund the departments and agencies, a large portion of the federal government would have to shut down.

The continuing resolution would provide $463.5 billion for the programs covered by the nine outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations bills.

Democrats defended their approach by pointing out that continuing resolutions typically are passed without the opportunity for amendment. Republicans countered that was only true when they were true continuing resolutions, unlike this legislation that included many changes over fiscal 2006 funding levels.

Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Republicans abdicated their responsibilities by leaving the fiscal 2007 spending bills to the next Congress. "You forfeited any right to squawk about how we cleaned up your mess," he said.

Questions of consideration are not debatable under House rules, thus no lawmaker spoke on either side of the issue. Nonetheless, the House split among predictable party lines. Democrats were unanimous in their support for considering the bill, and only four Republicans crossed party lines to join them in affirming that the legislation should be taken up. By a vote of 222 to 179, the House moved to consider a spending bill to fund the federal government for the remainder of the 2007 fiscal year, including budgetary increases over the 2006 spending in the areas of health care, education and veterans' benefits.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HEALTH CARE Medical Research Funding
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Won
Roll Call 67
Jan 31, 2007
Rules for consideration (H. Res. 116) of the fiscal 2007 continuing resolution to fund the federal government/On passage of the rule

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on final passage of the rules for debate on a spending bill to fund the government through the end of the 2007 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

The rules of consideration, or rules package as it is commonly known, outline how much time will be given to each side for debate and what amendments will be considered in order.

In this case, the majority Democrats proposed what's known as a closed rule barring Republican amendments. Republicans protested this move because they said that the continuing resolution (CR) amounted to an omnibus appropriations bill, in which they had very little say. An omnibus is a number of spending bills together in one piece of legislation for expediency.

The appropriations bill was necessary at all only because the Republicans did not finish the mandatory spending bills at the end of their tenure in the leadership of both chambers of Congress in January 2007 and instead passed a CR that funded the government until Feb. 15. Rather than pass individual bills for the nine leftover fiscal 2007 spending measures, the new Democratic leadership chose to roll them all into one bill. Without another continuing resolution to fund the departments and agencies, a large portion of the federal government would have to shut down.

The continuing resolution would provide $463.5 billion for the programs covered by the nine outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations bills.

Republicans were indignant at the process that created the bill, and thus bitterly opposed the rules for debate. "It is legislation that few have seen, which cannot be amended in any way, and that will pass this House after only one hour of debate," Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) said.

Democrats defended the closed rule by pointing out that such stopgap spending measures typically are passed without the opportunity for amendment. Republicans countered that was only true when they were true continuing resolutions, unlike this legislation that included many changes over fiscal 2006 funding levels. Typically, CRs are one-page documents that just carry forward last year's funding levels into the next fiscal year with mere inflationary adjustments. This legislation carried 137 pages of budgetary changes to veterans' benefits, health care and education.

Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Republicans abdicated their responsibilities by leaving the fiscal 2007 spending bills to the next Congress. "You forfeited any right to squawk about how we cleaned up your mess," he said.

Votes on rules packages are usually party-line affairs, and this vote was no exception. All Republicans present but one voted against the measure and all Democrats present but two voted for it, and the motion passed 225-191. Thus, on a party-line vote the House passed rules for debate for a spending bill to fund the federal government through the remainder of fiscal 2007.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HEALTH CARE Medical Research Funding
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Won
Roll Call 66
Jan 31, 2007
Rules for consideration (H. Res. 116) of the fiscal 2007 continuing resolution to fund the federal government/Motion to order the previous question (end debate and prohibit amendment)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for debate on a spending bill to fund the government through the end of the 2007 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. Essentially, this vote forced an end to debate on the rules for consideration in order to bring the measure up for a vote.

The rules of consideration, or rules package as it is commonly known, outline how much time will be given to each side for debate and what amendments will be considered in order.

In this case, the majority Democrats proposed what's known as a closed rule and barred Republican amendments. Republicans protested the move because they said that the continuing resolution (CR) amounted to an omnibus appropriations bill, in which they had very little say. An omnibus is a number of spending bills together in one piece of legislation for expediency.

The appropriations bill was necessary at all only because Republicans did not finish the mandatory spending bills at the end of their tenure in the leadership of both chambers of Congress in January 2007 and instead passed a CR that funded the government until Feb. 15. Rather than pass individual bills for the nine leftover fiscal 2007 spending measures, the new Democratic leadership chose to roll them all into one bill. Without another continuing resolution to fund the departments and agencies, a large portion of the federal government would have to shut down.

The continuing resolution would provide $463.5 billion for the programs covered by the nine outstanding fiscal 2007 appropriations bills.

Republicans were indignant at the process that created the bill, and thus bitterly opposed the rules for debate. "It is legislation that few have seen, which cannot be amended in any way, and that will pass this House after only one hour of debate," Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) said.

Democrats defended the closed rule by pointing out that such stopgap spending measures typically are passed without the opportunity for amendment. Republicans countered that was only true when they were true continuing resolutions, unlike this legislation, which included many changes over fiscal 2006 funding levels. Typically, CRs are one-page documents that just carry forward last year's funding levels into the next fiscal year with mere inflationary adjustments. This legislation carried 137 pages of budgetary changes to veterans' benefits, health care and education.

Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Republicans abdicated their responsibilities by leaving the fiscal 2007 spending bills to the next Congress. "You forfeited any right to squawk about how we cleaned up your mess," he said.

This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present but one voted against the measure and all Democrats present but two voted for it, and the motion passed 227-192. Thus, on a party-line vote the House overcame a procedural hurdle and came one step closer to passing rules for debate for a spending bill to fund the federal government through the remainder of fiscal 2007.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HEALTH CARE Medical Research Funding
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Won
Roll Call 57
Jan 24, 2007
House rules change to allow limited voting rights for the delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories (H. Res. 93)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on final passage of a resolution to give limited voting rights on the House floor to delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories.

The measure sought to change House rules to give the four delegates from Washington, D.C., Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico the right to vote when the House meets in the Committee of the Whole, which the House does when debating and voting on amendments to legislation. If the delegates' votes were to decide the winning margin in any particular vote, however, an automatic revote would occur and the delegates would be excluded. The delegates would also be unable to cast votes for final passage on legislation.

Because this was an internal House matter, the change could be effected by a change in House rules.

The delegates had been given similar voting rights in 1993 under Democratic control of the House, but the privileges were reversed by Republicans when they took power in 1995. According to Congressional Quarterly, of the 404 times delegates were eligible to vote in that two-year period, only three times did their votes prove decisive, triggering an automatic revote; twice the outcome was reversed.

Republicans opposed the rules change this year for a number of reasons, including questions about its constitutionality, despite the fact that the voting privileges for delegates had survived court challenge in the mid-1990s. Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) also suggested that Democrats were simply aiming to give the appearance of having more votes on their side, as all but one of the delegates are Democrats.

"I have to wonder if these same objections would be raised . . . if there were four Republican delegates and one Democratic delegate," replied Del. Donna M.C. Christensen (D-Virgin Is.).

Critics of the change also pointed out that four of the delegates represent territories that don't pay federal income taxes, although residents of District of Columbia do. The resolution's supporters countered that residents of the four territories do pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, as well as excise taxes.

By an almost completely party-line vote, the resolution prevailed. All but one Democrat present voted for the change, and all but one Republican present voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 226 to 191 the House voted to modify its internal rules to extend limited floor voting privileges to delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 56
Jan 24, 2007
House rules change to allow limited voting rights for the delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories (H. Res. 93)/Question of consideration

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a procedural motion as to whether the House should consider a measure to provide limited voting privileges on the House floor to delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories. By bringing up this procedural hurdle, the Republican minority aimed to slow down the House's business and the majority Democrats' ability to accomplish the party's agenda items. Republicans were protesting what they believed to be unfair treatment of the minority in the legislative process.

Republicans believed the Democrats were running the House in a way that was unfair to the Republican minority. To protest, the Republicans offered a series of procedural motions designed to take up the House's time and thus prevent the Democrats from carrying forward their agenda. (See also Roll Calls 52, 54 and 55.)

Republicans were protesting the way Democrats had fast-tracked the six pieces of legislation the House passed as part of the Democrats' "first 100 hours" agenda, all of which were approved with limited committee involvement and what are known as closed rules, meaning the Republicans couldn't offer amendments. In previous debate, Republicans charged that they had been effectively prevented from participating in the legislative process.

A question of consideration is a vote on whether the House will take up a particular piece of legislation. Often, as was the case in this instance, they reflect the minority's dissatisfaction with the way the majority is conducting business and allow the former to register its protest. Every time the House has a recorded vote, committee meetings have to be interrupted and lawmakers have to be called from their offices to come to the floor and vote. Demanding votes on repeated procedural motions is a way for the minority to slow down business in the House.

There was no debate on the motion. All Democrats present but one voted for it, and all Republicans present voted against the question of consideration. By a vote of 224 to 186, the House moved to consider a resolution to give limited voting rights on the House floor to delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories, but Republicans accomplished their goal of tying up the chamber in repeated procedural motions.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 54
Jan 24, 2007
House rules change to allow limited voting rights for the delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories (H. Res. 93)/Motion to table a resolution to disapprove the actions of the Rules Committee

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote represented a Republican protest to the way in which the Democrat-dominated Rules Committee conducted its consideration of an amendment offered by Republicans to a measure to change the House rules to allow delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories to have limited voting privileges on the House floor.

Republicans submitted what's known as a privileged resolution, which takes precedence over other business. The resolution sought to state the House's disapproval of the actions of the Democrat-run Rules Committee and direct the committee's chairwoman to prevent future occurrences.

At issue was an amendment offered by Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) that Kirk offered and later withdrew. He submitted his amendment to the Rules Committee for consideration to have it allowed an up-or-down vote on the House floor. Kirk's amendment would have negated much of the rules change allowing delegates to the House limited voting privileges, but the substance of the amendment wasn't really the issue.

According to the Republican-drafted privileged resolution, after Kirk withdrew his amendment, Democrats on the Rules Committee made a special order of business to consider the amendment, even though it is standard committee practice not to further consider amendments that have been withdrawn. At this point, according to the Republican resolution, the Democrats denied repeated Republican requests to get a copy of Kirk's withdrawal notice, which they say had been stamped and acknowledged by the committee.

The Republican resolution stated that the "wrongful refusal of the Majority to produce a copy of the letter under debate constituted a breach of the dignity and integrity of the Committee's proceedings," and concluded that "the House of Representatives disapproves of the actions taken by the Committee's Majority and directs the Chairwoman of the Committee to undertake practices to prevent future occurrences."

There was no debate on the House floor regarding this resolution, but during previous debate Democrats had insinuated that Republicans withdrew Kirk's amendment because they wanted to pretend they had been completely shut out of the legislative process and having this amendment considered in order "messed up their talking points," in the words of Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.)

The unrest that fueled this controversy predated this particular event, however, as Republicans were still miffed that they had not been allowed to offer any amendments to the first six bills passed under the new Democratic majority.

This vote thus represented a protest among Republican ranks. As such, it commanded almost complete party unity on both sides. All Democrats present but one voted to table the resolution, and all Republicans presented voted against it. By a vote of 223 to 189, the House rejected a Republican attempt to disapprove of the actions of the Democrat-dominated Rules Committee with regard to handling a Republican amendment to a measure that would give limited voting rights on the House floor to the delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 53
Jan 24, 2007
Rules governing debate (H. Res. 86) for a resolution to provide limited voting rights for delegates to the House/On adoption of the rule

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on the rules of consideration for a measure giving limiting voting rights on the House floor to delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories.

The rules for consideration, also known as the rules package, govern how much time each side will be given for debate and what amendments will be considered in order.

The measure the House was to debate was a change to House rules giving the four lawmakers who serve as delegates from Washington, D.C., Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico the right to vote when the House meets in the Committee of the Whole, which the House does when debating and voting on amendments to legislation. If the delegates' votes were to decide the winning margin in any particular vote, however, an automatic revote would occur from which the delegates would be excluded. The delegates would also be unable to cast votes for final passage on legislation.

The Democratic-dominated Rules Committee approved a rules package allowing for the only amendment brought to the panel to be considered in order on the House floor, but Republicans still opposed the rules package for the resolution because of what Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) described as a "very, very, very" disappointing process.

"The thing that is very troubling to me is that we are at this point, without having ever given any kind of committee hearing, without any discussion or debate, and with a process upstairs that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will acknowledge was really a great travesty and an injustice," Dreier said. (The Rules Committee meets upstairs from the House floor.)

For their part, the Democrats seemed perplexed by Republican complaints.

"This rule allows for consideration of the only amendment offered in the Rules Committee yesterday, said Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.), adding that the Democrats also offered Republicans the opportunity to offer a substitute measure, which they declined. "If this bill is so awful, they could have introduced a substitute to null and void it. Indeed, the amendment that is made in order practically null and voids this entire bill. As someone who has been around for a few years, I do not think I have ever heard so many complaints about a rule that makes in order every single amendment offered in the Rules Committee."

Republicans were nearly unanimous in the opposition to the rules package, and Democrats were completely unanimous in their support for it. Only one Republican voted for it. By a vote of 228 to 188, the House passed the rules of debate for a measure that would give limited voting privileges to the delegates from Guam, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands as well as the resident commissioner of Puerto Rico.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 52
Jan 24, 2007
Rules governing debate (H. Res. 86) for a resolution to provide limited voting rights for delegates to the House/Motion to table (kill) the motion to reconsider the previous vote

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a Democratic motion to table (kill) a Republican motion to reconsider the previous vote (see Roll Call 51). That vote dealt with a procedural motion to the rules of consideration for a measure to give limited voting rights on the House floor to the delegates from Guam, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands as well as the resident commissioner of Puerto Rico.

A lawmaker may offer a motion to reconsider if he or she voted with the prevailing side on the vote in question. Rep. David Dreier (Calif.) was the only Republican to vote for the previous motion, presumably to reserve his right to move to reconsider. Although he did not explain his actions, procedural motions such as these are often made as a way to tie up the House's time when the minority disapproves of the way the majority is conducting business.

Republicans had been complaining for days that the Democrats were not giving them say in the legislative process. Democrats claimed that the demands of accomplishing all of the business that Republicans had let languish when they were in the majority necessitated the hardball tactics, and at the same time claimed that they were willing to work with the minority Republicans if they were sincere in their desire to seek harmony between the parties.

Upon Dreier's motion to reconsider, Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) immediately motioned to table Dreier's motion.

Procedural votes such as this one are almost always strict party-line affairs, and this vote was no exception. All of the Democrats present voted for the motion to table, and all of the Republicans opposed it. Thus, debate on the rules package for a resolution providing limited floor-voting privileges to delegates from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories was stalled by a partisan squabble over the legislative process and delaying tactics by Republicans. The Democrats ultimately prevailed, however, moving one step closer to adoption of the rules package.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 51
Jan 24, 2007
Rules governing debate (H. Res. 86) for a resolution to provide limited voting rights for delegates to the House/Motion to order the previous question, end debate and prevent amendment

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a procedural motion to a resolution outlining the rules for debate for a measure to provide limited floor-voting privileges for delegates to the House from the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories.

The rules for consideration, also known as the rules package, governs how much time each side will be given for debate and what amendments will be considered in order.

The measure the House was to debate was a change to House rules giving the four lawmakers who serve as delegates from Washington, D.C., Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico the right to vote when the House meets in the Committee of the Whole, which the House does when debating and voting on amendments to legislation. If the delegates' votes were to decide the winning margin in any particular vote, however, an automatic revote would occur from which the delegates would be excluded. The delegates would also be unable to cast votes for final passage on legislation.

The Democratic-dominated Rules Committee approved a rules package allowing for the only amendment brought to the panel to be considered in order on the House floor, but Republicans still opposed the rules package for the resolution because of what Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) described as a "very, very, very" disappointing process.

"The thing that is very troubling to me is that we are at this point, without having ever given any kind of committee hearing, without any discussion or debate, and with a process upstairs that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will acknowledge was really a great travesty and an injustice," Dreier said. (The Rules Committee meets upstairs from the House floor.)

For their part, the Democrats seemed perplexed by Republican complaints.

"This rule allows for consideration of the only amendment offered in the Rules Committee yesterday, said Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.), adding that the Democrats also offered Republicans the opportunity to offer a substitute measure, which they declined. "If this bill is so awful, they could have introduced a substitute to null and void it. Indeed, the amendment that is made in order practically null and voids this entire bill. As someone who has been around for a few years, I do not think I have ever heard so many complaints about a rule that makes in order every single amendment offered in the Rules Committee."

This vote was a motion ordering the previous question on the rules package. Ordering the previous question is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present but one voted against the measure and all Democrats present but one voted for it, and the motion passed 229 to 191. The House thus overcame a procedural hurdle to approving the rules of debate for a measure that would give limited voting privileges to the delegates from Guam, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands as well as the resident commissioner of Puerto Rico.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 43
Jan 22, 2007
Congressional Pension Accountability Act (H.R. 476)/Partisan squabble about who said what on the House floor and motion to strike disparaging remarks; motion to table (kill) the appeal of the ruling of the chair that the motion to strike was not made in a timely fashion

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote amounted to taking sides in a partisan fist-fight about comments exchanged between Reps. John Shaddeg (R-Ariz.) and Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-Calif.). In a debate about reforming the congressional pension laws to prohibit lawmakers convicted of certain crimes from drawing a pension, Millender-McDonald called Shaddeg "disingenuous" and Shaddeg demanded that Millender-McDonald's words be taken down.

To be taken down is a parliamentary maneuver that strikes a lawmaker's words from the record. House rules prohibit one lawmaker from impugning the motives of another lawmaker. The Speaker Pro Tempore, the chairman of the floor debate and a designee of the Speaker, ruled that Shaddeg did not make his request in a "timely and appropriate matter."

At that point, Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) appealed the ruling of the chair, saying, "Just because the chair wasn't listening to the gentleman doesn't mean he wasn't making it in a timely manner."

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) then moved to table (kill) the appeal of the ruling of the chair. This vote was on Hoyer's motion.

The debate preceding the controversy was itself tense and reflected a simmering dissatisfaction by Republicans for being, in their view, continually squeezed out of the legislative process by the majority Democrats.

Terry pointed out that the bill under consideration had been amended twice without Republicans being able to see the changes, in his view violating the civility rules put in place at the beginning of the legislative session that require all lawmakers to have access to bills 48 hours before they are voted on.

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) made a parliamentary inquiry with the chair to determine for the record whether those changes to the bill had been handwritten on a napkin. "Is anything typed and shared with the minority?" he asked the chair rhetorically.

Shadegg was upset after the chair ruled that there was no parliamentary procedure by which he could object to the bill going forward without the 48 hours for lawmakers to examine it under House rules. The chair ruled that because this bill was taken up under a fast-track procedure known as suspension of the rules, the 48-hour rule wasn't in effect and the minority had no recourse.

"I think it is most unfortunate that we are considering this bill under suspension with last-minute changes, with limited time for debate, and no opportunity to consider alternatives," Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-Mich.) said. "I think it is most unfortunate that this bill has become clouded by the hasty effort to get this taken up on suspension with last-minute changes not approved previously by the minority.

"The issue is certainly more important than naming a post office, which is what we normally do on suspension," Ehlers continued.

The bill would require Members of Congress convicted of crimes related to their official duties to give up their retirement benefits. It was prompted by scandals in the previous legislative session that resulted in prison terms for a few lawmakers, who still got to keep their congressional pensions.

The legislation would strip the pensions of lawmakers convicted of felonies, including bribery, defrauding the government and perjury. The Republican revolt actually followed a Democratic move to broaden the bill to include another offense that would deny a lawmaker his pension if convicted: coercing others to lie on a lawmaker's behalf. Ironically, Republicans actually supported making the bill significantly broader, but they opposed the closed process by which the Democrats had broadened it, and complained that it was still too narrow. Republicans said the bill should have included other crimes, such as tax evasion. Despite Republican complaints about the process, however, not one ended up voting against the bill on final passage.

This vote, however, represented a Republican protest for how the Democratic majority conducted the debate and crafting of the legislation. In a completely party-line vote, all of the Republicans present voted against the motion to table, and all of the Democrats present voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 223-190, the House tabled the appeal of the chair's ruling that Millender-McDonald's disparaging words against Shaddeg couldn't be taken down because the motion was not made in a timely fashion, put aside the partisan squabble and moved on to an up-or-down vote on the legislation.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
Y Y Won
Roll Call 40
Jan 18, 2007
Energy policy (H.R. 6)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on a bill to repeal certain tax subsidies enjoyed by the oil and gas industry and direct federal funds instead toward developing renewable and alternative energy sources.

The legislation would change several different laws affecting the oil industry, including the 2005 energy legislation, by repealing $14 billion in tax breaks and other subsidies and redirecting that money into a fund to foster research and development of alternatives to fossil fuels. The bill also would eliminate a 2004 tax credit for oil and gas companies, worth $7.6 billion in tax revenue over the next 10 years.

Furthermore, the bill would require the payment of royalty fees from certain oil and gas companies for offshore drilling rights that had been waived in 1998 and 1999, amounting to about $4.4 billion in royalties annually. In 1995, oil companies were granted waivers from paying royalties on production as an incentive to drill in the Gulf of Mexico when energy prices were low (with the rationale that low oil prices were a disincentive to drill). In a drafting error made by the Interior Department, however, the leases written in 1998 and 1999 left out a crucial mechanism that was supposed to require the companies to pay royalties to the federal government if prices reached over a certain threshold. As a result of this error, energy companies reported record profits in 2006, all the while avoiding royalties to the federal government for the drilling rights.

Democrats maintained that the legislation was simply righting past wrongs done to the American taxpayer and undoing freebies to the oil industry. They claimed that the bill simultaneously improved America's energy independence while promoting responsible stewardship of the environment.

"We are here to take one small and bipartisan step toward making clean renewable energy a reality in America. And imagine my surprise, Big Oil doesn't think it is a good idea," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.). "Two years ago, Big Oil muscled their way into a corporate tax break they had never earned and didn't need. They are siphoning off $1 billion a year right out of the pockets of U.S. taxpayers, and they want it to last forever, right along with $10 billion in quarterly profits that they have been reporting."

McDermott pointed out that a Department of Energy study revealed that 86 percent of the country's energy supply is expected to come from oil, coal, and natural gas in the year 2030, the same proportion of the country's energy consumption that carbon provides today, all the while energy prices are expected to climb. "In other words," McDermott said, "if this country does not pursue a radically different approach to energy, we can expect dirty air, more pain at the pump, and more reliance on foreign oil."

Many Republicans argued that the legislation violates the sanctity of contracts by retroactively imposing new fees and taxes on the oil industry. They said that Democrats were effectively taxing American oil production, further deepening the country's dependence on foreign oil.

"Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed a so-called energy bill that they claim will promote America's energy independence," said Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.). "In reality, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have presented the House chamber with a placebo that will ultimately reduce domestic energy production, give American energy companies less of a reason to invest in exploration here at home, encourage greater dependence on foreign oil, and damage America's manufacturing base.

"The Democrats' solution to America's energy crisis is to single out oil and gas producers for a tax increase," English continued.

Despite the fierce rhetoric on both sides, the energy bill passed easily. Thirty-six Republicans crossed party ranks to vote for it, and only four Democrats voted against it. Thus, by a vote of 264 to 163, the House passed legislation that would reign in the tax subsidies to oil and gas producers, require the companies to pay royalty fees on drilling rights and direct the revenue to promote alternative and renewable energy sources. The bill faced uncertain prospects in the Senate.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 39
Jan 18, 2007
Energy policy (H.R. 6)/Appealing the ruling of the chair that the bill did not meet the criteria to require a three-fifths majority for passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a bill to repeal certain oil and gas tax subsidies and replace them with funds for renewable energy sources. Republicans asserted that because the bill amounted to a tax increase, under House rules it required a three-fifths majority to pass.

The chairman of the deliberations on the House floor (an appointee of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) ruled against the Republicans, stating that the bill did not meet the criteria to require a three-fifths majority for passage under House rules. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) appealed the ruling of the chair and demanded a recorded vote. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) then motioned to table (kill) the Blunt appeal of the ruling of the chairman. This vote was on McDermott's motion.

Blunt said that the Joint Committee on Taxation had indicated that the section of the bill repealing tax subsidies for oil drilling would result in a $7.6 billion increase in tax receipts between 2007 and 2017, evidence to him that the legislation amounted to a tax increase.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) countered that the bill was not a tax increase on the oil and gas industry. "What we are doing is repealing subsidies, repealing royalties, and asking the oil and gas industry to pay their fair share," Rahall said. "There is no tax increase whatsoever in this bill."

Procedural votes of this nature almost always command near or total party unity, and such was the case with this vote. The parties split unanimously, with all of the Republicans present voting against the motion to table and all of the Democrats present voting for it. Thus, by a vote of 230-195, the House rejected an attempt by Republicans to require a bill to limit the federal subsidies for oil and gas companies and instead fund alternative and renewable resources to obtain a three-fifths majority to achieve passage. The measure moved one step closer to an up-or-down vote, requiring only a simple majority to pass.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 38
Jan 18, 2007
Energy policy (H.R. 6)/Motion to recommit (send the bill to committees of jurisdiction)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a procedural motion to a bill aimed at repealing the tax subsidies enjoyed by the oil and gas industry and redirect federal resources toward developing renewable and alternative energy sources.

Republicans bitterly protested what they said was the Democratic majority's refusal to allow the bill to go through the committee process or allow any amendments on the House floor, essentially squeezing Republicans out of the legislative process. (See Roll Call 36.)

Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.) moved to recommit the bill to the committees of jurisdiction and have the legislation go through the hearings. McCrery said that the issues in the bill are "complex" and thus merit the detailed attention that only the committees could provide to improve the bill. "And because of that complexity and because of the complexity of the issues, not only the tax issues in this legislation but the energy issues as well, this bill deserves regular order," McCrery said.

"The way that this bill has been rushed through, without regular process, without opportunity for amendment, or even a substitute, makes a mockery of the legislative process and certainly, I think, shortchanges the important subjects covered in this legislation," McCrery said, adding that the motion to recommit was not a rejection of the bill, merely a desire to "hear expert witnesses, delve into the particulars of the legislation, offer amendments, try to make it better, and then, finally, bring it to the floor for a vote."

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) responded that the "meat and potatoes" of the legislation came through the Natural Resources Committee. "Much of the legislation in this bill, H.R. 6, has been debated, has had hearings held therein, and has even been voted upon by the House of Representatives in the previous Congress," Rahall added.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) said that the Ways and Means Committee also had a forum to discuss this bill. "We went over it fairly carefully with experts from two sources at least," McDermott said. "And, clearly, we are making very modest changes. That was clear from the testimony we had, that these were modest changes to the law."

When the House makes bigger changes to the law, more robust hearings will be held, McDermott said.

Only one Republican broke ranks and joined all 231 Democrats present in voting against the motion to recommit. The final vote was 194 to 232. Thus, the House rejected a Republican attempt to send a bill back to committee repealing certain oil and gas tax subsidies and replacing them with federal funds for renewable resources. The legislation instead moved ahead to a final vote.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Won
Roll Call 37
Jan 18, 2007
Energy policy (H.R. 6)/Question of consideration

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a procedural question raised by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) to a bill to limit tax benefits for and require royalty payments from the oil and gas industry and use those funds to promote alternative and renewable energies.

The rules for debate for the legislation prohibited amendment (See Roll Call 36), a move that Republicans opposed. Because the rules package denied Republicans the ability to offer amendments, Price demanded what's known as a question of consideration, literally whether the House should take up the measure. The move was largely symbolic and served as a venue for Republicans to register their protest.

The move came amidst a Democratic pushing to enact more than a half dozen pieces of legislation as part of its "100 hours" agenda, aiming to fulfill campaign promises by enacting bills on subjects ranging from a minimum wage hike to student loan interest rate reductions to changes in the way the House handles intelligence oversight. The energy bill was the last measure included in that agenda, and Democrats said that accomplishing all of the bills in the abbreviated timeframe required streamlining the legislative process.

Procedural votes of this nature almost always command near or total party unity, and such was the case with this vote. The parties split unanimously, with all of the Republicans present voting against the moving forward to consider the legislation and all of the Democrats present voting for it. Thus, by a vote of 228-193, the House moved forward with consideration of a bill to limit the federal subsidies for oil and gas companies and instead fund alternative and renewable resources.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 36
Jan 18, 2007
Outlining the rules of debate for a bill to formulate energy policy (H. Res. 66)/On adoption of the rule

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on a resolution outlining the rules for consideration of a bill to limit tax benefits and require royalty payments for offshore drilling rights from the oil and gas industry and use those funds to promote alternative and renewable energies.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. No amendments were approved when the Rules Committee met on January 16.

The Democratic majority was pushing through more than a half dozen pieces of legislation as part of its "100 hours" agenda, aiming to fulfill campaign promises by enacting bills on subjects ranging from a minimum wage hike to student loan interest rate reductions to changes in the way the House handles intelligence oversight. The energy bill was the last measure included in that agenda, and Democrats said that accomplishing all of the bills in the abbreviated time frame required streamlining the legislative process.

Democrats pointed out that Republicans often prohibited them from having any say over legislation that was brought to the House floor when Republicans were in the majority. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) responded: "It's not about what we did - it's about what the new majority promised that they were going to do. We are short-circuiting democracy here."

Votes on rules packages are almost always divided on party lines. Such was the case with this vote, and the parties split unanimously. All of the Republicans present voted against the motion and all of the Democrats present voted for it. Thus, by a vote of 230-194, the House passed a rules package outlining consideration of a bill to limit the federal subsidies for oil and gas companies and instead fund alternative and renewable resources.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 35
Jan 18, 2007
Outlining the rules of debate for a bill to formulate energy policy (H. Res. 66)/Motion to order the previous question (end debate and prevent amendment)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution outlining the rules for consideration of a bill to limit tax benefits and require royalty payments from the oil and gas industry and use those funds to promote alternative and renewable energies. The effect of this motion was to force a vote on the rules for debate.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor. No amendments were approved when the Rules Committee met on January 16.

The Democratic majority was pushing through more than a half dozen pieces of legislation as part of its "100 hours" agenda, aiming to fulfill campaign promises to enact bills on subjects ranging from a minimum wage hike to student loan interest rate reductions to changes in the way the House handles intelligence oversight. The energy bill was the last measure included in that agenda, and Democrats said that accomplishing all of the bills in the abbreviated time frame required streamlining the legislative process.

Democrats pointed out that Republicans often prohibited them from having any say over legislation that was brought to the House floor when Republicans were in the majority. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) responded: "It's not about what we did - it's about what the new majority promised that they were going to do. We are short-circuiting democracy here."

This vote was on a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case with this vote, as the parties split unanimously with all of the Republicans present voting against the motion and all of the Democrats present voting for it. Thus, by a vote of 231-194, the House moved to end debate and prohibit amendment on a resolution providing consideration for a bill to limit the federal subsidies for oil and gas companies and instead fund alternative and renewable resources.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 31
Jan 17, 2007
College Student Relief Act (H.R. 5)/Motion to recommit with instructions to apply the subsidized interest rate reductions only to graduates earning less than $65,000 annually and to active-duty military personnel

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a procedural motion to a bill to cut the interest rate on subsidized college loans in half over the next five years. Rep. Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) made a motion to recommit the bill to the Education and Labor Committee with an amendment that would have applied the subsidized interest rate reductions only to graduates who earned less than $65,000 annually and to active-duty military personnel.

The motion also would have directed the federal government to use the remaining funds allocated in this bill for deficit reduction or for an increase in Pell grants, which go to the neediest students and do not need to be repaid.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure

The underlying bill was one of the "100 hours" agenda priorities for the new Democratic Congress, and aimed to fulfill one of the party's 2006 midterm campaign promises.

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said she was "very pleased that our congressional leadership has made cutting interest rates on student loans one of its top priorities for the first 100 hours of this Congress."

According to Matsui, a recent study demonstrated that the legislation would save the average student borrower attending California state schools this year almost $2,500 over the life of the loan.

"For students beginning college in the year 2011, the legislation will save almost $5,000," Matsui said. "We will need to do more to make college affordable, but my constituents in Sacramento who are struggling to afford college will welcome this very important first step."

Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.) said the legislation would help 5.5 million undergraduate students attend college and represented the first step House Democrats would take to make college more affordable.

Republicans countered that the legislation would do little to increase college access. "We're talking about lowering the interest rate when we should be talking about the cost of tuition," McKeon said.

Republicans maintained that their amendment would better allocate federal resources toward the priority of making higher education affordable to all.

Democrats were unanimous in their support of the underlying bill without amendment, and nine Republicans broke ranks to join them in opposing the motion to recommit. By a vote of 186 to 241, the House rejected a Republican effort to send the bill back to committee with instructions to apply the reduced interest rates only to students earning less than $65,000 after college and to active-duty military personnel. Thus, legislation reducing the interest rates on subsidized college loans by half over the next five years proceeded toward final passage without Republican-sponsored changes limiting its applicability by income and military status.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Banks/Credit Card Companies
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
N N Won
Roll Call 30
Jan 17, 2007
Outlining rules for debate (H. Res. 65) on the College Student Relief Act (H.R. 5)/On adoption of the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on a resolution outlining the consideration of a bill that would cut interest rates in half over five years for undergraduate students with federally subsidized student loans.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. This type of resolution is commonly known as a rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) pointed out that the Democratic leadership was rushing the bill through the House without the normal legislative process and excluding minority involvement.

"I rise in opposition to this closed rule and this underlying legislation which the Democratic leadership has decided to bring to the House today without the benefit of regular order, committee oversight or the opportunity for any Republican input or amendment, despite repeated promises to respect the rights of the minority and to increase Member participation in this legislative process," Sessions said.

"This is rhetoric that does not turn into a sound proposal," said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.)."Democrats and Republicans should have the opportunity to offer amendments to make this a much better piece of legislation."

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said that the American people were demanding quick action on this issue, one of the priorities outlined by the Democrats during the 2006 campaign. The bill was included in the Democrats' "100 hours" legislation, the agenda for the Congress' first 100 hours in session.

Many Republicans opposed the underlying legislation because they said it would do nothing to make college more affordable. Democrats countered that because it would cut interest rates for subsidized student loans in half over the next five years, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, it would help over 5 million more students attend college.

Votes on procedural motions such as approving the rules package are almost always party-line affairs, with the minority unanimous in its opposition and the majority supporting the rules for consideration drafted by their party. Such was the case for this vote. By a strictly party-line vote of 233 to 190, with all of the Democrats present in favor and all of the Republicans present opposed, the House voted to approve the rules for debate for a measure to cut subsidized student loan rates in half over the next five years.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Banks/Credit Card Companies
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
Y Y Won
Roll Call 29
Jan 17, 2007
Outlining rules for debate (H. Res. 65) on the College Student Relief Act (H.R. 5)/Ordering the previous question (end debate and possibility of amendment)

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a procedural motion to a resolution outlining the consideration of a bill that would cut interest rates in half over five years for undergraduate students receiving federally subsidized student loans.

The resolution outlined the rules for debate for the legislation, including how much floor time would be granted to each side and which amendments would be considered in order. The resolution is commonly known as the rules package.

Republicans opposed the rules package because the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee proposed what's known as a "closed rule," meaning that only the amendments pre-approved by the panel would get an up-or-down vote on the floor.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) pointed out that the Democratic leadership was rushing the bill through the House without the normal legislative process, thus preventing minority involvement.

"I rise in opposition to this closed rule and this underlying legislation which the Democratic leadership has decided to bring to the House today without the benefit of regular order, committee oversight or the opportunity for any Republican input or amendment, despite repeated promises to respect the rights of the minority and to increase Member participation in this legislative process," Sessions said.

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said that the American people were demanding quick action on this issue, one of the priorities outlined by the Democrats during the 2006 campaign. The bill was included in the Democrats' "100 hours" legislation, the agenda for the Congress' first 100 hours in session.

Many Republicans opposed the underlying legislation because they said it would do nothing to make college more affordable. Democrats countered that because it would cut interest rates for subsidized student loans in half over the next five years, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, it would help over 5 million students attend college.

This vote was on a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails.

Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all Democrats present but one voted for it, and the motion passed 225-191. Thus, the House moved on step closer to approving the rules for debate for a bill to cut interest rates for subsidized student loans in half over the next five years.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Banks/Credit Card Companies
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
Y Y Won
Roll Call 23
Jan 12, 2007
Requiring the federal government to negotiate with drug companies for the prices of drugs covered under Medicare (H.R. 4)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on final passage of legislation to require the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department to negotiate with drug companies on behalf of beneficiaries in the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

The bill does not specify how the HHS secretary should conduct such negotiations, just that the federal government would have to leverage its buying power to command lower prices from prescription drug manufacturers. The bill prohibits the HHS secretary from establishing a restrictive list of covered drugs, thereby ensuring that he or she has the necessary bargaining power to freeze a particular drug out of the program if a favorable price cannot be negotiated. The measure would represent the first changes to the Medicare drug law enacted in 2003 and represents the delivery of a campaign promise by Democrats to amend the 2003 law to reflect price leverage that they believe should have been in the original legislation. President Bush has promised to veto the legislation.

The legislation's backers said the bill would allow the secretary to drive down the prices of prescription drugs by using Medicare's power to buy in bulk, a premise challenged by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Congress' budgetary research arm said the bill "would have a negligible effect on federal spending."

Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell, whose committee drafted the legislation, said that CBO's estimates should be taken with a grain of salt. "After what the Republicans and CBO told us about the cost of the Medicare prescription drug bill, I would not suggest taking their advice about the cost."

Rep. Thelma Drake (R-Va.) rose to opposed the bill on grounds that "the current private sector approach has resulted in more choices available to Medicare beneficiaries while simultaneously keeping costs below previous projections," adding that the majority of seniors are "satisfied" with the Medicare's prescription drug coverage.

"Seniors across America want their doctors, not the federal government, to choose the most effective drugs," Drake added.

Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) said just the opposite was true, that most seniors don't understand, "why the Medicare program has been prohibited from negotiating for lower drug prices. Of course there is an explanation: a deal was struck to benefit the insurance and pharmaceutical industries at the expense of our seniors."

Support for the bill among Democrats was unanimous, and 24 Republicans broke ranks and voted for the measure. Thus, by 255 to 170, the House voted to require the federal government to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for lower prescription drug prices for beneficiaries of the Medicare drug program. The bill then moved to the Senate, where support for some version of the legislation was mounting despite President Bush's promised veto.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 22
Jan 12, 2007
Requiring the federal government to negotiate with drug companies for the prices of drugs covered under Medicare (H.R. 4)/Motion to recommit with instructions to add language that ensures that beneficiaries will not be restricted in their access to prescription drugs and that the negotiations will not result in the price increase of prescription drugs for any group

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on a Republican amendment to a bill requiring the federal government to negotiate with drug companies for the prices of drugs covered under Medicare. Republicans asserted that, as drafted, the bill would have the effect of restricting senior citizen's drug choices, limiting the number of retail outlets where they could have their prescriptions filled and possibly result in a price increase for veterans' prescription drugs. Their amendment aimed to prevent those occurrences.

Democrats said the Republican claims were ludicrous.

The underlying legislation that the Republicans wanted to attach this amendment to requires the federal government to leverage its buying power to command lower prices from prescription drug manufacturers. The bill prohibits the Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary from establishing a restrictive list of covered drugs, thereby ensuring that he or she has the necessary bargaining power to freeze a particular drug out of the program if a favorable price cannot be negotiated. The measure would represent the first changes to the Medicare drug law enacted in 2003 and the fulfillment of a campaign promise by Democrats to amend the 2003 law to include price leverages that they believe should have been in the original legislation. President Bush has promised to veto the bill.

The power of the HHS secretary to freeze out certain drugs in order to better negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices is the provision that most concerned Republicans. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said that some very expensive drugs that serve small segments of the population, like HIV drugs, could be excluded from the prescription drug benefit under this bill.

Barton also said in order to achieve cost savings the HHS secretary may have to require that seniors get their drugs via mail order. He said that the motion to recommit would simply ensure that seniors could still get their drugs at their local pharmacies.

"I don't believe, based on the evidence, that the Democrats' plan can reduce prescription drug prices without reducing seniors' prescription drug choices, or without devastating local pharmacies, or without raising drug prices for our veterans," said Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.).

Furthermore, McCrery said, the Republican motion "would ensure that requiring the HHS Secretary to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices would not directly result in increasing drug prices for veterans, because as we have seen in the past, when the government gets involved in setting prices in other areas, prices to veterans go up."

Democrats said during floor debate that Republicans were making up problems.

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) said his wife, who is a pharmacist, "had had to turn her television set off because she has heard so many untruths and misinformation coming from the Republican side of the aisle during this debate here today."

"But let me be clear about this: A 'yes' vote for the motion to recommit is a vote for the big drug manufacturers, and a 'no' vote on the motion to recommit is a vote for America's seniors," Ross continued, adding that the Democrats were "trying to correct a wrong that occurred back in 2003."

Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.), said that as the only registered pharmacist in Congress, "I can tell you one thing for certain, my distinguished colleagues across the aisle, while well meaning, absolutely don't know turnip greens from butter beans about what they are talking about."

The procedural mechanism Republicans attempted to amend the bill is known as a motion to recommit with instructions. A motion to recommit is a move to send the resolution back to committee for revision and represents the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a measure before a final up-or-down vote.

In the end, only one Democrat crossed party lines to join with Republicans to vote for the motion to recommit. The support among Republicans was unanimous. The final vote was 196-229, and the motion to recommit failed. Thus, the House rejected a Republican effort to add language to a bill requiring the federal government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies on behalf of America's seniors for drug prices to ensure that the legislation didn't negatively affect the availability or price of pharmaceuticals.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
N N Won
Roll Call 20
Jan 11, 2007
Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (H.R. 3)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on final passage of a bill to broaden federal spending on embryonic stem cell research.

The legislation would allow federal grants to be used for research on embryos donated by in vitro fertility clinics so long as the embryos were not created for scientific purposes and otherwise would be thrown away. The donors of the embryos would also have to give their consent and could not be paid for the embryos.

Additionally, the bill would authorize the Health and Human Services Department to conduct research involving human embryonic stem cells that meet specific criteria, regardless of when stem cells were derived from a human embryo. The political and policy fight over this issue began in 2001, when President Bush issued an executive order that allowed federal funding only on embryonic stem cell lines created before August 9, 2001.

Bush vetoed an identical bill last year, and the House fell 51 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override his veto.

Many Republicans liken research on embryos to abortion, which they oppose as unethical. Supporters of the research, including most Democrats, believe that it promises life-saving medical treatments. They point out that the research is going to be done anyway, and by denying federal funds the United States is simply allowing private research centers around the world to get ahead in curing various diseases. Republican critics counter that research on stem cells has yet to yield life-saving treatments.

Bush adamantly opposes the research and has once again threatened to veto the legislation. In a statement, the White House called the bill "seriously flawed legislation that would undo essential ethical protections, and slow the development of new techniques that avoid bio-ethical concerns."

Nonetheless, the House passed the bill by a vote of 253-174, still well short of the two-thirds majority that would be required to override the threatened veto. Thirty-seven Republicans joined all but 16 Democrats in voting for the measure. The bill then headed to the Senate.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes
Y Y Won
Roll Call 19
Jan 11, 2007
Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (H.R. 3)/Motion to recommit the bill to the Energy and Commerce Committee with instructions to include language prohibiting entities involved in a certain type of cell transfer associated with human cloning from receiving federal funding

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on an amendment Republicans sought to add to legislation broadening federal spending on embryonic stem cell research. The amendment would have prohibited research institutions involved in a certain type of cell transfer associated with human cloning from receiving federal funding for stem cell research. Democrats called the amendment a "poison pill."

The underlying legislation would allow federal grants to be used for research on embryos donated by in vitro fertility clinics so long as the embryos were not created for scientific purposes and otherwise would be thrown away. The political and policy fight over this issue began in 2001, when President Bush issued an executive order that allowed federal funding only on embryonic stem cell lines created before August 9, 2001.

The procedural mechanism Republicans attempted to amend the bill is known as a motion to recommit with instructions. A motion to recommit is a move to send the resolution back to committee for revision and represents the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a measure before a final up-or-down vote.

In this case, Republicans sought to send the bill back to the Energy and Commerce Committee with instructions to deny federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to institutions that engage in human cloning. On multiple occasions, the House has voiced its strong opposition to human cloning for both reproductive purposes as well as for research purposes.

Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.) said that some of the labs that would receive money under this legislation are currently engaged in human cloning research. According to Weldon, "they are pursuing, through the process that they refer to as somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is human cloning, an agenda to create disease-specific cell lines for embryonic stem cells." He said that at the very least Congress should "make sure that, as we move forward in this brave new world of using human embryos in research and discarding them, that at least we are not incentivizing cloning."

Democrats called the Republican effort "a desperate attempt to derail ethical scientific research on embryonic stem cell research," in the words of Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.). She pointed out that not a single person in the House supports reproductive cloning, and the Republican motion was unrelated and a distraction.

"The motion is a thinly veiled attempt to define human life in a manner that can have profound implications beyond the issues raised in H.R. 3," DeGette said. "What the frank intent of this motion is, is to gut H.R. 3 by strapping it with undefined standards and terms that are extraneous to the bill. The motion is a procedural vote without meaning. It is a ruse, a red herring designed to frighten, to obfuscate and to distract."

Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) went further, saying that the motion was "a poison pill in the greatest way."

Furthermore, he said, "it actually eliminates part of the research which may be essential in the implanting of the embryonic stem cells eventually in a human being called somatic cell nuclear transfer, which really doesn't relate ultimately to the human reproductive cloning."

A majority of the House agreed. By a vote of 189 to 238, the motion to recommit was rejected. Eleven Democrats crossed party lines to support it, but their votes were more than canceled out by the 18 Republicans who crossed party lines in opposition. The House thus defeated a motion to add language to an embryonic stem cell research bill to prohibit institutions practicing somatic cell nuclear transfer from receiving federal funds. The bill broadening federal support for embryonic stem cell research went forward without amendment.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes
N N Won
Roll Call 18
Jan 10, 2007
Minimum wage increase (H.R. 2)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the vote on final passage of a bill to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next two years.

Getting to this point was a victory for Democrats, who fought off multiple attempts by Republicans to add amendments to the bill such as tax breaks for small businesses (see Roll Call 16) and a provision that would allow employers to keep paying the current minimum wage of $5.15 per hour if they provided health insurance to their employees (see Roll Call 17).

House Democrats were steadfast in their desire to pass a "clean" version of the legislation. Republicans maintained that the bill would have a significant adverse effect on small businesses and many opposed the measure because it did not contain tax breaks for those employers.

Despite near unanimous party unity on those votes, 82 Republicans ended up voting with all 233 Democrats present in passing a minimum wage hike that didn't include tax breaks for small businesses. The final vote was 315-116. Despite the overwhelming House support for a "clean" version of the legislation, the measure faced near-certain amendment in the Senate, where Democrats didn't have enough support among Republicans to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to end debate and bring the bill to a vote without adding tax breaks for small businesses.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
Y Y Won
Roll Call 17
Jan 10, 2007
Minimum wage increase (H.R. 2)/Motion to recommit with instructions to include language allowing employers that provide health benefits to their employees to pay the existing minimum wage of $5.15 per hour

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote dealt with a Republican proposal to allow employers providing health insurance benefits to keep paying those employees a minimum wage of $5.15 per hour instead of the increased minimum wage of $7.25 per hour that the bill would phase in over the next two years. The minimum wage bill would represent the first increase in a decade.

The rules for consideration for the legislation barred Republicans from offering an alternative bill or amendments on the House floor. That meant that if they wanted to force a vote on the changes they sought, their only parliamentary option was a motion to recommit. A motion to recommit is the minority's last, and often, as in this case, only chance to make substantive changes to legislation before a final vote.

Rep. Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) moved that the bill be sent back to the Education and Labor Committee with instructions to add the provision, a move known as a motion to recommit with instructions.

McKeon said his provision would "would ensure that if an employer offers health coverage to his or her workers, an incredibly costly yet incredibly important employee benefit, then this employer should not be further burdened with a 41 percent minimum wage mandate imposed by H.R. 2, a mandate thrust upon these employers without any protections at all for small business and their workers."

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) added that the minimum wage hike would force many employers in her state that are providing health insurance to their employees to stop doing so because they will no longer be able to afford it. "This provision would encourage more small and medium-sized businesses to provide health insurance for their employees," she said.

But Democrats countered that the American people had asked them to provided a minimum wage increase without dilution. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) said it has taken 10 years to get "an up-and-down vote on whether the poorest people in our nation, who are working every day and, at the end of the year, end up poor, deserve a raise."

Miller pointed out that the McKeon language didn't indicate whether the health care coverage offered by employers to avoid paying employees the increased minimum wage would have to be affordable, just that they offer some health care package.

"It doesn't say what the deductibles are, the copayments, which I am sure if you are a minimum wage worker at $5.15 today, a wage that is 10 years old, I am sure you can pay the copayments and the deductibles and the premiums. That will not be a problem," Miller added with sarcasm. "What is it you don't understand about being poor?"

He added that the American people "didn't ask us to trade in the increase in the minimum wage for some phantom health care proposal."

In the end, 54 Republicans sided with all 233 Democrats present in supporting a "clean" minimum wage bill. By a vote of 144-287, the House voted to reject a motion to recommit that would have sent the bill back to committee to add a provision allowing employers that provide health coverage for their employees to opt out of paying those employees an increased minimum wage. A bill to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next two years went forward without Republican amendment.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
N N Won
Roll Call 16
Jan 10, 2007
Minimum wage increase (H.R. 2)/On appealing a ruling that a Republican motion to send the bill back to committee to add tax breaks for small businesses wasn't allowable

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote dealt with a procedural motion to send a bill to increase the minimum wage back to committee to add small-business tax breaks. The Democratic lawmaker picked by the Speaker to oversee the House floor debate ruled that the Republican motion to send the bill back to committee to add tax cuts was not "germane."

Germaneness, as defined in the House rules, requires that debate and amendments are relevant to the subject under consideration, in this case the minimum wage bill. Questions of germaneness are determined by the Speaker or her designee and are subject to the approval of the House.

The underlying legislation would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next two years, the first increase in a decade. Republicans believed that the increase would have a significant negative impact on small businesses. They wanted to include tax breaks they believed were necessary to offset the impact on employers. The House Democratic leadership had previously expressed its desire to deal with the small business tax breaks separately and pass a "clean" version of the minimum wage hike.

The rules for consideration for the legislation barred Republicans from offering an alternative bill or amendments on the House floor, leaving a motion to recommit as their only parliamentary tool to effect changes to the bill. The motion to recommit would have sent the bill back to the Education and Labor Committee with instructions to add small-business tax cuts.

By ruling that the motion to recommit was not germane, the Democratic leadership was essentially saying that the small business tax breaks were not sufficiently relevant to a bill to raise the minimum wage to merit consideration.

In addition to the small-business tax breaks, the motion to recommit with instructions also included a provision allowing small businesses to band together to buy health insurance. The White House indicated that it supported both provisions. The Republican measure was drafted by Reps. Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) and Jim McCrery (R-La.).

"Small businesses are the backbone of our economy," McKeon said. "They create two-thirds of our nation's new jobs, and they represent 98 percent of the new businesses in the United States. What protection does this bill provide them? None whatsoever."

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) said that it was more important to pass a clean version of the legislation. "We have waited for over 10 years to have this vote on the minimum wage, a clean vote on the minimum wage for the poorest workers in this country who have worked at a wage that is 10 years old," Miller said.

By a vote of 232-197, the House moved to uphold the ruling of the chair that the Republican motion to recommit was not germane. The House divided on strictly party lines. Thus, Democrats were able to stop a Republican attempt to add small business tax breaks to the legislation, and a "clean" version of the minimum-wage hike moved toward a final vote.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Won
Roll Call 15
Jan 09, 2007
Implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission (H.R. 1)/On passage

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on passage of a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the 9/11 Commission issued its final report in 2004. The then-Republican-led Congress followed with a broad overhaul of intelligence operations, but Democrats complained that some recommendations by the bipartisan commission had been ignored. During the 2006 midterm elections Democrats campaigned on a promise to implement the remainder of the commission's recommendations.

The bill encompassing those changes became H.R. 1, symbolically the most important bill of the session. The measure would require all cargo loaded onto passenger jets and on ships coming into U.S. ports to be screened. It would further authorize new domestic intelligence and emergency-communications grant programs for local law enforcement officials, as well as create a new formula for distributing homeland security grants to state and local governments resulting in more money to large, metropolitan areas.

Republican critics of the bill pointed out that it still did not go as far as the commission had recommended in certain areas, including declassifying the intelligence budget.

Democrats pointed out that their bill went much further in fully implementing the commission's recommendations than Republicans were able to accomplish during their control of both the House and Senate in the two years following the commission's report.

Republicans also critiqued the bill because it did not specify how specific initiatives would be funded. The sponsor of the bill, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said that he would have included more funding allocations if there had been more time to draft the bill. Republicans such as Rep. Jerry Lewis (Calif.), the ranking lawmaker on the Appropriations Committee, pointed out that there is "no way we can afford these programs without raising fees or taxes."

Despite criticism of the bill from their party, 68 Republicans ended up voting for the measure. Democratic support was unanimous, and the final vote was 299-128. Thus, the House passed legislation implementing many of the unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including a requirement that all cargo entering the United States be screened, a provision that drew a possible veto threat from the White House.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 14
Jan 09, 2007
Implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission (H.R. 1)/Motion to recommit with instructions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was a procedural vote on a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The motion represented Republican efforts to remove language in the legislation that urged the president to bring a White House-created nuclear non-proliferation program to the United Nations for authorization.

One section of the bill contained a provision known as sense of Congress, nonbinding language that reflects the sentiments of a majority of lawmakers on a particular subject. In this case, the nonbinding language urged the president to work with the U.N. Security Council to authorize the Proliferation Security Initiative. This program, first proposed by President Bush in 2003 and housed within the State Department, would create international agreements to allow the United States and its allies to search planes and ships carrying suspect cargo and seize illegal weapons or missile technologies.

The motion under consideration in this vote would send the bill back to the Foreign Affairs Committee with instructions to remove the language urging the president to seek authorization for the program by the U.N.

If successful, the motion to recommit would send the bill back to the Foreign Affairs Committee with specific instructions to remove the section and add language stating that the U.S. government is solely responsible for protecting American security. Many Republicans believe that signing international non-proliferation agreements undermines U.S. sovereignty. Many Democrats believe the international governing body is the best way to safeguard world peace, reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and thus ensure American safety.

The motion to recommit failed on an almost unanimous party-line vote. Only two Democrats joined all present Republicans in voting for the motion to recommit. By a vote of 198-230, the motion to recommit the bill to the Foreign Affairs Committee failed. Thus, a bill to implement the unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission went forward with nonbinding language urging the president to work with the United Nations to authorize an international program to allow the United States and its allies to search planes and ships carrying suspect cargo and seize illegal weapons or missile technologies.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
WAR & PEACE Arms Controls Treaties
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
WAR & PEACE Proliferation of Militarily Applicable Technology
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Won
Roll Call 13
Jan 09, 2007
To establish a new House intelligence oversight committee (H. Res. 35)/On adoption of the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This was the final vote on a resolution to establish a new House oversight committee to handle intelligence matters. The 13-member Select Intelligence Oversight Committee will be a subcommittee of the Appropriations panel and be comprised of lawmakers from both the Appropriations and Intelligence committees. The subcommittee will review spending on spy activities and recommend spending levels to the Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, which will then determine the actual funding.

Because creating a new committee is an internal House matter, this resolution needed neither approval by the Senate nor the president's signature.

The move to create the new panel came out of the 9/11 Commission Report released a couple of years go that said, among other things, that "Congressional oversight for intelligence and counter terrorism is dysfunctional." The commission recommended creating a joint House-Senate committee in the model of the former Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, or else create a single committee in each chamber to handle both intelligence appropriations (spending) as well as what's known as authorization (drafting legislation to give federal agencies the authority to spend that money in specific ways).

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) pointed out during floor debate that the commission subsequently recommended creating a dedicated appropriations subcommittee dealing only with intelligence matters as a third option. That latter recommendation, he said, was exactly what the House set to accomplish with this resolution.

"The Select Intelligence Oversight Panel will strengthen the oversight process by providing a mechanism for considering intelligence funding and the way appropriated funds are spent on intelligence activities from the combined perspectives of the Appropriations and Intelligence committees," Hastings said.

Republicans were upset at both the committee structure itself as well as the political process that created it, however. Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) asked his colleagues on the House floor whether this resolution meets Congress' duty to effectively oversee the intelligence agencies and constitutional obligation to "provide for the common defense." His answer was "absolutely not."

Republicans were further angered by the way members of the committee would be appointed exclusively by the Speaker instead of dividing the appointments between the Speaker and the Minority Leader, as is the practice for other committee assignments.

Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) said such a move was unacceptable. "It means that our leader has no say in who is appointed to this task force or committee," he said, and added toward Hastings, "you would be up here screaming bloody murder if we tried to pull that stunt on you."

On the substance of the resolution, LaHood added to Dreier's remarks by saying, "The gentleman knows full well we need no more bureaucracy to bog down the intelligence community."

Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) further critiqued the resolution on the grounds that the 9/11 Commission specifically recommended that Congress enact a separate appropriations bill for the intelligence agencies instead of wrapping intelligence funding in a classified section of the Defense budget, which this measure would not do.

"As currently drafted, I have serious concerns that the proposed Intelligence Oversight Panel will have very little control over the actual funding decisions and will only succeed in confusing the process and adding to its complex bureaucracy," Castle added.

Democrats acknowledged that the resolution didn't completely follow the commission's guidelines but maintained that it nonetheless accomplished the commission's goals.

"At long last, we will have one panel the intelligence community cannot ignore," said Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.). Obey pointed out that the committee will have a "beefed up" investigative staff.

In the end, eight Republicans broke rank and voted for the resolution. They joined all 231 Democrats present. The remaining 188 Republicans present voted "no." Thus, on a vote of 239-188, the House voted to create a new Appropriations subcommittee specifically dedicated to intelligence spending.


WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
Y Y Won
Roll Call 12
Jan 09, 2007
To establish a new House intelligence oversight committee (H. Res. 35)/Motion to recommit

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was a procedural vote on the creation of a new House oversight committee to handle intelligence matters. The 13-member Select Intelligence Oversight Committee will be a subcommittee of the Appropriations panel and be comprised of lawmakers from both the Appropriations and Intelligence committees. The subcommittee will review spending on spy activities and recommend spending levels to the Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, which will then determine the actual funding.

Because creating a new committee is an internal House matter, this resolution needed neither approval by the Senate nor the president's signature.

The move to create the new subcommittee came out of the 9/11 Commission Report released a couple of years go that said, among other things, that "Congressional oversight for intelligence and counter terrorism is dysfunctional." The commission recommended creating a joint House-Senate committee in the model of the former Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, or else create a single committee in each chamber to handle both intelligence appropriations (spending) as well as what's known as authorization (drafting legislation to give federal agencies the authority to spend that money in specific ways).

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) pointed out during floor debate that the commission subsequently recommended creating a dedicated appropriations subcommittee dealing only with intelligence matters as a third option. That latter recommendation, he said, was exactly what the House set to accomplish with this resolution.

Republicans were upset at both the committee structure itself as well as the political process that created it, however. Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) asked his colleagues on the House floor whether this resolution meets Congress' duty to effectively oversee the intelligence agencies and constitutional obligation to "provide for the common defense."

"Absolutely not" was his answer. He pointed out that the House already has too many subcommittees to which the intelligence agencies have to report, thereby gumming up the process and wasting precious energy on overlapping reporting duties. Furthermore, he said, the 9/11 Commission's recommendations were very clear in recommending either a joint House-Senate committee or a single authorizing and appropriations committee in each chamber dedicated to intelligence matters. "The proposal in front of us today does neither of those things that were recommended by the 9/11 Commission. In fact, it goes in completely the opposite direction," Dreier continued.

Republicans were further angered by the way members of the committee would be appointed exclusively by the Speaker instead of dividing the appointments between the Speaker and the Minority Leader, as is the practice for other committee assignments.

Democrats acknowledged that the resolution didn't completely follow the commission's guidelines but maintained that it nonetheless accomplished the commission's goals.

"At long last, we will have one panel the intelligence community cannot ignore," said Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.). Obey pointed out that the committee will have a "beefed up" investigative staff.

This vote was on a motion to recommit. A motion to recommit is a move to send the resolution back to committee for revision and represents the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a measure before a final up-or-down vote.

As is common on such procedural votes, the vote on the motion to recommit fell entirely on party lines. All 195 Republicans present voted for it, and all 232 Democrats present voted against it. The motion to recommit with instructions thus failed, and a resolution to create an appropriations subcommittee focusing on intelligence matters cleared a procedural hurdle and moved towards a final vote over Republican objections that it did not accomplish the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.


WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
N N Won
Roll Call 11
Jan 05, 2007
H. Res. 6 Adopting the rules of the House of Representative for the 110th Congress/On adopting Title 5 of the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Every two years when a new Congress meets for the first time members have to agree on what's known as a "rules package," the ground rules that guide lawmakers' conduct both on and off the House floor. It governs everything from how debate is conducted to what lawmakers can accept from lobbyists to what privileges are afforded to the minority party. The rules package must be agreed to before any other business is conducted, and it sets the tone for the entire two-year Congress. The rules package proposed by the Democrats for the 110th Congress codified many campaign promises, including reforms to the ethics rules, curtailing the ability of lawmakers to secretly slip provisions into bills that only benefit narrow interests and making it more difficult for Congress to pass bills that increase the deficit. In the Democrats' view, the rules package serves to reign in the abuses of House civility and corruption they perceived since the chamber underwent Republican control in 1995. This vote was on adoption of Title 5 of the resolution, which included provisions to pave the way for consideration of legislation to implement the Democratic leadership's so-called "100 hours" plan at a time to be designated by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). During the 2006 campaign, Democrats promised that if they took power they would spend the first 100 hours of their governance cleaning up what they deemed Republican abuses of civility and ethics as well as pass a series of bills blocked by the previous Congress. Contained under "special orders of business" in the rules package, the agenda included an increase in the minimum wage, a bill allowing the federal government to negotiate prescription drug prices, a measure implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report to enhance intelligence oversight and legislation broadening the stem-cell research that can be conducted with federal funds. Additionally, this section of the rules package renamed the International Relations Committee, reverting back to its Foreign Affairs Committee name, as had been the case in past Congresses that were under Democratic control. The Resources Committee also was changed to the Natural Resources Committee; the Science panel became the Science and Technology Committee; Government Reform was renamed the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The last name change also carried with it a reform to give the committee authority to subpoena witnesses to testify under oath. All 232 Democrats present voted to enact Title 5 of the rules package, and all 200 Republicans present voted against it. Thus, the final title of the rules package for the 110th Congress was passed with a number of reforms and paved the way for the Democrats' "first 100 hours" of priority legislation.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
Y Y Won
Roll Call 10
Jan 05, 2007
H. Res. 6 Adopting the rules of the House of Representative for the 110th Congress/Motion to commit with instructions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote dealt with whether the House would send back to committee for revision a set of rules that would govern the conduct of lawmakers for the coming two-year session. Every two years when a new Congress meets for the first time members have to agree on what's known as a "rules package," the ground rules that guide lawmakers' conduct both on and off the House floor. It governs everything from how debate is conducted to what lawmakers can accept from lobbyists to what privileges are afforded to the minority party. The rules package must be agreed to before any other business is conducted, and it sets the tone for the entire two-year Congress. The rules package proposed by the Democrats for the 110th Congress codified many campaign promises, including reforms to the ethics rules, curtailing the ability of lawmakers to secretly slip provisions into bills that only benefit narrow interests and making it more difficult for Congress to pass bills that increase the deficit. In the Democrats' view, the rules package serves to reign in the abuses of House civility and corruption they perceived since the chamber underwent Republican control in 1995. A largely symbolic vote, a motion to commit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a measure before a final up-or-down vote. Predictably, the motion failed on a party-line vote, with all 232 Democrats present voting against it and all 200 Republicans present voting for it. Although there were many provisions in the Democrat-drafted rules package that Republicans wanted to see changed, the minority party most wanted to thwart the new Democratic majority's effort to enact the so-called "100 hours" legislation that Democrats had promised on the campaign trail. The 100-hours agenda includes bills to raise the minimum wage, implement intelligence provisions of the 9/11 Commissions' report, open up more federally funded stem-cell research and allow the federal government to negotiate prescription drug prices. The fifth and final title of the rules package contained several parliamentary provisions that paved the way for passage of those measures, and thus preventing the rules package from going into effect as written would have served to stop the Democrats from enacting their campaign promises. The failure of the motion to recommit meant that Republicans were shut out in their attempts to change the rules package before it was enacted and to prevent the Democrats from pushing ahead with the 100-hours agenda with the parliamentary wheels already greased. (run on) The fifth and final title of the rules package for the 110th Congress headed for an up-or-down vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
N N Won
Roll Call 9
Jan 05, 2007
H. Res. 6 Adopting the rules of the House of Representative for the 110th Congress/On adopting Title 4 of the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote determined whether a section of the ground rules for the 110th Congress covering "fiscal responsibility" would be adopted. Every two years when a new Congress meets for the first time members have to agree on what's known as a "rules package," the ground rules that guide lawmakers' conduct both on and off the House floor. It governs everything from how debate is conducted to what lawmakers can accept from lobbyists to what privileges are afforded to the minority party. The rules package must be agreed to before any other business is conducted, and it sets the tone for the entire two-year Congress. The rules package proposed by the Democrats for the 110th Congress codified many campaign promises, including reforms to the ethics rules, curtailing the ability of lawmakers to secretly slip provisions into bills that only benefit narrow interests and making it more difficult for Congress to pass bills that increase the deficit. This vote was on adoption of Title 4 of the resolution, titled "fiscal responsibility." This part of the rules package comprises changes to the budget process, including reinstatement of pay-as-you-go requirements for new tax-cut or entitlement programs. PAYGO rules, as they are known, mandate that any new tax cuts or expansion of entitlement programs have to be offset by cuts to other parts of the budget or tax increases. They require that budget-busting legislation be subject to what's known as a point of order, a parliamentary hurdle that the legislation would have to overcome in order to move forward. During debate, Democrats accused President Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress of frittering away the large budget surpluses they inherited after the 2000 elections and turning them into record deficits. The national debt is now approaching $9 trillion. "The one thing we can say about George Bush and his economic policy is: 'We are forever in your debt,' " said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). "On day number two [of Democratic control], Democrats have said, 'Enough is enough with running up the debt of this country. We're going to put our fiscal house in order.' " Republicans criticized the Democrats' PAYGO efforts for being weak, as the measure is only enforceable through House rules, which are easily waived by the majority party. Indeed, the measure doesn't have the same teeth as 1990s-era PAYGO language that was enacted into law. Democrats pointed out, however, that it was a Republican Congress that let that law expire. The House Democratic leadership has indicated they will pursue PAYGO legislation in the beginning of this session, but pointed out that it would not be possible without the support of the White House and the Senate. PAYGO rules in the House were the best they could do for now, they said. This title of the rules package also prohibits what are known as earmarks unless the provisions' sponsors are listed in the report accompanying the bill. Earmarks are provisions tucked legislation that often benefit small, private interests or a lawmaker's own district. It has been the practice in recent Congresses for such provisions to be slipped in anonymously without public scrutiny. Under Title 4, the same reporting requirements apply to earmarks in bills that go to the floor bypassing the normal committee process as well as earmarks added in conference committees with the Senate. Furthermore, Title 4 also prohibits any lawmaker from conditioning inclusion of an earmark based on how another lawmaker voted. Such a practice had become relatively commonplace under Republican control of the chamber. Forty-eight Republicans joined all 232 present Democrats in voting to enact Title 4 of the House rules package for the 110th Congress. Thus, pay-as-you-go budget rules and banning anonymous earmarks became part of the standing rules of the House for the next two years.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Won
Roll Call 5
Jan 04, 2007
H. Res. 5 Providing for the consideration of House rules package for the 110th Congress/On Agreeing to the resolution

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote determined the ground rules for the House's consideration of what's known as the rules package for the 110th Congress. Only after this resolution was agreed to could the House move to consider the rules package itself. Every two years when a new Congress meets for the first time members have to agree on what's known as a "rules package," the rules that guide lawmakers' conduct both on and off the House floor. It governs everything from how debate is conducted to what lawmakers can accept from lobbyists to what privileges are afforded to the minority party. The rules package must be agreed to before any other business is conducted, and it sets the tone for the entire two-year Congress. The rules package proposed by the Democrats for the 110th Congress codified many campaign promises, including reforms to the ethics rules, curtailing the ability of lawmakers to secretly slip provisions into bills that only benefit narrow interests and making it more difficult for Congress to pass bills that increase the deficit. This vote set the rules for how the 110th Congress rules package would be debated, that is how much floor time each side received to debate each section, as well as parliamentary logistics. All 232 Democrats voted for the measure, as well as three Republicans, and the measure passed with 195 Republican "noes." The rules for debate thus set, the House could then turn its attention to debating the rules package for the 110th Congress.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Won
Roll Call 4
Jan 04, 2007
H. Res. 5 Providing for the consideration of House rules package for the 110th Congress/Motion to recommit with instructions

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote determined the ground rules for the House's consideration of what's known as the rules package for the 110th Congress. The motion being considered was whether to send back to committee for revision the guidelines for debate of the rules package for the whole two-year session. Every two years when a new Congress meets for the first time members have to agree on what's known as a "rules package," the rules that guide lawmakers' conduct both on and off the House floor. It governs everything from how debate is conducted to what lawmakers can accept from lobbyists to what privileges are afforded to the minority party. The rules package must be agreed to before any other business is conducted, and it sets the tone for the entire two-year Congress. The rules package proposed by the Democrats for the 110th Congress codified many campaign promises, including reforms to the ethics rules, curtailing the ability of lawmakers to secretly slip provisions into bills that only benefit narrow interests and making it more difficult for Congress to pass bills that increase the deficit. This vote was a motion to recommit with instructions. A largely symbolic vote, a motion to recommit is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a measure before a final up-or-down vote. In this case, the Republicans were seeking an opportunity to determine how the rules package would be considered, such as how much floor time they would have to debate the measure. This kind of procedural vote is usually highly disciplined within each party, with the minority party voting for it and the majority against it. In this instance, both parties collected total conformity among their ranks, and all 232 Democrats voted against it and all 199 Republicans present voted for it. The motion thus failed. The failure of the motion to recommit meant that Republicans were shut out in their last attempt to modify the rules of consideration for the rules package for the 110th Congress. The rules of consideration thus moved to a final vote, paving the way for the rules package for the entire Congress itself to be adopted.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
N N Won
Roll Call 3
Jan 04, 2007
H. Res. 5 Providing for the consideration of House rules package for the 110th Congress/Motion to end debate and bring to a final vote

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was on whether to end debate on a resolution that determined the ground rules for the House's consideration of standing rules that govern lawmakers' conduct for the 110th Congress. Every two years when a new Congress meets for the first time members have to agree on what's known as a "rules package," the rules that guide lawmakers' conduct both on and off the House floor. It governs everything from how debate is conducted to what lawmakers can accept from lobbyists to what privileges are afforded to the minority party. The rules package must be agreed to before any other business is conducted, and it sets the tone for the entire two-year Congress. The rules package proposed by the Democrats for the 110th Congress codified many campaign promises, including reforms to the ethics rules, curtailing the ability of lawmakers to secretly slip provisions into bills that only benefit narrow interests and making it more difficult for Congress to pass bills that increase the deficit. This vote was a motion ordering the previous question, which is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively ends debate, prohibits amendment and moves the House to a vote for an up-or-down of the resolution under consideration. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House in effect turns control of the floor over to the lawmaker who led the opposition to the question at hand, usually a member of the minority party. As such, motions to order the previous question are usually party-line votes, and the majority party almost always prevails. Such was the case for this vote, and all Republicans present voted against the measure and all Democrats present voted for it, and the motion passed 222-179. By successfully ordering the previous question, the Democrats moved toward establishing rules of consideration for how the rules package for the entire Congress would be debated. As a result, the Democrats retained control of the floor and moved one step closer to adopting the rules they wrote for the 110th Congress.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Won
Roll Call 543
Dec 09, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 3546 Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Close Vote Absent Y Won
Roll Call 542
Dec 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 3718 Pool and Spa Safety Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 541
Dec 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 5682 Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Promotion Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 539
Dec 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6406 To modify temporarily certain rates of duty and make other technical amendments to the trade laws, to extend certain trade preference programs, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 536
Dec 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1100 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 6406, to modify temporarily certain rates of duty and make other technical amendments to trade laws, to extend certain trade preference programs, and for othe purposes.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 533
Dec 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Agree to Senate Amendment with Amendment: H R 6111 Tax Relief and Health Care Act
On Motion to Agree to Senate Amendment with Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 532
Dec 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Amend the House Amendment to Senate Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 6111
Motion to Amend the House Amendment to Senate Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 530
Dec 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1099 Relating to consideration of the bill H.R. 6111 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while such claims are pending.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 529
Dec 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1101 Waiving all points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 5682 and against its consideration.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 528
Dec 07, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1096 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 526
Dec 06, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 6099 Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 525
Dec 05, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1176 Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 519
Nov 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5602 To Authorize the Extension of Nondiscriminatory Treatment (Normal Trade Relations Treatment) to the Products of Vietnam
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 512
Sep 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1064 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes.
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 511
Sep 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4772 Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 508
Sep 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 3930 Military Commissions Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 507
Sep 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1053 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Commitee on Rules.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 506
Sep 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1053 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Commitee on Rules.
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 505
Sep 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1054 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 5441, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2007; and providing for the consideration of S. 3930, Military Commissions Act and H.R. 4772, Private Property Rights Implementation Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 504
Sep 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1054 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 5441, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2007; and providing for the consideration of S. 3930, Military Commissions Act and H.R. 4772, Private Property Rights Implementation Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 503
Sep 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 6143 Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 502
Sep 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5825 Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 501
Sep 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5825 Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 500
Sep 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4954 Security and Accountability for Every Port (SAFE) Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 499
Sep 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1052 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5825, Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 498
Sep 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1052 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5825, Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 497
Sep 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1046 Waiving the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 496
Sep 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1046 Waiving the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 495
Sep 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1045 Providing for the consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 491
Sep 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6166 Military Commissions Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 490
Sep 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6166 Military Commissions Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 489
Sep 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1042 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 6166, Military Commissions Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 488
Sep 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1042 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 6166, Military Commissions Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 487
Sep 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 483 Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 480
Sep 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2679 Public Expression of Religion Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 479
Sep 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 403 Child Custody Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 478
Sep 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to resolve into secret session: MOTION
Motion to resolve into secret session

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 477
Sep 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 4772 Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 476
Sep 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5092 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) Modernization and Reform Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 475
Sep 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1039 Providing for the consideration of S. 403, Child Custody Protection Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 474
Sep 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1038 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2679, Public Expression of Religion Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 472
Sep 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5062 New Hampshire Wilderness Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 471
Sep 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5059 New Hampshire Wilderness Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 470
Sep 21, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2832 Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2006
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 468
Sep 21, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6095 Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 467
Sep 21, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6095 Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 465
Sep 21, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6094 Community Protection Act of 2006
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 464
Sep 21, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 6094 Community Protection Act of 2006
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 462
Sep 21, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1018 Providing for the consideration of the bills (H.R. 4830)Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006, (H.R. 6094) Community Protection Act of 2006 and (H.R. 6095) Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 461
Sep 21, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1018 Providing for the consideration of the bills (H.R. 4830)Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006, (H.R. 6094) Community Protection Act of 2006 and (H.R. 6095) Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 459
Sep 20, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4844 Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 458
Sep 20, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4844 Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 456
Sep 20, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1015 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate State election official with proof that the individual is a citizen of the US
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 455
Sep 20, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1015 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate State election official with proof that the individual is a citizen of the US
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 454
Sep 20, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 1015 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate State election official with proof that the individual is a citizen of the US
On Consideration of the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 449
Sep 14, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 1003 Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 1000) providing for earmarking reform in the House of Representatives
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 448
Sep 14, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1003 Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 1000) providing for earmarking reform in the House of Representatives
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 446
Sep 14, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6061 Secure Fence Act of 2006
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 445
Sep 14, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6061 Secure Fence Act of 2006
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 444
Sep 14, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 1002 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 6061, Secure Fence Act of 2006
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 439
Sep 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 4893 Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act of 2006
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 438
Sep 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 996 Providing for the consideration of H. Res. 994, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 433
Sep 07, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 503 Horse Protection Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 432
Sep 07, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 503
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 431
Sep 07, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 503
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 425
Jul 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5970 Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 424
Jul 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5970 Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 422
Jul 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4 Pension Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 421
Jul 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4 Pension Protection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 420
Jul 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 459 Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 419
Jul 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 966 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5970, Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act and H.R. 4, Pension Protection Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 418
Jul 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 958 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 417
Jul 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2830 Pension Protection Act of 2005
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 416
Jul 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4157 Better Health Information System Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 415
Jul 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4157 Better Health Information System Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 413
Jul 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 952 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4157) to amend the Social Security Act to encourage the dissemination, security, confidentiality, and usefulness of health information technology
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 412
Jul 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 952 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4157) to amend the Social Security Act to encourage the dissemination, security, confidentiality, and usefulness of health information technology
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 411
Jul 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5682 United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 410
Jul 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5682 United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 409
Jul 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5682
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 408
Jul 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5682
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 406
Jul 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 947 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5682, United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 401
Jul 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5013 Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 399
Jul 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2830 Pension Protection Act of 2005
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 392
Jul 20, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5684 To implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 390
Jul 20, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 925 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5684) to implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 389
Jul 20, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 925 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5684) to implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 388
Jul 19, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding: H R 810 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act
Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 386
Jul 19, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5683 To preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, by providing for the immediate acquisition of the memorial by the United States
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 385
Jul 19, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2389 Pledge Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 384
Jul 19, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2389
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 383
Jul 19, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 920 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2389) to amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 382
Jul 19, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 920 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2389) to amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 380
Jul 18, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2754 Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 378
Jul 18, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 88 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 376
Jul 17, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3496 To amend the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 to authorize additional Federal contributions for maintaining and improving the transit system of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and for other purposes
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N Y Won
Roll Call 373
Jul 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 9
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 372
Jul 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 9
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 371
Jul 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 9
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 368
Jul 12, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2990 Credit Rating Agency Duopoly Relief Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 367
Jul 12, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2990
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 366
Jul 12, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: S 250 Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 365
Jul 12, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 906 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2990, Credit Rating Agency Duopoly Relief Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 364
Jul 12, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 906 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2990, Credit Rating Agency Duopoly Relief Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 363
Jul 11, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4411 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 362
Jul 11, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4411 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 361
Jul 11, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4411
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 360
Jul 11, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 907 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4411, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 357
Jun 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 895 Supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against, etc.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 356
Jun 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4761 Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 354
Jun 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4761
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 353
Jun 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 440 Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 352
Jun 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 897 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4761) to provide for exploration, development, and production activities for mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 351
Jun 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 896 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 895) supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 350
Jun 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 896 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 895) supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 346
Jun 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 70 to H R 5672
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 345
Jun 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 67 to H R 5672
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 344
Jun 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 64 to H R 5672
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 343
Jun 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 59 to H R 5672
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 342
Jun 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 51 to H R 5672
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 341
Jun 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 50 to H R 5672
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 340
Jun 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 5672
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 339
Jun 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 5672
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 333
Jun 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 5672
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 332
Jun 28, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 5672 Making appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 330
Jun 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 5672
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 329
Jun 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5672
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Won
Roll Call 328
Jun 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5672
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 327
Jun 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5672
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 326
Jun 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5672
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 319
Jun 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 890 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5672) making appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 317
Jun 22, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4890 Legislative Line Item Veto Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 316
Jun 22, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4890 Legislative Line Item Veto Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 315
Jun 22, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5638 Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 314
Jun 22, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5638 Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 313
Jun 22, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 5638 Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 312
Jun 22, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Consideration: H R 5638
On Consideration

N N Lost
Roll Call 311
Jun 22, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 886 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4890, Legislative Line Item Veto Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 310
Jun 22, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 886 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4890, Legislative Line Item Veto Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 309
Jun 22, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 885 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5638, Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 308
Jun 22, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 885 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5638, Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 301
Jun 20, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 5631
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 300
Jun 20, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5631
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 295
Jun 20, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 5631
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 294
Jun 20, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5228 To require representatives of governments designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism to disclose to the Attorney General lobbying contacts with legislative branch officials, and for other purposes
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 288
Jun 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 861 Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 287
Jun 15, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 868 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 861) declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 285
Jun 14, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 284
Jun 14, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 43 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 283
Jun 14, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 41 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 282
Jun 14, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 281
Jun 14, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 275
Jun 14, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 274
Jun 14, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 272
Jun 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 271
Jun 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 269
Jun 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 268
Jun 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 267
Jun 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 266
Jun 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 265
Jun 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 264
Jun 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 263
Jun 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5576
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 262
Jun 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 865 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5576) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 258
Jun 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 862 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 257
Jun 13, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4939 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 255
Jun 12, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 857 Waiving points of order against consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 249
Jun 09, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5522
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 247
Jun 09, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 5522
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 246
Jun 09, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5522
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 243
Jun 09, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 5522
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 242
Jun 09, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5522
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 241
Jun 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5252 Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 240
Jun 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5252 Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 239
Jun 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5252
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 238
Jun 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5252
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 237
Jun 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 850 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5252) to promote the deployment of broadband networks and services
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 236
Jun 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5522
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 235
Jun 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 850 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5252) to promote the deployment of broadband networks and services
On Consideration of the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 233
Jun 07, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5449 To amend title 49, United States Code, to modify bargaining requirements for proposed changes to the personnel management system of the Federal Aviation Administration
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 232
Jun 07, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5254 Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 231
Jun 07, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5254 Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 230
Jun 07, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 193 Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y N Lost
Roll Call 228
Jun 07, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 842 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5254) to set schedules for the consideration of permits for refineries
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 227
Jun 07, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 842 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5254) to set schedules for the consideration of permits for refineries
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 225
Jun 06, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 5441 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007
Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 224
Jun 06, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 5441
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 223
Jun 06, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 5441
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 222
May 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 5441
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 221
May 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 5441
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 219
May 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 5441
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 218
May 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5441
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 217
May 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 5441
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 216
May 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5441
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 214
May 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5441
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 213
May 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5441
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 212
May 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5441
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 211
May 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5441
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 210
May 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 836 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5441, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 209
May 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5429 American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 208
May 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5429 American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 207
May 25, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 835 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5429) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in a program for the exploration, development and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain of Alaska
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 202
May 24, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 5427
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 201
May 24, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5427
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 200
May 24, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 5427
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 199
May 24, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5427
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 198
May 24, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5427
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 197
May 24, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5427
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 196
May 24, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5427
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 195
May 24, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 832 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5427) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 194
May 24, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 832 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5427) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 189
May 23, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 5384
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 188
May 23, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 5384
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 182
May 23, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 5384
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 180
May 23, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 830 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5384) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 179
May 23, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 830 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5384) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 175
May 19, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5385
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 174
May 19, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 821 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5385) making appropriations for the military quality of life functions of the Department of Defense, military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 173
May 19, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 821 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5385) making appropriations for the military quality of life functions of the Department of Defense, military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 172
May 18, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5386 Making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 170
May 18, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 5386
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 169
May 18, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 5386
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 168
May 18, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5386
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 167
May 18, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 5386
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 165
May 18, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 5386
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 164
May 18, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5386
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 163
May 18, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5386
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 161
May 18, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 818 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5386) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 160
May 18, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 818 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5386) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 158
May 17, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 376 Congressional Budget for FY 2007
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 157
May 17, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 376
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 155
May 17, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 376
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 154
May 17, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 817 Providing for further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 376) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 through 2011
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 153
May 17, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 817 Providing for further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 376) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 through 2011
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 152
May 17, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 815 Waiving the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 151
May 17, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4200 Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 150
May 17, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 149
May 17, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 148
May 17, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 147
May 17, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 145
May 11, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5122 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 144
May 11, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5122 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 142
May 11, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5122
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 141
May 11, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5122
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 140
May 11, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 811 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 5122, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 139
May 11, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 811 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 5122, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 136
May 10, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 5122
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 135
May 10, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 134
May 10, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 133
May 10, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 806 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 5122, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 132
May 10, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 805 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4297) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(b) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 126
May 04, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4954 Security and Accountability for Every Port (SAFE) Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 125
May 04, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4954
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 124
May 03, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 789 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4954 to improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 123
May 03, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 789 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4954 to improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes.
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 122
May 03, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2830 Pension Protection Act of 2005
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 121
May 03, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 119
May 03, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4975 Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 118
May 03, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4975 Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 116
May 03, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5254 Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 110
Apr 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 783 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4975) to provide greater transparency with respect to lobbying activities, and for othe purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 109
Apr 27, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 108
Apr 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5020 Intelligence Authorization for Fiscal Year 2007
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 107
Apr 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5020 Intelligence Authorization for Fiscal Year 2007
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 106
Apr 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5020
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 103
Apr 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 774 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5020) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 102
Apr 26, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 774 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5020) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 94
Apr 06, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 93
Apr 06, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2830 Pension Protection Act of 2005
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 92
Apr 06, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 766 Providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 376, Congressional Budget for FY 2007
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 91
Apr 06, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 766 Providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 376, Congressional Budget for FY 2007
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 88
Apr 05, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 513 527 Reform Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 87
Apr 05, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 762
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 86
Apr 05, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 755 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 513) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 must register as political committees, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 85
Apr 05, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 755 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 513) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 must register as political committees, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 81
Mar 30, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 609 College Access and Opportunity Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 80
Mar 30, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 76
Mar 30, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 746 Resolution Raising a Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 75
Mar 30, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 742 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 609, College Access and Opportunity Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 74
Mar 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 71
Mar 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 609
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 70
Mar 29, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 741 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 609) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 67
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 66
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2320 To make available funds included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Won
Roll Call 65
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4939 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 64
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4939 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 63
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 49 to H R 4939
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 62
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 4939
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 61
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 4939
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 60
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 46 to H R 4939
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 58
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 4939
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 56
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 4939
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 55
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair: H R 4939 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
On Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 54
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 4939
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 53
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4939
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 52
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 4939
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 51
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4939
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 47
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4939
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 46
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4939
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 45
Mar 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4939
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 41
Mar 15, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 725 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 40
Mar 15, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 725 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 39
Mar 14, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H CON RES 354 Expressing the continued support of Congress for requiring an institution of higher education to provide military recruiters with access to the institution?s campus and students at least equal in quality and scope to that which is provided to any other employer in order to be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds.
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree

N N Lost
Roll Call 33
Mar 09, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 713 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2829) to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 32
Mar 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4167 National Uniformity for Food Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 31
Mar 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4167 National Uniformity for Food Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 30
Mar 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4167
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 29
Mar 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4167
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 28
Mar 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4167
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 22
Mar 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2830 Pension Protection Act of 2005
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 21
Mar 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 710 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 4167, National Uniformity for Food Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 20
Mar 07, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2271 USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Lost
Roll Call 18
Mar 02, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 702 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4167, National Uniformity for Food Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 13
Feb 16, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 687
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 7
Feb 08, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 4
Feb 01, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 653 Relating to consideration of the bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 (a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95)
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 2
Feb 01, 2006

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 653 Relating to consideration of the bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 (a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95)
On Consideration of the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 670
Dec 19, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 1932 Budget Reconciliation, 2006
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 669
Dec 19, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2863 Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 668
Dec 19, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit conference report with instructions: H R 2863 Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
Recommit conference report with instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 666
Dec 19, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 639 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 2863, Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 2006
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 665
Dec 19, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1815 National Defense Authorization Act, FY 06
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 663
Dec 17, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 623 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 661
Dec 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4437 Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 660
Dec 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4437 Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 659
Dec 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 4437
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 658
Dec 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 4437
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 657
Dec 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 4437
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 656
Dec 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4437
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 655
Dec 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4437
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 653
Dec 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4437
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 652
Dec 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: S 1932 Budget Reconciliation, 2006
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 648
Dec 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 612 Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 646
Dec 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 621 Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 645
Dec 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 619 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 612) expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 644
Dec 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 619 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 612) expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 643
Dec 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1815 National Defense Authorization Act, FY 06
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 640
Dec 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4437
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 639
Dec 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4437
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 636
Dec 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 610 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4437, Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 635
Dec 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2830 Pension Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 634
Dec 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2830 Pension Protection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 633
Dec 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 602 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2830, Pension Protection Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 630
Dec 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2863 Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 628
Dec 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3010 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 627
Dec 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3199 USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 626
Dec 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 3199 USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act
Recommit Conference Report with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 624
Dec 13, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 1047 To require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of each of the Nation?s past President and their spouses, respectively, to improve circulation of the $1 coin, to create a new bullion coin, and for other purposes
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Won
Roll Call 622
Dec 08, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 591
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 621
Dec 08, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 620
Dec 08, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 619
Dec 08, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4297
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 616
Dec 07, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4340 United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 615
Dec 07, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table appeal of the ruling of the chair: H R 3010 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
Table appeal of the ruling of the chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 607
Nov 18, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 572 Providing for the consideration of H. Res. 571 and for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 308
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 606
Nov 18, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended: H RES 563 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 601
Nov 17, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4241 Deficit Reduction Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 600
Nov 17, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 560 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4241) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a) of the concurrent on the budget for fiscal year 2006
On Consideration of the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 598
Nov 17, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3010 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Won
Roll Call 596
Nov 17, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 559 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 3010, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropropriations for FY 2006
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 592
Nov 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1065 To establish the United States Boxing Commission to protect the general welfare of boxers and to ensure fairness in the sport of professional boxing
On Passage

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 591
Nov 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H RES 547 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deplorably infringed on parental rights in Fields v. Palmdale School District
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree

N N Lost
Roll Call 585
Nov 09, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1751 Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 584
Nov 09, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1751 Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 583
Nov 09, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1751
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 573
Nov 08, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 3010 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 562
Nov 03, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION
Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 559
Nov 02, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 1606 Online Freedom of Speech Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 554
Oct 27, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3057 Making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 553
Oct 27, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 420 Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 552
Oct 27, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 420 Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 551
Oct 27, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 420
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 547
Oct 26, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1461 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 546
Oct 26, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1461 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 541
Oct 26, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1461
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 539
Oct 26, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 509 Providing for the consideration on H.R. 1461, Federal Housing Finance Reform Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 535
Oct 20, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2744 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 534
Oct 20, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 397 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 533
Oct 19, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 554 Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 532
Oct 19, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 554
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 531
Oct 19, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 554
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 530
Oct 19, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 554
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 529
Oct 19, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 554
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 524
Oct 18, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 494 Providing for the consideration on H.R. 554, Personal Responsibilty in Food Consumption Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 519
Oct 07, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3893 Gasoline for America?s Security Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 518
Oct 07, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3893 Gasoline for America?s Security Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 517
Oct 07, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3893
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 515
Oct 07, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 481 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3893) to expedite the construction of new refining capacity in the United States, to provide reliable and affordable energy for the American people, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 512
Oct 06, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2360 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations, FY 2006
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 507
Sep 29, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 68 Making Continuing Appropriations for the Fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 506
Sep 29, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3824 Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 505
Sep 29, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3824
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 502
Sep 29, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 470 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3824) to amend and reauthorize the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide greater results conserving and recovering listed species, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 500
Sep 28, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3402 Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 499
Sep 28, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3402
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 498
Sep 28, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 462 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3402) to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 497
Sep 28, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2360 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations, FY 2006
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 495
Sep 27, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 438 Maudelle Shirek Post Office Building
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 493
Sep 22, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2123 School Readiness Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 492
Sep 22, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2123
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 491
Sep 22, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2123
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 486
Sep 22, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 455 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2123) to reauthorize the Head Start Act to improve the school readiness of disadvantaged children, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 484
Sep 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 250 Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 483
Sep 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 482
Sep 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 478
Sep 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 451 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 475
Sep 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 437 To Establish the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 473
Sep 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 889
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 472
Sep 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 439 Providing for consideration of H. Res. 437, to establish the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 471
Sep 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 439 Providing for consideration of H. Res. 437, to establish the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 469
Sep 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 3132
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 468
Sep 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3132
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 459
Sep 08, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 426 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 458
Sep 08, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 426 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 451
Jul 28, 2005
H.R. 2985. Appropriations/Vote to Approve Conference Report for Legislative Branch Appropriations (Funding) Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House voted to adopt the conference report for H.R. 2985, the bill to fund the legislative branch of the U.S. government in fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (A conference report is the reconciled version of a bill that emerges from a conference of selected senators and representatives following the passage of different versions of the bill by each body. The report must then be agreed to by both the House and the Senate, without changes, before it can be sent to the President for his signature.) The bill would provide $3.804 billion for the legislative branch in 2006, including both houses of Congress, the Capitol Police, the Government Printing Office, the Library of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accounting Office. Taking the Progressive position, David Obey (D-WI) noted that the construction of a large Visitors' Center at the Capitol was now likely to run approximately $510 million beyond originally anticipated costs and was at least two years behind schedule. He condemned the overruns, stating "I think a tremendous amount of space has been wasted. And I think a tremendous amount of taxpayers' dollars have been wasted." Obey also condemned language which had been tacked onto the appropriations bill to provide for continuity in Congress in the event that a terrorist attack or other disaster killed a large number of members of Congress. He argued that this language provided for special elections to be held in 45 days, and that during that interim period, the President of the United States could virtually have complete control of the government. He expressed his preference for temporary appointments that could be made immediately, until special elections could be held. Republicans disagreed. Appropriations Committee Chair Jerry Lewis (R-CA) asserted that the bill was a "lean" one, and he explained that the increase from the previous year's appropriations-including the Visitors' Center-was the result of increased security measures in and around the Capitol. Republicans also favored the continuity-of-government language in the bill, arguing that it was "important" to have a procedure in place to ensure a functioning government in the event of a "calamity." (Ray LaHood (R-IL).) Progressives suffered a defeat when the House agreed to the conference report by a vote of 305 to 122, with 110 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "yes" with Republicans, and 34 Republicans choosing to vote "no" with Progressives. Thus, funds for the legislative branch of the U.S. government for FY06 were approved by the House, including increased expenditures for construction of the Capitol Visitors' Center, and a provision that could permit the President to have near complete control of the government for 45 days in the event of a terrorist attack or other disaster that took the lives of 100 or more members of Congress.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Fair Elections
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 449
Jul 28, 2005
H.R. 5. Health Care/Vote to Pass Bill to Cap Damage Awards for Victims and Reduce Liability in Medical Malpractice Cases.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House approved H.R. 5, a bill to cap damage awards for victims and reduce liability in medical malpractice cases. Republicans argued that large awards in medical malpractice cases had led malpractice insurance companies to raise their premiums for doctors, hospitals and other health care providers so high that many of these providers were being forced to give up their practices. Calling the state of affairs at the time a "medical liability crisis," Joe Wilson (R-SC) argued that the bill "safeguards patients' rights to care through common sense reforms. First, it promotes the speedy resolution of claims and fairly allocates damages. Second, the HEALTH Act accurately compensates patient injuries and maximizes patient recovery. Finally, this legislation places reasonable limits on punitive damages and ensures the payment of medical expenses and respects States' rights." Republicans also argued that "[A] Gallup poll found that 72 percent of those surveyed favor a limit on the amount patients can be awarded for noneconomic damages." (Lamar Smith (R-TX).) Progressives countered that that poll would have turned out differently if people had been informed that the legislation would make it more difficult for them to sue drug companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). (John Conyers (D-MI).) Conyers argued: "Rather than helping doctors and victims, this measure pads the pockets of insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, and manufacturers and distributors of defective medical products and pharmaceuticals, and it does so at the expense of innocent victims, particularly women, children, the elderly and the poor." He added that a "General Accounting Office report that found there is no evidence that caps on damages have reduced losses or helped consumers. They found, instead, that the contention that premiums are rising because there is a surge in jury awards is a myth[.]" In addition, Democrats lamented the fact that this bill had come up for consideration on the House floor under a "closed rule," meaning that debate was strictly limited and no amendments were permitted. They were also upset that there had been no hearings or chance to amend the bill in committee. The House defeated Progressives when it passed this bill by a vote of 230 to 194, with 14 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "yes" With Republicans. Thus, the House passed a bill to cap damages awards for victims and limit liability in medical malpractice cases.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Doctors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Hospitals
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 448
Jul 28, 2005
H.R. 5. Health Care/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit with Instructions (Amend or Kill) Bill to Cap Damage Awards for Victims and Reduce Liability in Medical Malpractice Cases.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 5, a bill to cap damage awards for victims and reduce liability in medical malpractice cases. (A motion to recommit with instructions means to send a bill back to committee with instructions to take a specific action. It is often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill amend substantively or to kill the pending legislation.) John Conyers (D-MI) offered the motion on behalf of Democrats, including Progressives. Republicans had argued that large awards in medical malpractice cases had led malpractice insurance companies to raise their premiums for doctors, hospitals and other health care providers so high that many of these providers were being forced to give up their practices. Republicans offered H.R. 5 as a solution to this problem. But Progressives condemned the bill, arguing that "[r]ather than helping doctors and victims, this measure pads the pockets of insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, and manufacturers and distributors of defective medical products and pharmaceuticals, and it does so at the expense of innocent victims, particularly women, children, the elderly and the poor." (Conyers.) Conyers further argued that his motion would have gotten at the real problem-frivolous lawsuits-by "requir[ing] that both an attorney and health care specialist submit an affidavit that the claim is warranted before a malpractice action can be brought, and imposes strict sanctions for attorneys who make any frivolous pleadings." (Conyers.) Republicans criticized the motion to recommit, alleging that it would not have adequately protected doctors from frivolous suits. Instead, they hailed the bill, arguing that it "safeguards patients' rights to care through commonsense reforms. First, it promotes the speedy resolution of claims and fairly allocates damages. Second, the HEALTH Act accurately compensates patient injuries and maximizes patient recovery. Finally, this legislation places reasonable limits on punitive damages and ensures the payment of medical expenses and respects States' rights." Joe Wilson (R-SC).) In a defeat for Progressives, the House rejected this motion by a nearly party-line vote of 193 to 234. Thus, the House proceeded to a vote on the bill to limit liability and cap damage awards in medical malpractice.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Doctors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Hospitals
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 445
Jul 28, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 6 Energy Policy Act of 2005
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 443
Jul 27, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3045 Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 442
Jul 27, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 386 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3045) to implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 441
Jul 27, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 385 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5, to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 440
Jul 27, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 385 Providing for consideration of H.R. 5, to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 437
Jul 27, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3283 United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 436
Jul 27, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3283 United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 433
Jul 27, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 387 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3283) United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 432
Jul 27, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 387 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3283) United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 426
Jul 26, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 525 To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with small businesses with respect to medical care for their emplopyees
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 425
Jul 26, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 525 To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with small businesses with respect to medical care for their emplopyees
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 424
Jul 26, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 525
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 421
Jul 26, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3283 United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 415
Jul 22, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3070
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 414
Jul 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3199 USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 413
Jul 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3199 USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 412
Jul 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment, as Modified: Amendment 14 to H R 3199
On Agreeing to the Amendment, as Modified

Y Y Won
Roll Call 411
Jul 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3199
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 410
Jul 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3199
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 409
Jul 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3199
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 405
Jul 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3199
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 402
Jul 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 369 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3199, USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 401
Jul 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 369 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3199, USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 399
Jul 20, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2601 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 398
Jul 20, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2601 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 397
Jul 20, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 2601
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 396
Jul 20, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 2601
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 395
Jul 20, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 2601
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 393
Jul 20, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2601
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 391
Jul 20, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2601
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 389
Jul 19, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2601
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 385
Jul 19, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2601
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 384
Jul 19, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 365 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2601, Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 383
Jul 19, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 365 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2601, Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 374
Jul 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 3100 East Asia Security Act of 2005
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y N Won
Roll Call 373
Jul 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 6 Energy Policy Act of 2005
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 372
Jul 12, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 742 Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act of 2005
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 371
Jul 12, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 741 Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 370
Jul 12, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 740 Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 369
Jul 12, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 739 Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 367
Jul 12, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H RES 352 Providing that the House of Representatives will focus on removing barriers to competitiveness of the United States economy
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree

N N Won
Roll Call 366
Jul 12, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 351 Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 739, H.R. 740, H.R. 741, and H.R. 742
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 365
Jul 12, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 351 Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 739, H.R. 740, H.R. 741, and H.R. 742
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 359
Jun 30, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 345 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 357
Jun 30, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 46 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 356
Jun 30, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 355
Jun 30, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 41 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 354
Jun 30, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 351
Jun 30, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 350
Jun 30, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 349
Jun 30, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 348
Jun 30, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 347
Jun 30, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 346
Jun 30, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 345
Jun 30, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 342
Jun 29, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 340
Jun 29, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 339
Jun 29, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 338
Jun 29, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 336
Jun 29, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 333
Jun 28, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3057
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 330
Jun 28, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3057
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 329
Jun 28, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3057
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 328
Jun 28, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 342 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3058) Transportation, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, DC Appropriations, FY 2006
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 325
Jun 28, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 341 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3057) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and related programs Appropriations, FY 2006
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 321
Jun 24, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3010 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 320
Jun 24, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit: H R 3010 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
On Motion to Recommit

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 319
Jun 24, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 318
Jun 24, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 316
Jun 24, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 315
Jun 24, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 314
Jun 24, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 312
Jun 24, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 310
Jun 24, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 309
Jun 24, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 307
Jun 23, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Won
Roll Call 306
Jun 23, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 305
Jun 23, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 304
Jun 23, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 337 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3010, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 302
Jun 22, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit: H R 2985 Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 300
Jun 22, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2985
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 299
Jun 22, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2985
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 298
Jun 22, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 334 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 297
Jun 22, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 334 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 296
Jun 22, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 10 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 295
Jun 22, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H J RES 10 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 294
Jun 22, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H J RES 10 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 293
Jun 22, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H J RES 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 289
Jun 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2475 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 288
Jun 21, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 331 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2475, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 286
Jun 20, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2863
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 285
Jun 20, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2863
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 284
Jun 20, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2863
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 283
Jun 20, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2863
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 282
Jun 17, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2745 Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 281
Jun 17, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2745
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 278
Jun 17, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2745
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 276
Jun 17, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2745
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 273
Jun 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 324
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 269
Jun 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 315 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2863), Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 2006
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 267
Jun 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 266
Jun 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 45 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 265
Jun 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 44 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 264
Jun 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 43 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 262
Jun 16, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 258
Jun 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 257
Jun 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 256
Jun 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 255
Jun 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 254
Jun 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 253
Jun 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 252
Jun 15, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 250
Jun 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 248
Jun 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 247
Jun 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 246
Jun 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 244
Jun 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2862
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 243
Jun 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 314 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2862), Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations, FY 06
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 240
Jun 09, 2005
H. Res. 310. Ethics/Procedural Motion to Table (Kill) Resolution Directing House Ethics Committee to Appoint a "Non-partisan Professional Staff."

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a motion offered by Roy Blunt (R-MO) to table (kill) H. Res. 310. H.R. 310 was a resolution sponsored by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) directing the House Ethics Committee to appoint a "non-partisan professional staff." Pelosi's resolution alleged that the Republican Chair of the Committee had hired and fired staff in a partisan manner. The resolution stated that these actions violated not only established precedent, but also House rules that mandate that hiring and firing of Committee staff be done in a bipartisan manner. The resolution also declared that "the Committee's resulting inability to carry out its duties has subjected the House to public ridicule and produced contempt for the ethics process, thus bringing discredit to the House." This early June resolution followed a bitter months-long disagreement between House Democrats and Republicans regarding House ethics rules for the 109th Congress. (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress." The House adopts new rules to govern its proceedings at the beginning of each Congress.) In this dispute, Democrats charged that the Republicans had drafted rules that would permit the Committee simply to allow ethics charges-especially those made against Republicans-to fade away without taking any action on them at all. This resolution continued the acid debate on ethics in the 109th Congress. No debate was held on the floor of the House regarding this resolution. The House defeated Progressives on this vote when it tabled (killed) it by a straight party-line vote of 219 to 199. Thus, the highly charged disagreement between Democrats and Republicans with regard to the House Ethics Committee continued.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 237
Jun 08, 2005
H.R. 2744. Appropriations/Agriculture/Vote on Amendment to Ensure that U.S. Government is Reimbursed by Private Citizens for Cost of Food Stamps Provided to Legal Aliens.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered to H.R. 2744 by Scott Garrett (R-NJ) to ensure that the U.S. government is reimbursed by private citizens when food stamps are provided to legal aliens. Garrett explained that an affidavit of support must be filled out by a U.S. sponsor when an alien legally enters the U.S. The affidavit attests that a U.S. private citizen intends to sponsor the alien for a period of 10 years or until the alien becomes a citizen, whichever comes first, so that the alien does "not become a public charge." Thus, Garrett argued on behalf of many Republicans, the U.S. government should not bear the cost of providing food stamps to aliens who have a commitment of sponsorship from private citizens. In the event food stamps are obtained by aliens, Garrett declared that the U.S. government should seek reimbursement from the aliens' private sponsors. He pointed out that this responsibility is already laid out in current law, and thus his amendment was merely reiterating a policy which was already law. Taking the Progressive position, Henry Bonilla (R-TX) asserted that the amendment was "unnecessary and duplicative and there is no indication that USDA is doing anything to contradict statutory provisions right now related to collection from sponsors of food stamp benefits paid to sponsored aliens." Progressives won this vote when the House defeated this amendment by a vote of 169 to 258, with 66 Republicans crossing party lines to vote "no" with Progressives, and 7 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "yes."


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
N N Won
Roll Call 234
Jun 08, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2744
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 233
Jun 08, 2005
H.R. 2744. Appropriations/Agriculture/Vote on Amendment to Prohibit the Expenditure of Funds to Pay Government Inspectors Who Examine Horses to Be Slaughtered for Human Consumption.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed an amendment to H.R. 2744 offered by John Sweeney (R-NY) to prohibit the use of funds to pay government inspectors who examine horses to be slaughtered for human consumption. H.R. 2744 was a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Taking the Progressive position, Sweeney described his amendment as a supplement to one passed by the House a few weeks earlier. That amendment banned the slaughter of wild horses (which is done for human consumption in foreign markets). He stated that this amendment to the FY06 agriculture appropriations bill would "would end the use of taxpayer dollars to enable and subsidize foreign enterprises, largely operating in opposition to the vast opinion and support of United States citizens[.]" Sweeney described horse-slaughter as inhumane. He further argued that "Americans do not profit from slaughtering horses. Horses are not bred in the United States for that purpose. This is an export-driven market. Foreigners eat our horses and foreign companies make money off the sale of the meat. This amendment simply says that the use of American taxpayer dollars to pay for the salaries and the work of USDA inspectors ought to stop, and those resources ought to be committed to making sure the food supply and the food chain here in this country are fully protected." Republicans who opposed the amendment countered that "[t]his amendment will shut down an industry without having a hearing, or any due process. The amendment creates a crisis for animal health issues. It prohibits USDA from inspecting horses that may have West Nile virus, or vesicular stomatitis, both of which can affect other animals and humans if those horses are destined for slaughter." (Henry Bonilla (R-TX).) They also argued that though Sweeney's primary motivation was the inhumane nature of the slaughter, Sweeney's amendment would not do anything to address that concern. Finally, they noted that the wild horse population in the U.S. needed to be managed, and that the moral distinction between horses and other animals slaughtered for food was not necessarily a clear one. Progressives won this vote when the House passed this amendment 269 to 158, with 104 Republicans crossing party lines to vote "yes" with Progressives and 33 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no." Thus, language prohibiting the use of funds to pay government inspectors who examine horses to be slaughtered for human consumption was added to the agriculture appropriations bill.


ENVIRONMENT Humane Treatment of Animals
Y Y Won
Roll Call 232
Jun 08, 2005
H.R. 2744. Appropriations/Agriculture/Vote on Amendment to Prohibit Scientists with Conflicts of Interest from Serving on Food and Drug Administration Advisory Panels.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed an amendment to H.R. 2744 offered by Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) to prohibit scientists from serving on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panels if they have conflicts of interest with regard to the makers of the objects they were charged with evaluating. H.R. 2744 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Noting that "[t]he amendment does not change current law; it simply makes sure that the FDA is adhering to current law[,]" Hinchey argued that there ought to be "no question as to whether the committee members are looking out for the public health." He stated that a few recent incidents had cast doubt on the impartiality of some panel members. Most Republicans opposed the amendment, arguing that due to the structure of the medical industry, the amendment would eliminate most top doctors from offering their expertise as members of these panels. Much medical research is funded by drug or related companies, they maintained, so that most accomplished doctors have worked on projects funded by such companies at some point in their careers. Progressives won this vote when the House passed this amendment 218 to 210, with 32 Republicans crossing party lines to vote "yes" with Progressives and 12 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no" with Republicans. Thus, language prohibiting scientists from serving on advisory FDA panels if they have a conflict of interest was included in the FY06 agriculture appropriations bill.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Scientific Inquiry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 231
Jun 08, 2005
H.R. 2744. Appropriations/Agriculture/Vote on Amendment Not to Delay Implementation of Rule Requiring that Meat Products Be Labeled with Their Country-of-Origin.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House rejected an amendment offered by Denny Rehberg (R-MT) to strip from H.R. 2744 language that would delay for a year the implementation of a rule requiring that meat products be labeled with their country-of-origin. H.R. 2744 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Taking the Progressive position, Rehberg argued that the public has increasing interest in knowing where its meat comes from, particularly in light of recent cases of "mad-cow disease." Progressives also asserted that labeling would encourage brand-loyalty for U.S. meat products. The majority of Republicans and some Democrats disagreed, stating that requiring the labeling would force the price of retail beef to climb, thereby hurting the beef industry. "Good, salt-of-the-earth people in agriculture know that this would impose up to $1 billion in additional costs to their already overworked people and to their budgets, which are already being taxed." (Henry Bonilla (R-TX).) Bonilla also noted: "Nothing could be more anti free enterprise than to mandate labeling on a product." Republicans also contended that this provision imposed a heavy burden of liability on retailers. Moreover, they argued, a delay was needed to ensure that the regulations were properly implemented. The House defeated Progressives on this amendment by a vote of 187 to 240, with 52 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no" with Republicans, and 41 Republicans choosing to vote "yes" with Progressives. Thus, the language delaying the implementation of a rule requiring that meat products be labeled with their country of origin remained in the bill.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 230
Jun 08, 2005
H.R. 2744. Appropriations/Agriculture/Vote on Amendment to Increase Funding for Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for Fiscal Year 2006.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Anthony Weiner (D-NY) to H.R. 2744. Weiner's amendment increased funding for the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) by approximately $19 million for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). H.R. 2744 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Taking the Progressive position, Weiner argued that more money was needed to combat invasive pests such as the Asian long-horned beetle, which was devastating trees in many areas of the U.S. Weiner was joined on the House floor by other Democrats from the Northeast who spoke of their districts' experiences with similar pest problems. Republicans who opposed the bill countered that adding more money to APHIS would not remove the need to have available emergency funds to battle unanticipated pests each year. Moreover, they objected to the source of the additional funds proposed by Weiner's amendment: Department of Agriculture computer upgrades. Progressives won on this vote when the amendment passed 226 to 201, with 40 Republicans crossing party lines to vote "yes" with Democrats and 13 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no" with Republicans. Thus, a sum of $19 million was added to the bill to help combat invasive pest problems.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 227
May 26, 2005
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation/Procedural Vote on Motion to Instruct Conferees on Bill Reauthorizing the Nation's Surface Transportation Funding Laws.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 3, a bill reauthorizing the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. (When the House and Senate pass two different versions of the same bill, they generally hold a conference to resolve the discrepancies between the two. Each body appoints a representative number of its members to participate in the conference. A motion to instruct the conferees is an effort by a representative to request that their conferees on a bill take a specific action with regard to the legislation that is the object of the conference. Often the action is to include or omit a particular provision. The instruction is not binding.) James Oberstar (D-MN) brought this motion to instruct the conferees to do two things: to insist on the level of funding for "highway, transit, and highway and motor carrier safety programs" at least equal to the amount the House provided in its version of the bill; and to ensure that each state would receive back at least 92 percent of the amount of money it contributed to these funds. Making the Progressive argument that emphasized fairness amongst the states, Oberstar insisted that a level of 92 percent return on funds was necessary in order to achieve "equity" between "donor" states who contribute much money to the funds and "donee" states, who receive more than they are able to contribute. Oberstar added that Congress ought to devote more resources to surface transportation, as increases in congestion and traffic were resulting in significant losses in time and money for Americans. Republicans countered that while they agreed that congestion was a costly problem, Oberstar's motion would unrealistically constrain the conferees because achieving the 92-percent return goal for every state would require more total money to be spent than might be available. They added that the motion was premature as the House had not yet even appointed conferees. The House defeated Progressives and rejected the motion to instruct conferees by a virtually party-line vote of 189 to 223. Thus, work on the surface transportation bill continued without a recommendation to conferees to make sure that each state received back at least 92 percent of the funds it contributed for highway, transit and related safety programs.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 225
May 26, 2005
H.R. 2528. Appropriations/Veterans/Vote on Amendment to Move Funds Set Aside for New Military Base Closures to Accounts to Complete Cleanup on Bases Already Closed.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) to H.R. 2528. Blumenauer's amendment would have moved funds set aside for new military base closures to accounts to be used to complete cleanup on military bases that had already been closed. H.R. 2528 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) military and veterans' health care and for military construction and base closure for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Taking the Progressive position, Blumenauer argued that communities where military bases have been closed were waiting needlessly and unacceptably long periods of time for the military to cleanup the areas so that they would be ready for redevelopment. Blumenauer noted that inadequate cleanup (which, as others pointed out, included toxic substances and/or unusual and dangerous items like unexploded ordnances) was "one of the reasons that we find such apprehension regarding the BRAC [Base Realignment and Closing] process, although there is the promise of redevelopment." Republicans disagreed that more funds were needed for the cleanup process, arguing that "[t]his amendment is probably not necessary. DOD has indicated that by the year 2008 it will have either completed the cleanup or put into place all the remedial systems it needs for cleanup at all but two installations. Once in place, the cleanup will take time, and more funds will not necessarily speed up the process." Jim Walsh (R-NY). The House defeated Progressives and this amendment by a vote of 171 to 254, with 40 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no," and 13 Republicans choosing to vote "yes" with the Progressives. Thus, no additional funds were redirected to cleanup from earlier military base closures.


ENVIRONMENT Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 224
May 26, 2005
H.R. 2528. Appropriations/Veterans/Vote on Amendment to Increase Funding for Veterans' Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House narrowly defeated an amendment offered by Charlie Melancon (D-LA) to H.R. 2528. Melancon's amendment would have increased by $53 million funding for various veterans' health care and other benefits programs while cutting $169 million from the commission charged with closing military bases. H.R. 2528 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) military and veterans' health care and for military construction and base closure for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Democrats, including Progressives, argued that the funds for these veterans' programs were critically needed. Republicans opposed the proposed cut to the Base Alignment and Closing commission (BRAC), stating that it would "slow down the cleanup and disposal of closed bases for this round, and also the realignment of bases, and will therefore negatively impact the economies of those communities by stalling the reuse and development of that land." Jim Walsh (R-NY). They also contended that the amendment would not have much of an impact on veterans' health care. The House defeated Progressives and this amendment by just one vote. The tally was 213 to 214, with a 19 Republicans crossing party lines to vote with Democrats. Thus, funds for certain veterans' programs were not increased beyond what was contained in the bill, and funds for base closures were not cut.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 223
May 26, 2005
H. Res. 298. Appropriations/Veterans/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill Making Appropriations (Funding) for Military and Veterans' Health Care and for Military Construction and Base Closure.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House ordered the previous question for the governing rule for H.R. 2528, a bill to make appropriations (fund) for military and veterans' health care and for military construction and base closure for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Progressives objected to the rule in part because the rule would not permit them to offer on the floor of the House during debate an amendment that they deemed important. That amendment would have proposed a tax increase for individuals making more than $1 million per year in order to pay for increased health care benefits for veterans. For the most part, however, representatives focused their debate on the substance of the bill, which would appropriate $121.8 billion to cover "quality of life" costs for members of the military and veterans and to cover costs of military construction and base realignment and closures. Democrats, including Progressives, argued that the bill provided insufficient funds to meet the needs of veterans, especially those returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans, however, noted that for the first time, Congress was providing "a dedicated pool of resources" for veterans' health programs. (Phil Gingrey (R-GA).) Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) suggested that Democrats supporting additional increases for veterans' health care were disingenuous, stating, "some of the Members on the other side come from the liberal left. They do not support the military. They vote against defense bills. . . . Since we [the Republicans] took the majority over the last few years, we have increased health care over 60 percent. . . ." Cunningham went on to assert that members of the Reserve and Guard have health insurance from other sources: "Another thing last night where they [Democrats] said, well, the Republicans did not vote to take care of our National Guard, they sign a contract, Mr. Speaker. When one goes into the National Guard or Reserve, they are a citizen soldier. They sign up and they are working in a business and they get your health care through the business or they sign up with private insurance. . . . I am military retired, and I have health care, and so do our veterans in an increasing manner." The House defeated Progressives and ordered the previous question on a straight party-line vote of 223 to 194. Thus, the House proceeded to pass the rule and enter into substantive debate about the military and veterans' health care bill, though Democrats were not permitted to offer their amendment to tax the wealthy on behalf of veterans.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 222
May 25, 2005
H.R. 1815. Defense/Vote on Passage of Bill to Authorize Military Activities of the Defense Department.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1815, a $441.6 billion bill to authorize military activities of the Defense Department for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Among other provisions, the bill would provide $49.1 billion in additional spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and funds to develop certain weapons, including the Army's Future Combat System and the Navy's DD(X) destroyer. It also would prohibit the Defense Department from obtaining anything from foreign companies which receive subsidies from their own governments. Republicans hailed the bill, stating that it "is a true example of bipartisan cooperation, providing the men and women of the armed services with the best equipment, best training, and a benefit package that is worthy of their service and their sacrifice." (Duncan Hunter (R-CA).) They argued that it "contains significant improvements in areas of military personnel, acquisition reform, responsible defense procurement strategies, and addresses a need for continuity in funding for our ongoing efforts in the global war on terror." (Hunter.) Most Progressives disagreed. Even some supporters of the bill joined Progressives in expressing concern that money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to be authorized and appropriated outside of the ordinary budgeting process. They indicated that these expenses were foreseeable and thus ought to be determined along with all of the other expenses of the United States government. Progressives expressed other concerns as well. Making a Progressive argument, Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) appealed to the House to think about peace and called the bill a "half-trillion [dollar] authorization for more fraud, waste, abuse and war." Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) expressed concern that too much money would be spent on weapons systems that either didn't work or didn't adequately "address the new threats we face." He also stated that with respect to the bill, "[a] glaring omission is the lack of any meaningful provisions dealing with torture and prison abuse by our country." The House defeated Progressives and voted 390 to 39 to support the Defense Authorization Bill, with 164 Democrats joining Republicans in support of the bill. Thus, the House sent to the Senate a bill authorizing $441.6 billion in defense spending for FY06.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y N Lost
Roll Call 221
May 25, 2005
H.R. 1815. Defense/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit (Amend or Kill) Bill to Authorize Military Activities of the Defense Department.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 1815 was a bill to authorize military activities of the Defense Department for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). In this vote, the House defeated a procedural motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 1815. (A motion to recommit with instructions means to send the bill back to committee with instructions to take a specific action. This is often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation.) The motion to recommit was offered by Gene Taylor (D-MS). Taylor's motion would have permitted military reservists to have access to the same health insurance, TRICARE, provided to U.S. military active-duty members. The motion sought to take the funds needed to cover its costs from funds allocated to close military bases. Democrats, including Progressives, argued that reservists were being treated unfairly because despite the fact that they ran the same risk of injury and death as active military troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of them had no health coverage at all. Republicans countered that reservists were eligible for coverage under TRICARE for 90 days prior to mobilization and 180 days following mobilization. They added that giving reservists the same health coverage as regular military troops would encourage private employers to drop the coverage they provide for their employees who are reservists. Moreover, they insisted that the funds that would be needed to provide this coverage were instead needed to provide equipment for the military. The House defeated Progressives and struck down this motion by a virtually straight party-line vote of 211 to 218. Thus, no language was added to the bill to provide reservists with the same health care coverage as regular military troops.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 220
May 25, 2005
H.R. 1815. Defense/Vote on Amendment to Express Sense of Congress that the President Ought to Develop a Plan to Withdraw U.S. Troops from Iraq.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered to H.R. 1815 by Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) to express the sense of the Congress that the President ought to develop a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and that he ought to submit that plan to the appropriate congressional committees. H.R. 1815 was a bill to authorize military activities of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Many Democrats, including Progressives, argued that in the two years since the war in Iraq began, too many people had been killed or wounded and too much money had been spent, and that a plan for U.S. withdrawal was long overdue. "In just over 2 years of war, more than 1,600 American soldiers and an estimated 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. The number of American wounded, according to the Pentagon, is greater than 12,000, and that does not even count the invisible mental wounds they are bringing home, afflicting tens of thousands of our soldiers. And, of course, with more than $200 billion on the line, do the Members not think that the American people deserve to know what the President plans to do in Iraq?" (Woolsey.) Woolsey added that "[w]e can truly support our troops by bringing them home." Opponents of the amendment, who included Republicans and numerous Democrats, stated that passage of the amendment would signal to terrorist leaders that "the United States does not have the stomach to continue to oppose them" and that "the resolve of the American people is fading away." (Duncan Hunter (R-CA).) They insisted that the amendment would endanger U.S. national security and the troops abroad. The House overwhelmingly defeated this amendment by a vote of 128 to 300, with 79 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans against it. Thus, Congress did not express a desire for the President to submit a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 218
May 25, 2005
H.R. 1815. Defense/Gay Rights/Vote on Amendment to Express Congress's Continued Support for Solomon Amendment (Law that Permits Withholding of Federal Funding from Universities Which, Due to the Military's Policy of Discriminating Against Gays and Lesbians, Do Not Permit Military Recruitment on Their Campuses).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed an amendment to H.R. 1815 offered by Cliff Stearns (R-FL) to express Congress's continued support for a law known as the Solomon Amendment. H.R. 1815 was a bill to authorize military activities of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). The Solomon Amendment permitted the withholding of federal funds from universities who refused to allow the U.S. military to recruit on their campuses. Some universities attempted to bar the military from recruiting on campus on the grounds that the military's policy concerning gays and lesbians in the service violated the universities' nondiscrimination policies. The Solomon Amendment was passed to override these universities' actions. In addition to expressing Congress's continued support for the Solomon Amendment, Stearns's amendment required the Secretary of Defense to produce a report on universities which would not permit military recruiting on their campuses. Republicans, along with many Democrats, supported this resolution affirming the Solomon Amendment asserted that it is critical that the military be able to recruit broadly and have access to all of the brightest, most capable young people to defend the country, particularly during wartime. They maintained that if a university is not willing to allow the military access to help defend the country, then that university should be willing to forego federal funding. Progressives did not offer any argument on the House floor to oppose the amendment. Progressives lost on this vote when the House passed this amendment 336 to 92, with 109 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "yes" with Republicans. Thus, the House attached to H.R. 1815 an expression of Congress's continued support for a policy compelling universities to allow access to military recruiters.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 216
May 25, 2005
H.R. 1815. Abortion/Defense/Vote on Amendment to Lift Restrictions on Termination of Pregnancies for U.S. Servicewomen.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment to H.R. 1815 offered by Susan Davis (D-CA) to lift the existing restrictions on termination of pregnancies for U.S. servicewomen. H.R. 1815 was a bill to authorize military activities of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Existing law forbade servicewomen from receiving services to terminate pregnancies in U.S. military health care facilities. Taking the Progressive position, Davis noted that "Servicewomen do not receive the protection of the Constitution they defend." She explained that the current rule forced servicewomen "to return home for medical services after obtaining permission from their commanding officer and finding space on military transport. The other option for them is venturing out to a hospital in a foreign country if, in fact, they are able to do that." Davis stated that her amendment would "permit[] servicewomen to walk into a U.S. military hospital, a familiar and trusted place, to use their own private funds for safe and legal pregnancy termination services." Republicans opposed the amendment, arguing that "[a]llowing self-funded abortions would simply turn our military hospitals overseas into abortion clinics." (Jim Ryun (R-KS).) In addition, they argued that as U.S. taxpayer dollars funded the military health facilities where abortions would be performed, it would be wrong to require taxpayers to support pregnancy terminations for servicewomen. Ryun also noted that "overseas military hospitals already offer self-funded abortions when the life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest." Progressives lost on this vote when the amendment failed 194 to 233, with 30 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no," while 22 Republicans chose to vote "yes" with the Progressives. Thus, the restrictions forbidding servicewomen from receiving services to terminate pregnancies in U.S. military health care facilities remained in place.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 214
May 25, 2005
H.R. 1815. Defense/Vote on Amendment to Authorize Use of U.S. Armed Forces to Help Secure U.S. Borders.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed an amendment to H.R. 1815 offered by Virgil Goode (R-VA) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to use the U.S. armed forces to help secure U.S. borders. H.R. 1815 was a bill to authorize military activities of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Goode noted that his amendment would simply provide the Secretary of Defense with the discretion to use troops in order to assist the U.S. border patrol "in combating illegal drugs, combating illegal immigration or to reduce the threat of terrorism." Republicans insisted that border security was a top priority, and that Goode's amendment would provide border patrol with the resources it needed to ensure the security of U.S. borders. Democrats, including Progressives, opposed the amendment. They noted that border patrol needed more law enforcement resources, not the military, in order to fill in the gaps in security. They also observed that "[o]ur servicemen and -women are simply spread too thin [already]." (Solomon Ortiz (D-TX).) The House defeated the Progressive position when it passed this amendment by a vote of 245 to 184, with 31 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "yes," and 13 Republicans choosing to vote "no" with the Progressives. Thus, language was added to the bill that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to employ the military to help secure U.S. borders.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Assisting Crime Impacted Communities
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Lost
Roll Call 213
May 25, 2005
H. Res. 293. Defense/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill Authorizing Department of Defense Military Activities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House approved the governing rule for H.R. 1815, a bill to authorize military activities of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) This vote was a follow-up to Roll Call vote number 212. Democrats, including Progressives, opposed the rule, asserting that Republicans would not permit Democrats to offer many amendments that were important to them. In particular, Ike Skelton (D-MO) had wanted to offer an amendment to strike from the bill language forbidding women from participating in many combat-support military activities. In addition, Doris Matsui (D-CA) had wanted to offer an amendment permitting military reservists to have access to the same health insurance provided to U.S. military active-duty members. Republicans countered that the substance of the bill-funding the military activities of the United States-was absolutely critical, and that some of the Democrats concerns would be addressed in a "manager's amendment" to be offered during consideration of the bill. (A manager's amendment means an amendment that would make a number of changes to the legislation that are not necessarily related to each other. A manager's amendment is typically the result of work from many representatives, is generally offered by the lead sponsor of the bill (who "manages" the debate on the House floor), and almost always has enough support to pass.) Both Democrats and Republicans also offered their opinions on the substance of the bill, highlighting what they viewed as its various merits and weak points, foreshadowing the consideration of numerous amendments. The House defeated the Progressive position when it adopted the rule by a straight party-line vote of 225 to 198. Thus, the House proceeded to substantive consideration of the bill to authorize military activities of the Department of Defense for FY06.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 212
May 25, 2005
H. Res. 293. Defense/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill to Authorize Department of Defense Military Activities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House ordered the previous question for the governing rule for H.R. 1815, a bill to authorize military activities of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (Ordering the previous question means to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote. A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Democrats, including Progressives, opposed the rule, protesting that Republicans would not permit Democrats to offer many amendments that were important to them. In particular, Ike Skelton (D-MO) had wanted to offer an amendment to strike from the bill language forbidding women from participating in many combat-support military activities. In addition, Doris Matsui (D-CA) had wanted to offer an amendment permitting military reservists to have access to the same health insurance provided to U.S. military active-duty members. Republicans countered that the substance of the bill-funding the military activities of the United States-was absolutely critical, and that some of the Democrats concerns would be addressed in a "manager's amendment" to be offered during consideration of the bill. (A manager's amendment means an amendment that would make a number of changes to the legislation that are not necessarily related to each other. A manager's amendment is typically the result of work from many representatives, is generally offered by the lead sponsor of the bill (who "manages" the debate on the House floor), and almost always has enough support to pass.) Both Democrats and Republicans also offered their opinions on the substance of the bill, highlighting what they viewed as its various merits and weak points, foreshadowing the consideration of numerous amendments. The House defeated the Progressive position when it ordered the previous question on the rule by a straight party-line vote of 225 to 200. Thus, the House proceeded to a vote on passage of the rule and a substantive debate on the bill.


HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 210
May 24, 2005
H.R. 2419. Appropriations/Energy/Procedural Vote on Motion To Recommit (Amend or Kill) Bill to Make Appropriations (Fund) for Energy and Water Development.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

H.R. 2419 was a bill to make appropriations (fund) for energy and water development for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). In this vote, the House defeated a procedural motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 2419. (A motion to recommit with instructions means to send the bill back to committee with instructions to take a specific action. This is often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation.) The motion to recommit was offered by Bob Etheridge (D-NC), and would have provided funds to analyze "imported crude oil and its impact on petroleum sales" and "for the Secretary of Energy to conduct a conference with foreign oil producers of foreign oil-producing nations." (Etheridge.) Making the Progressive argument, Etheridge argued that Americans across the country were suffering from recent rises in the price of gasoline, and that these measures would "offer a proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy Information Administration to move and take action and take action quickly." Republicans offered no argument on the House floor to support their opposition to the motion. The motion and the Progressive position were defeated by a vote of 167 to 261, with 35 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no.". Thus, these funds were not allocated for both the analysis of and a conference focusing on the cost of petroleum imports, and the House went on to pass the FY06 Appropriations bill for energy and water development.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 209
May 24, 2005
H.R. 2419. Appropriations/Energy/Vote on Amendment to Cease Delivering Oil to U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Bart Stupak (D-MI) to cease delivering oil to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Stupak sought to amend H.R. 2419, a bill to make appropriations (fund) for energy and water development for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Democrats, including Progressives, argued that the gasoline that would ordinarily be put into the Reserve instead ought to be sold to consumers to help contain the rising cost of gasoline. Stupak noted: "there is no reason to continue filling the SPR with petroleum products when our economy is suffering due to sky-high oil and gas prices. The suspension of oil delivery to the SPR would put additional barrels of oil out into the world market to stabilize the world's oil supply and provide some relief at the pump to our consumers." He also pointed out that "suspending the filling of the SPR does not hurt our energy security. The reserve is already filled to 95 percent capacity." Republicans disagreed, noting that this amendment would have tied the President's hands following an emergency that necessitated use of the Reserve's petroleum, because a law forbidding delivery of petroleum to the Reserve would prevent the President from ordering that the Reserve be refilled. The House defeated Progressives on this amendment by a vote of 174 to 253, with 38 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans. Thus, deliveries of gasoline could still be made to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, despite the rise in gas prices.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 207
May 24, 2005
H.R. 2419. Appropriations/Energy/Vote on Amendment to Transfer $15.5 Million in Spending from Nuclear Waste Disposal to Energy Efficiency.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House rejected an amendment to H.R. 2419 offered by Edward Markey (D-MA) to transfer $15.5 million in spending from nuclear waste reprocessing and disposal to energy efficiency programs. H.R. 2419 was a bill to make appropriations (fund) for energy and water development for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Progressives argued that there were several reasons to de-emphasize nuclear reprocessing. First, they stated that not engaging in reprocessing would give the U.S. "the high moral ground as we look at the North Koreans and Iranians to tell them not to do it." (Markey.) Second, they noted that reprocessing was not economical. Third, Progressives argued that reprocessing was unsafe because of the potential of leaks of radioactive material. Fourth, they stated that energy conservation would simply be a better use of the $15.5 million in question because there it would help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Republicans disagreed, stating that the funds could potentially cure the existing problem of nuclear waste disposal, which negatively affected several communities. They asserted that modern technology minimized the risks posed by reprocessing. The House defeated Progressives on this amendment by a vote of 110 to 312, with 89 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans against the amendment. Thus, the $15.5 million remained allocated for U.S. nuclear waste reprocessing, despite the fact that the U.S. government was simultaneously calling on the North Korean and Iranian governments not to reprocess nuclear waste.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Nuclear Energy Industry
ENVIRONMENT Nuclear Energy
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Nuclear Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 204
May 24, 2005
H.R. 810. Stem-Cell Research/Vote on Bill to Expand Embryonic Stem-Cell Research.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed a bill sponsored by Michael Castle (R-DE) to expand embryonic stem-cell research. The bill would permit federal funds to be used to support research on embryos left over from fertility treatments in cases where the embryos would otherwise be discarded. Embryonic stem-cell research faced steadfast opposition from the Bush White House and from the more conservative wing of the Republican party, which believed that such research destroys human beings. H.R. 810 in fact faced a veto-threat from the President. Many Democrats, including Progressives, as well as more moderate Republicans disagreed, noting, "What could be more life-affirming than using what would otherwise be discarded to save, extend and improve lives?" (James Langevin (D-RI).) The House considered this bill in conjunction with a bill to expand support for research on stem-cells taken from umbilical cord blood, which passed almost unanimously. Representatives who supported both bills readily agreed that research based on umbilical cord blood was worth pursuing, but noted the possibility that embryonic stem-cells might lead to medical breakthroughs that might not arise from cord-blood research. Progressives won on this issue when the House passed the embryonic stem-cell research bill by a vote of 238 to 194, with 50 Republicans crossing party lines to vote "yes," and 14 Democrats choosing to vote "no" with the majority of Republicans. Thus, the bill to expand embryonic stem-cell research was sent to the Senate, despite the strong threat of a veto from the President.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes
HEALTH CARE Medical Research Funding
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 203
May 24, 2005
H. Res. 291. Appropriations/Energy/Procedural Vote on Bill Making Appropriations (Funding) for Energy and Water Development for Fiscal Year 2006.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House ordered the previous question for the governing rule for H.R. 2419, a bill to make appropriations (fund) for energy and water development for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (Ordering the previous question means to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote. A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Democrats, including Progressives, objected to the fact that the Rules Committee (the body of the House that draws up special rules for consideration of bills; it is weighted in favor of the majority party-currently the Republicans-and often works in conjunction with party leadership in formulating rules) had forbidden Democrats from offering an amendment that would have provided $250 million "to accelerate the research, development, demonstration, and deployment of new energy technologies." (Allyson Schwartz (D-PA).). Republicans on the Rules Committee had denied Schwartz from offering this amendment on the grounds that it violated House rules because it was not "germane," meaning relevant to the bill. (All amendments in the House must be germane, unless a special waiver is granted.) Republicans countered that they had brought the energy appropriations bill to the floor under an "open rule," meaning that any amendment that did not violate the rules of the House would be in order and thus could be considered. Progressives lost on this issue when the House ordered the previous question on the rule by a virtually party-line vote of 219 to 190. Thus, the House proceeded to adopt the rule and move to substantive consideration of the energy appropriations bill, despite Democrats' objections.


ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 199
May 19, 2005
H.R. 2361. Appropriations/Environment/Vote on Passage of Bill Making Appropriations for (Funding) the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and Other Agencies for Fiscal Year 2006.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2361, a bill making appropriations for (funding) the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). The bill would appropriate $26.2 billion for those agencies for FY06. Members did not conduct a debate on the House floor specifically regarding final passage of this legislation, but the vote followed a long day of discussion and votes on procedural matters and substantive amendments. In general, Democrats, including Progressives, criticized what they stated was the bill's failure to fund adequately the EPA, as well as the bill's proposed cuts in many programs Democrats deemed vital to the health and well-being of the country and its citizens. Democrats also argued that many of these cuts were consequences of the President's tax cuts, which had left the government without enough money to fund many of these important federal programs, like those run through the EPA. Republicans countered that the bill prioritized the limited resources available in order to preserve the environment, fund Indian health programs, preserve historical landmarks and public resources like national parks and help the Interior Department fight wildfires. The House passed the Interior Appropriations bill by a vote of 329 to 89, with 115 Democrats crossing party lines to vote against Progressives and in favor of the bill. Thus, the House established what it believed ought to be the funding for the Interior Department, Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies for fiscal year 2006, and sent that bill on to the Senate.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 198
May 19, 2005
H.R. 2361. Appropriations/Environment/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit with Instructions Bill Making Appropriations (Funding) for the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and Other Agencies for Fiscal Year 2006.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a motion offered by David Obey (D-WI) to recommit to committee with instructions H.R. 2361. (A motion to recommit is a motion to send a bill back to committee with instructions to take a specific action. Often, it is a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation.) H.R. 2361 was a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Obey's motion would have required the Appropriations Committee to provide "an additional $242 million to the Clean Water Revolving Fund and $110 million for State and Tribal Assistance Grants (for water and sewage treatment), returning both programs to last year's level." (Obey.) Neither Democrats nor Republicans offered substantive arguments on the floor of the House at the time this motion was considered. However, in earlier consideration of an amendment that would have increased funding to the Clean Water Revolving Fund by taking money from State and Tribal Assistance Grants, Obey had stated that "the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is the crucial program for helping local communities with sewage treatment plants infrastructure. It is a keystone of the Clean Water Act; and yet this committee is recommending with the cut in the bill this year that we effectively cut this program by 40 percent over 2 years. It was already cut 19 percent last year. I think that is a terrible, terrible decision to make." Republicans in the debate on the earlier amendment (see Roll Call number 194) had argued simply that money should not be taken from State and Tribal Assistance Grants. Progressives were defeated when the motion to recommit was voted down 191 to 228. Thus, neither the Clean Water Revolving Fund nor the State and Tribal Assistance grants received additional increases beyond that already included in the language of the bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 196
May 19, 2005
H.R. 2361. Appropriations/Environment/Vote on Amendment to Prohibit Use of Funds in Bill for the Sale or Slaughter of Wild Horses and Burros.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Nick Rahall (D-WV) to prohibit the use of funds appropriated in H.R. 2361 for the sale or slaughter of wild, free-roaming horses and burros. H.R. 2361 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Taking the Progressive position, Rahall noted that a little-noticed provision in a massive appropriations bill the previous year had "trashed 33 years of national policy and lifted the prohibition on the commercial sale of America's wild horses." He argued that these animals were an important part of America's national heritage, and expressed outrage that even though the U.S. prohibits the domestic sale of horsemeat for human consumption, exportation of the very same thing was ongoing. Most Republicans felt differently, countering that the present law permitted the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to sell "older or unadoptable" animals from short-term holding facilities, thus saving U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars. (Charles Taylor (R-NC).) They also argued that the BLM had already begun to implement new rules to ensure that horsemeat was not exported for human consumption, and that current law permitted the necessary sales of horses from overpopulated herds to individuals and farms where the horses could live out their lives. Further, they maintained that the BLM had to be able to manage this wildlife. The House passed this amendment by a vote of 249 to 159, with 78 Republicans joining Democrats, including Progressives, to vote "yes," while 19 Democrats crossed party lines to vote "no" with the Republicans. Thus, a reinstatement of a former prohibition on the commercial sale of America's wild horses was included in the bill.


ENVIRONMENT Humane Treatment of Animals
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 195
May 19, 2005
H.R. 2361. Appropriations/Environment/Arts/Vote on Amendment to Reduce Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and to Increase Funding for the U.S. Forest Service.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Bob Beauprez (R-CO) to H.R. 2361 that would have reduced by $30 million funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and increased by $27.5 million funding for the U.S. Forest Service. H.R. 2361 was a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Beauprez argued that the Forest Service needed the additional funds "for thinning projects to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires." He proposed to take the funds from the NEA because "a very small percentage of artistic funds comes from the Federal Government[,]" and "it should be a greater priority of Congress to ensure the safety of our western communities, prevent forest fires, and save lives rather than spend taxpayer dollars for artistic endeavors, enjoyable as they may be." Taking the Progressive position, Norman Dicks (D-WA) argued that the real intent of Beauprez's amendment was to reduce funding for the NEA, which had been attacked by Republicans repeatedly for more than a decade due to the funding of what some in Congress deemed "controversial" art. Progressives won on this issue when the House overwhelmingly defeated this amendment by a vote of 122 to 298, with 108 Republicans crossing party lines to vote "no" with Democrats. Thus, the NEA's funding in the bill was kept intact, as was funding for the U.S. Forest Service.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities
N N Won
Roll Call 194
May 19, 2005
H.R. 2361. Appropriations/Environment/Vote on Amendment to Shift $100 Million to Clean Water Fund.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered to H.R. 2361 by David Obey (D-WI) to shift $100 million to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The funds would have been taken from water and sewage-treatment grants for Indian tribes and states. H.R. 2361 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Obey was trying to restore part of the cuts to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund made by the Appropriations Committee when they considered this bill. Making the Progressive argument, Obey stated that "the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is the crucial program for helping local communities with sewage treatment plants infrastructure. It is a keystone of the Clean Water Act; and yet this committee is recommending with the cut in the bill this year that we effectively cut this program by 40 percent over 2 years. It was already cut 19 percent last year. I think that is a terrible, terrible decision to make." He argued that the area from which he would take the $100 million to pay for his amendment was a less effective use of water and sewage-treatment funds than the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Republicans disagreed, noting that the fund from which Obey sought to pay for his amendment was too valuable: "These projects are often the only recourse for rural communities that, for whatever reason, are unable to qualify for a loan under the Clean Water or Drinking Water revolving funds." (Charles Taylor (R-NC).) Progressives lost in this vote when the House defeated the amendment 186 to 235, with 17 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "no" with Republicans. Thus, the cuts made by the Appropriations Committee to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund were left in place.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 192
May 19, 2005
H.R. 2361. Appropriations/Environment/Vote on Amendment to Permit Drilling for Natural Gas in the Outer Continental Shelf.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment to H.R. 2361 offered by John Peterson (R-PA) to permit drilling for natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS; an area off of United States shores). H.R. 2361 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Peterson sought to lift an approximately 20-year-old moratorium on drilling for natural gas in the OCS, arguing that the price of natural gas had soared and additional sources for the fuel were necessary to prevent an economic recession in the U.S. He stated that the drilling could occur without damaging the environment. Opponents of the bill disagreed with Peterson's assessment of the environmental impact of natural gas-drilling. Taking the Progressive position, Lois Capps (D-CA) stated, "[t]his amendment guts the long-standing bipartisan moratorium that currently protects the Nation's most sensitive coastal and marine areas, areas including California, Florida, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific Northwest, New England, and the entire Atlantic coast. It is completely unnecessary. Proponents say that we need to drill offshore to put an end to the high energy prices. The only problem with this argument is that the moratoria are not where the resources are." Progressives won this vote when the House defeated this amendment 157 to 262, with 93 Republicans joining Democrats to vote no, and 27 Democrats joining Republicans to vote against the amendment. Thus, the moratorium on drilling for natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States remained in place.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Won
Roll Call 190
May 19, 2005
H. Res. 287. Appropriations/Procedural Vote on Bill Making Appropriations for the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and Other Agencies for Fiscal Year 2006.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House ordered the previous question for the governing rule for H.R. 2361, a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (Ordering the previous question means to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote. A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Democrats, including Progressives, objected to the rule, noting that it prohibited Democrats from offering important amendments, including one to "to fully restore EPA's State and Tribal Grant Program, and Clean Water State Revolving Fund to their fiscal 2004 levels." (Alcee Hastings (D-FL).) Democrats expressed other substantive concerns about the bill, including what they characterized as its failure to adequately fund the EPA and its proposed cuts in many programs vital to the health and well-being of the country and its citizens. They also argued that the reason so many of these cuts were being proposed was that the President's tax cuts had left the government without enough money to fund many of these important federal programs, like those run through the EPA. Republicans countered that the rule permitted almost any amendment to be offered. They also addressed the bill on a substantive level, saying that it prioritized the limited resources available in order to preserve the environment, fund Indian health programs, preserve historical landmarks and public resources like national parks and help the Interior Department fight wildfires. The House defeated the Progressive position and ordered the previous question on this rule by a straight party-line vote of 215 to 194. Thus, the House proceeded to pass the rule and begin consideration of a bill that would have a critical impact on U.S. preservation of landmarks, conservation, Indian health and other related programs, but to which Democrats were forbidden to offer amendments.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
HEALTH CARE Native American Health Care
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 188
May 18, 2005
H.R. 1817. Homeland Security/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit (Amend or Kill) Bill Authorizing the Department of Homeland Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a motion offered by Bennie Thompson (D-MS) to recommit with instructions a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). (A motion to recommit with instructions means a motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions to take a specific action. This motion is often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation.) Taking the Progressive position, Thompson explained that he sought to recommit the bill in order to authorize sufficient funding for DHS to be able to carry out its mission of securing the U.S. from terrorist and other threats and to address the problem of unscreened cargo on passenger jets. Republicans opposed the motion, noting that it failed to address the question of where the funds would come from. Republicans also stated that the motion was unnecessary because the bill had bipartisan support. In a loss for Progressives, the House defeated this motion by a virtually party-line vote of 199 to 228. Thus, the House proceeded to a vote on a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security with what many Democrats believed to be important security gaps intact.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 187
May 18, 2005
H.R. 1817. Homeland Security/Vote on Democratic Substitute Amendment to Bill Authorizing the Department of Homeland Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House rejected a Democratic substitute amendment offered by Bennie Thompson (D-MS) to H.R. 1817. (A substitute amendment is an amendment whose language is intended to replace wholly the language of the underlying bill.) H.R. 1817 was a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the first bill brought by Congress to exercise its oversight authority since the Department's inception. Taking the Progressive position, Thompson argued that H.R. 1817 would leave dangerous gaps in America's national security, including "gaps in chemical plants, aviation, railroads, passenger trains and railroads, buses, border security, the ability of first responders to communicate in an emergency, the importance of protecting privacy, and a whole host of other areas where we must improve security." Democrats in particular expressed concerns about what they perceived to be the bill's failure to address adequately security at chemical plants and the question of screening cargo on passenger jets. Thompson further argued that his substitute amendment would address those gaps in a number of ways, including authorizing substantial additional funds for areas of homeland security that he characterized as either inadequately addressed or not addressed at all in the bill. Republicans countered that Thompson's Democratic substitute amendment would interfere with management decisions within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and would spend $7 billion more than was necessary for DHS's functions. They also felt that the substitute language did not adequately address intelligence issues or the problem of preventing a nuclear terrorist attack. Progressives were defeated when the House voted down this substitute amendment 196 to 230, in a virtually party-line vote. Thus, the House proceeded to vote on the DHS authorization bill with what many Democrats believed to be important security gaps intact.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 186
May 18, 2005
H.R. 1817. Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Require Secretary of Homeland Security to Submit Report to Congress Regarding Border Violence.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House rejected an amendment offered by Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit to Congress within six months a report regarding violence on U.S. borders. Jackson-Lee offered the amendment to H.R. 1817, which was a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the first bill brought by Congress to exercise its oversight authority since the Department's inception. Taking the Progressive position, Jackson-Lee expressed particular concern over potential border violence that might occur when private citizen volunteers are involved in securing America's borders. Specifically, she mentioned a group called The Minuteman Project that had been patrolling the Texas-Mexico border. Republicans disagreed, stating that volunteers have begun to enforce America's borders due to their frustration over the federal government's failure to do so. They added that groups such as The Minutemen were performing a valuable service, and noted that no violence had occurred thus far where the Minutemen were involved. Additionally, they noted that a study was unnecessary because the facts that it would uncover were already available. Progressives lost in this vote when the House defeated this amendment by a vote of 182 to 245, with 20 Democrats joining Republicans to vote. Thus, no study was commissioned in the bill with regard to U.S. border violence.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 185
May 18, 2005
H.R. 1817. Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Clarify State and Local Authority with Regard to Illegal Aliens and to Require the Department of Homeland Security to Develop Training Manuals for Law Enforcement.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Charlie Norwood (R-GA) to clarify state and local authority with regard to illegal aliens and to require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop training manuals for law enforcement. Norwood offered his amendment to H.R. 1817, which was a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the first bill brought by Congress to exercise its oversight authority since the Department's inception. Many Democrats, including Progressives, argued that the amendment would grant new authority to state and local law enforcement to "pick up immigrants and deport them unilaterally." (Bennie Thompson (D-MS).) They also argued that the amendment would divert state and local law enforcement's limited resources away from dealing with crimes like murder, rape, etc., and that it would place an "unfunded burden" on states and localities. (Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX).) Most Republicans disagreed. Norwood argued that state and local law enforcement already had the authority they needed to "assist[] in the apprehension, detention, and transport of illegal aliens in the routine course of their daily duties," and that his amendment would merely clarify that authority. He maintained that his amendment would not permit local law enforcement to deport anyone. The House defeated the Progressive position and passed this amendment by a vote of 242 to 185, with 26 Democrats crossing party lines to vote for the amendment, and 11 Republicans voting against it with the Democrats. Thus, language was added to the bill stating that state and local law enforcement officials could assist in enforcing certain aspects of immigration law and that DHS ought to develop training manuals to state and local officials regarding this topic.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Lost
Roll Call 183
May 18, 2005
H.R. 1817. Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Increase Funding for the Office of the Inspector General in the Department of Homeland Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Kendrick Meek (D-FL) to increase funding for the office of the Inspector General in the Department of Homeland Security. H.R. 1817 was a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the first bill brought by Congress to exercise its oversight authority since the Department's inception. Making the Progressive argument, Meek pointed out that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is the largest "department" in the world, and as such, needed an inspecting arm that was appropriately funded to carry out its vast responsibilities. He also maintained that the office needed sufficient funds to curb waste and abuse in the Department. Meek noted that "[t]he spending on contracts alone was $6.1 billion in 2004, and in 2005 it moved up to $10.9 billion. That is a 40 percent increase in 1 year. It is literally impossible for the Inspector General's office to keep up not only with the policing of the Department but to ensure that the mission's integrity is followed through on." Republicans countered, however, that the amendment did not provide a sufficient offset in funding (reduction elsewhere to cover proposed cost) to make up for the increases the amendment proposed. They also stated that if the increase were granted, it would make the Department larger than it needed to be. The House defeated Progressives by voting down the amendment 184 to 244, with 18 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with the Republicans. Thus, the Inspector General's office at the Department of Homeland Security did not receive an increase in funding authorization beyond that which was provided in the original bill language.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 182
May 18, 2005
H. Res. 283. Homeland Security/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill Authorizing the Department of Homeland Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed the governing rule for H.R. 1817, a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) This vote was a follow-up to vote number 181. The authorization process is the means by which Congress oversees the operation of a department or program. This authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security was the first time Congress acted to renew the programs of that department since its inception. Democrats, including Progressives, readily acknowledged the need for a strong Department of Homeland Security and hailed a number of the bill's provisions, but expressed disappointment over the Republicans' issuance of a rule that would not permit Democrats to offer numerous amendments which Democrats deemed important. These included amendments to address areas where some representatives felt security was lacking, including specific amendments to require screening of cargo on passenger flights and of airplane workers, to improve rail safety, etc. Democrats also stressed the importance of congressional oversight, noting that "we are still faced with serious issues of accountability and trust in the management of the Department of Homeland Security." (Louise Slaughter (D-NY).) Republicans countered that the rule for this bill permitted a large number of amendments to be offered on the House floor: 25. They also insisted, with some agreement from Democrats, that the bill represented a good first start for oversight over the Department. In a defeat for Progressives, the House passed this rule by a vote of 284 to 124, with 63 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "yes" with the Republicans. Thus, the House proceeded to a debate on the first-ever authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security. However, the debate would not include several amendments that Democrats felt were important to the functions of the Department.


ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 181
May 18, 2005
H. Res. 283. Homeland Security/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill Authorizing the Department of Homeland Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed to order the previous question regarding the governing rule for H.R. 1817, a bill to authorize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Ordering the previous question means to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote. A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) The authorization process is the means by which Congress oversees the operation of a department or program. This authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security was the first time Congress acted to renew the programs of that department since its inception. Democrats, including Progressives, readily acknowledged the need for a strong Department of Homeland Security and hailed a number of the bill's provisions, but expressed disappointment over the Republicans' issuance of a rule that would not permit Democrats to offer numerous amendments which Democrats deemed important. These included amendments to address areas where some representatives felt security was lacking, including specific amendments to require screening of both cargo on passenger flights and of airplane workers, to improve rail safety, etc. Democrats also stressed the importance of congressional oversight, noting that "we are still faced with serious issues of accountability and trust in the management of the Department of Homeland Security." (Louise Slaughter (D-NY).) Republicans countered that the rule for this bill permitted a large number of amendments to be offered on the House floor: 25. They also insisted, with agreement from some Democrats, that the bill represented a good first start for oversight over the Department. Progressives lost in this vote when the House ordered the previous question on the rule by a vote of 226 to 199, along straight party lines. Thus, the House proceeded to a vote on the governing rule and then to debate on various amendments of the first-ever authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security. However, the debate would not include several amendments that Democrats felt were important to the functions of the Department.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Absent N Lost
Roll Call 179
May 17, 2005
H.R. 2360. Appropriations/Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Provide $100 Million to States to Help Them Comply with New Federal Standards for Driver's Licenses.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed to an amendment offered by David Obey (D-WI) to H.R. 2360 to provide $100 million to states to help them comply with new federal standards for driver's licenses. H.R. 2360 was a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Taking the Progressive position, Obey argued that a law passed only weeks before by the House would require the states to take expensive new measures to ensure that their procedures for issuing driver's licenses would meet a federal minimum standard. He argued that it was only fair that Congress fund those measures so that the new requirements would not present an undue burden for the states. Republicans countered that there was no way to know how much it would cost states to meet the requirements of the recently passed bill; thus, it would be "premature" to allocate funding to them for this purpose. (Harold Rogers (R-KY).) Republicans also argued that the cuts Obey proposed to make in Homeland Security offices–such as those that analyze data and are responsible for communications–were undesirable in that they would reduce those offices' ability to work effectively to protect U.S. national security. In a win for Progressives, the House passed this amendment by a vote of 226 to 198, with 32 Republicans crossing party lines to vote with the Democrats. Thus, H.R. 2360 included $100 million to help states meet the requirements of recently passed legislation mandating that states meet minimum federal standards for issuing driver's licenses.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Won
Roll Call 178
May 17, 2005
H.R. 2360. Appropriations/Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Prohibit Use of Funds in the Bill to Close Any Immigration or Customs Detention Facility that was In Use in 2005.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed to an amendment offered by Gregory Meeks (D-NY) to prohibit the use of funds in H.R. 2360 to close any immigration or customs detention facility that was in use in 2005. H.R. 2360 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Meeks, who represents part of New York City, offered this amendment in response to what he called "the recent actions of the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to begin closing the only secure detention center in New York City for noncriminal foreign nationals who enter our country illegally." Taking the Progressive position, Meeks maintained that the only way the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could determine if a person initially detained at J.F.K. Airport (JFK) in New York was "'high risk' or 'low risk'" was to detain them at the detention facility in Queens, New York, not far from JFK, where an investigation could be undertaken to determine if the person had criminal intent. Failing to do this, he argued, would simply be to release potentially dangerous people "into the streets." Republicans countered that Meeks's amendment would unduly "tie the hands" of the ICE, "unnecessarily limit[ing] ICE's ability to efficiently manage the limited detention bed space that it has." (Harold Rogers (R-KY).) Progressives, most other Democrats and 22 Republicans backed Meeks's effort, but he did not have enough support to win and the House defeated this amendment by a vote of 199 to 223. 18 Democrats crossed party lines to vote no with the Republicans. Thus, the bill continued to permit the Department of Homeland Security to close a detention facility in Queens that has the purpose of detaining for investigation people suspected of having criminal motives who are entering the country through JFK.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 177
May 17, 2005
H.R. 2360. Appropriations/Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Prevent Homeland Security Funds from Going to State and Local Governments that Refuse to Share Information with Federal Authorities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Tom Tancredo (R-CO) to prevent Homeland Security funds from going to state and local governments that refuse to share information with federal authorities. H.R. 2360 was a bill to make appropriations for (fund) the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Tancredo alleged that "many local governments adopt policies that explicitly prevent their police officers from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. When local governments refuse to share information with Federal immigration authorities, police departments often stop and/or arrest criminal aliens time and again, only to release them without ever having checked their immigration status. As a result, instead of being deported, these aliens move on to commit other crimes oftentimes." Taking the Progressive position, Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN) argued that because no registry or list existed of states and localities that follow these policies, the impact of the amendment was unknown and unpredictable. Joe Crowley (D-NY) also noted that this amendment would "coerce[] state and local police officers to step into the role of federal immigration agents." The amendment, argued Democrats, would not better protect crime victims, but it would endanger homeland security. Progressives won this vote 165 to 258, with 65 Republicans crossing party lines to vote with the Democrats and to defeat this amendment. Thus, no language conditioning state and local government homeland security funds on information-sharing with the federal government was added to the bill.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 176
May 17, 2005
H.R. 2360. Appropriations/Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Provide Additional Funding to Increase Security at Chemical Plants and Facilities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Robert Menendez (D-NJ) to H.R. 2360. H.R. 2360 was a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). Menendez's amendment provided an additional $50 million beyond what was allocated in H.R. 2360 to enhance security at chemical plants and facilities. Arguing the Progressive position, Menendez noted that each time the Department of Homeland Security raised the terrorist threat level, state and local governments were forced to spend millions of dollars. This necessity, he argued, was placing a financial burden on these governments, particularly in districts such as his that were densely populated and contained large areas that could be seriously affected by a terrorist attack on a chemical plant. Most Republicans opposed the amendment, however, citing three reasons for their position. First, they argued that the bill already included $50 million for "critical infrastructure protection, including chemical plants . . . ." (Harold Rogers (R-KY).) Second, they noted that they had already put in the legislative history for the bill "very strong report language directing the Department to continue and complete the vulnerability assessments of all critical chemical facilities in the country." (Rogers.) (Legislative history is the documentation of the steps that a bill goes through to become a law. When bills emerge from committee to be considered on the House floor, the prevailing party's staff will write a "committee report" to accompany the bill language. This report discusses both sides' views, input from the public if relevant, goals for the bill, etc.) Third, they argued that as Menendez's amendment would take the $50 million needed from the Office of the Undersecretary for Management at the Department of Homeland Security, the necessary outcome of that transfer would be to lay off workers. Progressives won this vote when the House approved this amendment by a vote of 225 to 198. 35 Republicans joined with the Democrats to force this extra $50 million to be spent to increase security at chemical plants in the U.S.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 175
May 17, 2005
H. Res. 278. Appropriations/Homeland Security/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill to Fund the Department of Homeland Security in Fiscal Year 2006.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House adopted the governing rule for H.R. 2360, a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) This vote was a follow-up to vote number 174. Each year, Congress must appropriate funds to be spent by the various departments of the federal government in the following fiscal year. Because the Department of Homeland Security was a relatively new department, procedures and politics relating to its congressional oversight and funding were somewhat uncertain. Both Democrats and Republicans expressed some concerns over information that they said the Department of Homeland Security had refused to turn over to Congress, despite repeated requests. Republicans initially disagreed amongst themselves over the bill due to an internal turf battle between committee chairs, but were able to resolve that difference just prior to this vote. Democrats, including Progressives, attacked the Republican infighting as detrimental to the critical function of the Department of Homeland Security: "This bill is being eviscerated because of a juvenile, a juvenile, dispute within the Republican caucus about committee jurisdictions. It is . . . dung hill politics, where people put the welfare of their own committee ahead of the welfare of this institution and the welfare of the country. It is little league politics at its worst." (David Obey (D-WI).) Democrats from the subcommittee that had drawn up the bill also criticized what they viewed as the efforts of some of the Republicans to scuttle the bill, which emerged from the subcommittee with some bipartisan agreement. Democrats also opposed the rule because it would not permit Obey to offer an amendment to provide additional funding for border security. Republicans won this vote on the rule when the House adopted the rule by winning a straight party-line vote of 222 to 185. Thus, the House proceeded to consideration of the bill to provide appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for FY06.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 174
May 17, 2005
H. Res. 278. Appropriations/Homeland Security/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill to Fund the Department of Homeland Security in Fiscal Year 2006.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed to order the previous question regarding the governing rule for H.R. 2360, a bill to make appropriations (fund) for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (Ordering the previous question means to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote. A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Each year, Congress must appropriate funds to be spent by the various departments of the federal government in the following fiscal year. Because the Department of Homeland Security was a relatively new department, procedures and politics relating to its congressional oversight and funding were somewhat uncertain. Both Democrats and Republicans expressed some concerns over information that they said the Department of Homeland Security had refused to turn over to Congress, despite repeated requests. Republicans initially disagreed amongst themselves over the bill due to an internal turf battle between committee chairs, but were able to resolve that difference just prior to this vote. Democrats, including Progressives, attacked the Republican infighting as detrimental to the functioning of the Department of Homeland Security: "This bill is being eviscerated because of a juvenile, a juvenile, dispute within the Republican caucus about committee jurisdictions. It is . . . dung hill politics, where people put the welfare of their own committee ahead of the welfare of this institution and the welfare of the country. It is little league politics at its worst." (David Obey (D-WI).) Democrats from the subcommittee that had drawn up the bill also criticized what they viewed as the efforts of some of the Republicans to scuttle the bill, which had emerged from the subcommittee with some bipartisan agreement. Democrats also opposed the rule because it would not permit Obey to offer an amendment to provide additional funding for border security. The House defeated the Progressive position and ordered the previous question for the rule by a straight party-line vote of 223 to 185. Thus, the House proceeded to a vote on adoption of the rule and consideration of the bill to provide appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for FY06 on the terms chosen by Republicans.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 169
May 12, 2005
H.R. 1544. Homeland Security/Vote on Amendment to Reduce Number of Cities Eligible for First-Responder Grants.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House overwhelmingly defeated an amendment offered by Anthony Weiner (D-NY) to reduce the number of cities that would be eligible for first-responder grants under H.R. 1544. H.R. 1544 was a bill to change the way the federal government allocates homeland security grants for first-responders (e.g., police and fire departments). Weiner's amendment proposed to reduce the number of cities that would be eligible for these grants in order to concentrate them on very large cities. Taking the Progressive position, Weiner argued that these grants were originally meant to have gone to only 6 major cities due to the large level of danger these cities faced from terrorism and other threats. Over the past few years, he continued, the recipient-pool had grown to include other cities, suburban areas and airport authorities. Weiner contended that any congressional increase in funds for the target cities was being diluted by the Department of Homeland Security's continued inclusion of more and more jurisdictions to which it distributed those funds, and that the Department was thus acting against the will of Congress. Weiner also stated that rural, suburban and other "areas that are not traditionally thought of as large urban areas" would not necessarily lose the ability to apply for these funds because these areas would be permitted to pool together to apply for them. Republicans and a number of Democrats disagreed, arguing that the already established limit of 1.65 million people in a "region" was a sufficient limit on which areas could receive the grants. They also stated that a focus on "cities" over "regions" was not the right focus, and that "only regional grants, not State grants, may be able to address certain unique terrorism preparedness needs, such as risks that cross interstate or international boundaries, for example, bioterrorism or agro-terrorism." (Christopher Cox (R-CA).) In a defeat for Progressives, 102 Democrats joined Republicans to defeat this amendment by a vote of 88 to 331. Thus, all qualifying cities and regions could still apply for the first-responder Homeland Security grants contained in the bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 168
May 11, 2005
H.R. 1279. Crime/Vote on Passage of Bill to Punish and Deter Gang Violence.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed H.R. 1279, a bill intended to punish and deter gang violence. H.R. 1279 would authorize increased funding for law enforcement and prosecutors. It would also increase penalties–i.e., prison time–for violent, gang-related crimes, including authorizing the death penalty for gang-related murders. In addition, it would give the U.S. Attorney General discretion over whether to try 16 and 17-year-olds as adults, and would increase penalties for violent crimes committed by illegal aliens. Progressives acknowledged the seriousness of the gang problem in America and agreed that measures must be taken to stop it, but disagreed with Republicans about the means to achieve that goal. James McGovern (D-MA) characterized the bill as "bad policy wrapped in a bad bill that will simply not do the job the sponsors claim it will do." He stated that the bill "unjustifiably expands death penalty provisions, removes judicial discretion over transferring juveniles to the adult court system, and imposes ineffective mandatory minimum sentencing." Republicans disagreed, arguing that the bill would "creat[e] the tools to put gang members behind bars and get them off the streets." (Phil Gingrey (R-GA).) Handing a defeat to Progressives, the House passed this bill by a vote of 279 to 144, with 71 Democrats crossing party lines to vote for the bill with Republicans and 20 Republicans voting against the bill with Democrats. Thus, the House approved legislation designed to punish and deter gang-related violence, especially by means of increased prison terms for certain violent crimes and for illegal aliens.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
N N Lost
Roll Call 167
May 11, 2005
H.R. 1279. Crime/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit with Instructions (Amend or Kill) Bill to Punish and Deter Gang Violence.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a procedural motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 1279, a bill intended to punish and deter gang violence. (A motion to recommit with instructions is a motion to send a bill back to committee for the purpose of changing it significantly. This motion is often a minority party's last effort to try to amend or kill the legislation in question.) The motion was offered by John Tierney (D-MA). Tierney's motion would have added to the bill a provision "to prohibit defrauding the government in connection with the reconstruction efforts in Iraq." (Tierney.) Taking the Progressive position, Tierney argued that "[i]t is an unfortunate fact of life that, today, in Iraq, taxpayer funds are being routinely wasted by organized corporate criminals. The American taxpayer is being defrauded by a system of distributing funds that is totally unaccountable. This not only demeans and cheapens the sacrifices that our military and civilian personnel are making in Iraq, it endangers their lives." Republicans opposed the motion, countering that no one had offered any evidence or testimony at any point of the bill's consideration concerning Tierney's allegations. Republicans further questioned the seriousness of Democratic proposals to deal with gang-related crime. The House defeated the Progressive position by voting down this motion 198 to 227, along straight party-lines. Thus, language to prohibit corporate fraud in connection with U.S. construction efforts in Iraq was not included in the bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 166
May 11, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1279
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 165
May 11, 2005
H.R. 1279. Crime/Vote on Amendment to Enhance Penalties for Crimes Committed by Illegal Aliens.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House approved an amendment offered by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to enhance penalties for crimes committed by illegal aliens and to list immigration violators in the National Crime Information Center Database. Goodlatte offered this amendment to H.R. 1279, a bill intended to punish and deter gang violence. Specifically, his amendment would add 5 years imprisonment to any violent-crime or drug-trafficking offense if the offender was an illegal alien, and 15 years if the alien had already been deported once and then had illegally re-entered the country. Goodlatte asserted that his amendment was necessary to deal with a gang known as "MS-13," which Newsweek had recently termed "the most violent gang in America." Goodlatte alleged that gang members who were arrested were merely deported, after which they would assume new identities and slip into the United States once again to continue their misdeeds. Thus, Goodlatte argued that they actually needed to be imprisoned in order to remove them from the streets. Taking the Progressive position, Bobby Scott (D-VA) countered that "[w]e are trying to get rid of criminals from coming into the country [sic], and what the gentleman is doing in this amendment is keeping them in the country. In other words, deporting them is not good enough. We want to keep them in our prison systems, which now house more citizens, and now, we are adding noncitizens to the population of those incarcerated in America." Maxine Waters (D-CA) agreed with Scott, noting that U.S. taxpayers would have to bear the financial cost of incarcerating these additional prisoners. In a defeat for Progressives, the House voted 266 to 198 to approve the amendment, with 51 Democrats crossing party lines to vote "yes" with Republicans. Thus, additional penalties for crimes committed by illegal aliens were added to the legislation intended to fight gang violence.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
N N Lost
Roll Call 164
May 11, 2005
H. Res. 268. Crime/Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of a Bill to Punish and Deter Gang Violence.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed to proceed to consideration of H.R. 1279, a bill designed to punish and deter gang violence. The vote was to order the previous question on the rule for H.R. 1279, meaning that by approving the rule, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the governing rule for H.R. 1279. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Both Democrats and Republicans addressed the substance of the gang-violence bill in the course of their debate. H.R. 1279 would authorize increased funding for law enforcement and prosecutors. It would also increase penalties–i.e., prison time–for violent gang-related crimes, including authorizing the death penalty for gang-related murders. In addition, it would give the U.S. Attorney General discretion over whether to try 16 and 17-year-olds as adults. Progressives acknowledged the seriousness of the gang problem in America and agreed that measures must be taken to stop it, but disagreed with Republicans about the means to achieve that goal. James McGovern (D-MA) characterized the bill as "bad policy wrapped in a bad bill that will simply not do the job the sponsors claim it will do." He stated that the bill "unjustifiably expands death penalty provisions, removes judicial discretion over transferring juveniles to the adult court system, and imposes ineffective mandatory minimum sentencing." Republicans disagreed, arguing that the bill would "creat[e] the tools to put gang members behind bars and get them off the streets." (Phil Gingrey (R-GA).) Progressives lost this vote when the House approved the resolution with a straight party-line vote of 227 to 198. Thus, the House proceeded to substantive consideration of H.R. 1279, a bill designed to punish and deter gang violence.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
N N Lost
Roll Call 161
May 05, 2005
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Immigration/Vote on Final Passage of H.R. 1268, an Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Fund U.S. Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Provide Relief to Tsunami Victims.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed H.R. 1268, an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide relief to tsunami victims. The House was considering the conference report for H.R. 1268, which is the reconciled version of a bill that emerges from a conference of selected senators and representatives following the passage of different versions of the bill by each body. (The report must then be agreed to by both the House and the Senate, without changes, before it can be sent to the President for his signature.) This vote was closely related to vote numbers 159 and 160. The bill provided more than $80 billion in spending, most of it military-related. In addition, it included Republican-backed immigration legislation designed to make a number of broad changes to U.S. immigration laws, including restricting standards for those claiming asylum and standardizing amongst the states procedures for obtaining driver's licenses. Democrats alleged that U.S. funds were being squandered in the course of the war. They also argued that funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ought to be determined as part of Congress's ordinary budget process, not in this "emergency" context, because these needs could be foreseen and ought to be considered at the same time as the country's other needs. In addition, a number of Democrats opposed the immigration-related provisions of the bill, calling them "highly restrictive, punitive measures that will burden our states and, I believe, fail to have any meaningful effect on stemming illegal immigration, but will do great harm to those immigrants fleeing persecution, regardless of how they come to our shores seeking protection." (James McGovern (D-MA).) Republicans countered that the emergency funds in the bill were absolutely critical to support U.S. troops and ongoing military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they supported the immigration-related provisions because they represented "a very important first step towards dealing with the issue of border security." (David Dreier (R-CA).) Defeating the Progressive position, the House voted 368 to 58 to pass the legislation. 143 Democrats crossed party lines to vote with Republicans for the bill, in large part due to feelings that they needed to support legislation designed to support U.S. troops fighting overseas. Thus, the House overwhelmingly expressed its support for additional funding for U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, for providing those funds on an emergency basis, to provide relief for tsunami victims, to make it tougher for asylum applicants to prove their claims and to standardize driver's licenses procedures among the states, despite strong Democratic concerns in nearly all of these areas.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 160
May 05, 2005
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Immigration/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit (Amend or Kill) Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Fund U.S. Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Provide Relief to Tsunami Victims.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a procedural motion offered by David Obey (D-WI) to recommit to committee with instructions H.R. 1268. (A motion to recommit with instructions is a motion to send the bill back to committee for the purpose of changing it significantly. This motion is often a minority party's last effort to try to amend or kill the legislation in question.) This vote was closely related to vote numbers 159 and 161. H.R. 1268 was an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide relief to tsunami victims. The House was considering the conference report for H.R. 1268, which is the reconciled version of a bill that emerges after negotiations from a conference of selected senators and representatives following the passage of different versions of the bill by each body. (The report must then be agreed to by both the House and the Senate, without changes, before it can be sent to the President for his signature.) Obey's motion would have instructed the conferees to increase funding for the office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Democrats, including Progressives, supported the motion as a means of protesting the legislation itself, which provided for more than $80 billion in spending, most of it military-related. In addition, it included Republican-backed immigration legislation designed to make a number of broad changes to U.S. immigration laws, including restricting standards for those foreign nationals claiming asylum in the United States and standardizing procedures amongst the states for obtaining driver's licenses. Democrats alleged that U.S. funds were being squandered in the course of the war. In addition, a number of Democrats opposed the immigration-related provisions of the bill, calling them "highly restrictive, punitive measures that will . . . fail to have any meaningful effect on stemming illegal immigration." (James McGovern (D-MA).) Republicans countered that the emergency funds in the bill were absolutely critical to support U.S. troops and ongoing military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they supported the immigration-related provisions because they represented "a very important first step towards dealing with the issue of border security." (David Dreier (R-CA).) Handing the Progressives a defeat, the House voted 201 to 225–virtually along party lines–to defeat the motion to recommit. Thus, the House proceeded with consideration and a vote on final passage of legislation to provide additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for relief for tsunami victims, and to make significant changes in some aspects of U.S. immigration law.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 159
May 05, 2005
H. Res. 258. Appropriations/Immigration/Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of H.R. 1268, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Fund U.S. Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Provide Relief to Tsunami Victims.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed to proceed to consideration of the conference report for H.R. 1268, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide relief to tsunami victims. (A conference report is the version of a bill or resolution that emerges after negotiations from a conference of selected senators and representatives following the passage of different versions by each body; the report must then be agreed to by both the House and the Senate.) (Each year, Congress appropriates the funds necessary for the running of the country for the coming fiscal year. Later in the year, Congress also generally considers an "emergency supplemental appropriations" bill to fund activities or areas of need that were, arguably, unanticipated at the time of the year's original appropriations process.) The vote was to order the previous question on the rule for H.R. 1268, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, meaning that by approving H. Res. 258, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the governing rule for H.R. 1268. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) This vote was closely related to vote numbers 160 and 161. Both Democrats and Republicans generally addressed the substance of the Emergency Supplemental bill itself in their debate over the rule. The measure provided for more than $80 billion in spending, most of it military-related. In addition, it included Republican-backed immigration legislation designed to make a number of broad changes to U.S. immigration laws, including restricting standards for those claiming asylum and standardizing procedures for obtaining driver's licenses amongst the states. Democrats, including Progressives, opposed the bill, alleging that U.S. funds were being squandered in the course of the war. In addition, a number of Democrats opposed the immigration-related provisions of the bill, calling them "highly restrictive, punitive measures that will . . . fail to have any meaningful effect on stemming illegal immigration." (James McGovern (D-MA).) Republicans countered that the emergency funds in the bill were absolutely critical to support U.S. troops and ongoing military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also supported the immigration-related provisions because they represented "a very important first step towards dealing with the issue of border security." (David Dreier (R-CA).) Defeating the Progressive position, the House voted 224 to 196, along straight party lines, to order the previous question on the rule for the H.R. 1268 conference report. Thus, the House moved to substantive consideration of legislation to provide additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for relief for tsunami victims, and to make significant changes to some aspects of U.S. immigration law.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 153
May 04, 2005
H.R. 366. Education/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit (Amend or Kill) Vocational and Technical Educational Bill in order to Draw Clear Boundaries Regarding Relationships between Federal Agencies and Journalists.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a procedural motion offered by George Miller (D-CA) to recommit to committee with instructions H.R. 366, a bill addressing vocational and technical education. (A motion to recommit with instructions is a motion send a bill back to committee for the purpose of changing it significantly. This motion is often a minority party's last effort to try to amend or kill the legislation in question.) Miller's motion was made in direct Democratic reaction to the public revelation that a radio commentator had been paid by the U.S. Department of Education to make public statements supporting the Bush Administration's No Child Left Behind initiative. These statements were made in the guise of independent statements by Armstrong Williams, a radio commentator. No financial or other formal link between Williams and the agency or Administration was disclosed at the time of the statements. Democrats, including Progressives, were outraged, and Miller, the Ranking Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, introduced this motion to require that "prepackaged news stories put together with Federal funds must be disclosed to viewers" and to prohibit "using public funds to pay journalists or media commentators to promote the views of the agency." Democrats criticized the Williams case as one of "covert [government] propaganda," (Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)), and deplored what they termed the misuse of much-needed taxpayer education dollars. Republicans countered that Miller's motion was a "cheap shot aimed at the administration" that "would not do a single thing to improve educational opportunities for American students." (John Boehner (R-OH).) They added that what had occurred in the Williams case was "stupid," but not "illegal or unethical." (Boehner.) The House voted 197 to 224, virtually along straight party lines, to defeat Miller's motion and the Progressive position. Thus, language aimed at delineating clearer lines between journalists and commentators and federal agencies was not adopted, and practices such as those in the Williams case were permitted to continue.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 151
May 03, 2005
H. Res. 253. Abortion/Vote to Table (Kill) Resolution to Change Republican-Drafted Language Describing Democratic Amendments to an Abortion-Related Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed a motion to table (kill) a resolution that would have condemned and ordered changes to Republican-drafted language describing several Democratic amendments to an abortion-related bill. The language in question was contained in a committee report (the report accompanying the version of a bill that emerges from a committee's consideration of it; the majority–at this time, the Republicans–generally drafts the report) for H.R. 748, a bill to prohibit anyone from transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding state parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion. Though the House had already passed H.R. 748 the previous week, Democrats, including Progressives, were still furious over the Republican characterization of their amendments to exempt certain groups of people–such as a members of the clergy, taxi and bus drivers and a minor's grandparents–from prosecution under the bill. Republican report language described these amendments as exempting "sexual predators from prosecution." Democrats cried foul, noting that "descriptions this pejorative are not only inappropriate; they are without precedent." (John Conyers (D-MI).) Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), author of one of the disputed amendments, stated: "The fact is in the entire debate over that amendment, in fact, in the entire debate over all of the amendments . . . no one, no one in the majority, no one in the minority mentioned the words 'sexual predators.' No one in the committee debate said this amendment might protect sexual predators. It did not occur to anybody. So on that level the report is dishonest, and the chairman or whoever else had anything to do with it owes this body an apology." Republicans stood behind the report language, arguing, "[t]he amendments offered by the minority would have created those blanket exclusions for certain large classes of people who are not a minor's parents," and that if anyone in that category was also a sexual offender, he or she would be immune from prosecution. (James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).) The House defeated the Progressive position and voted 220 to 196, along straight party lines, to table or kill the resolution. Thus, report language was allowed to stand which Democrats alleged mischaracterized several Democratic amendments to H.R. 748 as exempting sexual predators from prosecution under that bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 149
Apr 28, 2005
H. Con. Res. 95. Budget/Vote on Passage of U.S. Budget for Fiscal Year 2006.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed the U.S. budget for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). The House passed the conference report for the budget, which is the reconciled version of a bill or resolution that emerges from a conference of selected senators and representatives following the passage of different versions by each body. (The report must then be agreed to by both the House and the Senate.) Democrats, including Progressives, condemned the budget, arguing that it would irresponsibly cut taxes for the wealthy while ballooning the national deficit, while failing to address critical middle-class issues such as the rising costs of health care and gasoline and making college affordable and retirement secure. They lamented cuts in programs such as food stamps and the pension program operated through the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. Democrats also criticized the fact that the conference report had only been filed hours before the present floor consideration, and thus they had not even been given a chance to read through it before they were required to vote on it. Republicans, however, hailed the budget, stating that it would significantly decrease the deficit while continuing to make tax cuts that would lead to increased economic growth. They noted that hard choices had to be made in cutting spending in order to reduce the deficit. They also noted that the President's full budget request for defense and homeland security had been granted. Defeating the Progressive position, the House passed the conference report on the FY06 budget by a virtually straight party line vote of 214 to 211. Thus, the House adopted and sent to the Senate a U.S. budget for FY06 that continued the President's tax-cut strategy and fully funded his defense and homeland security request while cutting other programs. These programs included some aimed at helping the poor and middle classes afford and obtain adequate health care, education, retirement and other basic needs.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 147
Apr 28, 2005
H. Res. 248. Budget/Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of H. Con. Res. 95, a Resolution to Establish the U.S. Budget for Fiscal Year 2006.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed to proceed to consideration of the conference report on the U.S. budget for fiscal year 2006 (FY06). (A conference report is the reconciled version of a bill or resolution that emerges from a conference of selected senators and representatives following the passage of different versions by each body. The report must then be agreed to by both the House and the Senate.) The vote was to order the previous question on the rule for H. Con. Res. 95, the budget resolution, meaning that by approving H. Res. 248, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the governing rule for H. Con. Res. 95. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Democrats argued substantively against the FY06 budget itself, noting that "winners" in the budget included the wealthy and large corporations, while "losers" consisted of "anyone who relies on Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and our Nation's veterans desperately needing health care funding, families with seniors who depend on Social Security, and any family that might have a child in need of a student loan." (Louise Slaughter (D-NY).) Democrats criticized Republican plans to partially privatize Social Security, provide financial benefits for oil and gas companies, and continue cutting taxes while leaving a large deficit for the next generation of Americans. Republicans accused Democrats of wanting to increase taxes, and hailed what they viewed as "tax relief" included in the budget. (Phil Gingrey (R-GA).) The House defeated the Progressive position and voted 228 to 196, along straight party lines, to order the previous question on the governing rule for the FY06 budget conference report. Thus, the House proceeded to pass the rule and move to substantive consideration of the FY06 budget, about which Democrats and Republicans were sharply divided.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 146
Apr 28, 2005
H. Res. 242. Budget/Procedural Vote to Consider Governing Rule for Debate of Budget.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed a procedural motion to waive a House procedural rule that ordinarily requires a vote of two-thirds of the House in order to consider a bill's governing rule on the same day the Rules Committee reports it. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. The Rules Committee is the body that draws up special rules for consideration of bills. It is weighted in favor of the majority party–currently the Republicans–and often works in conjunction with party leadership in formulating rules. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) House Republicans were eager to complete consideration of the conference report (the reconciled version of a bill or resolution that emerges from a conference committee of selected senators and representatives following the passage of different versions of the bill by each body; the report must then be agreed to by both the House and the Senate) on the annual budget resolution so that they could send it to the Senate, where they hoped it would be passed in the same week. Democrats, including Progressives, argued that there was no need to rush consideration of the budget resolution, and that the Republican majority, who had excluded Democrats altogether from the budget conference committee, had not even given Democrats an opportunity to read the budget conference report that they were now being asked to vote on. (Louise Slaughter (D-NY).) Republicans countered that they needed to rush the resolution's consideration on the House floor because the Senate would not be in session the following week and therefore needed to get the resolution from the House right away. (Adam Putnam (R-FL).) Republicans defeated Democrats 230 to 199, along straight party lines, to waive the relevant House rule. Thus, the House proceeded to consider the conference report on the annual U.S. budget resolution without many representatives having had a chance actually to read through it.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 144
Apr 27, 2005
H.R. 748. Abortion/Vote on Passage of a Bill to Prohibit Anyone From Transporting a Minor Across State Lines to Seek an Abortion for the Purpose of Avoiding State Parental Consent or Notification Laws.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed H.R. 748, a bill to prohibit anyone from transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion. Progressives argued that the bill was an "extreme" measure designed to "prevent any young woman from being able to obtain an abortion, even if she is raped, or even if she is too afraid of her parents to confide in them." (John Conyers (D-MI).) They noted that especially in cases where abuse or incest has occurred, a pregnant girl might legitimately fear for her safety if she were to go to her parents. Progressives also called the bill "mean-spirited," noting that a broad range of adults in whom a girl ought to be able to turn to for help could be prosecuted, including grandparents and members of the clergy. (Conyers.) Republicans countered that the bill was "critical to both protecting our minors as well as preserving the opportunity for parents to be involved in their children's decisions." (Steve Chabot (R-OH).) They also insisted that the bill as drafted contained adequate exceptions and protections for a girl's life and physical well-being. Progressives suffered a defeat when the House passed the bill by a vote of 270 to 157, with 54 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans in favor of the bill. Thus, the House passed legislation that would criminalize the behavior of nearly anyone who helped a pregnant girl circumvent state parental consent or notification laws by transporting her across state lines to obtain an abortion.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 143
Apr 27, 2005
H.R. 748. Abortion/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit (Amend or Kill) a Bill to Prohibit Anyone From Transporting a Minor Across State Lines to Seek an Abortion for the Purpose of Avoiding State Parental Consent or Notification Laws.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a motion to recommit to committee with instructions H.R. 748. H.R. 748 was a bill to prohibit anyone from transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding state parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion. (A motion to recommit with instructions is a motion to send a bill back to committee for the purpose of changing it significantly. This motion is often a minority party's last effort to try to amend or kill the legislation in question.) This motion was offered by Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and would have instructed the Judiciary Committee to add to the bill language ensuring that a father "who caused the pregnancy through rape or incest" would not have the right to sue anyone for transporting his daughter across state lines to obtain an abortion. Making the Progressive argument, Nadler stated that a father who raped his daughter should not be able to "profit from his crime." Republicans countered that any father who had raped his daughter and then tried to sue under the bill would be exposing his crime by filing the suit, and thus would be prosecuted. The House defeated Progressives and the motion to recommit by a vote of 183 to 245, with 27 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans against the motion. Thus, no specific language was added to the bill to prohibit a father who had raped his daughter from filing suit under the bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 142
Apr 27, 2005
H.R. 748. Abortion/Vote on Amendment to Exempt Grandparents and Members of the Clergy from the Provisions of Bill to Prohibit Anyone From Transporting a Minor Across State Lines to Seek an Abortion for the Purpose of Avoiding State Parental Consent or Notification Laws.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) to H.R. 748. H.R. 748 was a bill to prohibit anyone from transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding state parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion. Jackson-Lee's amendment would have exempted members of the clergy and a minor's grandparents from prosecution or civil liability (i.e., suit from, for example, a parent) under the bill. Progressives argued that adoption of this amendment would recognize that grandparents and clergy members should not be penalized by refusing to abandon young girls in desperate situations just when they are most in need of guidance from a responsible adult. They acknowledged that ideally, a girl would turn to her parents when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, but noted that "in the real world, there are situations where it is impossible for a minor to tell a parent about a pregnancy, for instance, in cases of incest, where the parents physically abuse their children or in the case that I mentioned . . . of the young 13-year-old girl whose father had raped her, found out she was pregnant, and murdered her." (Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).) Republicans countered that the bill as drafted provided an exception for cases of incest, and that the amendment would provide a way to circumvent the critical goal of ensuring parental involvement when a girl is pregnant. The House defeated the Progressive position and the amendment by a vote of 177 to 252, with 37 Democrats crossing party lines to vote against the amendment, while 13 Republicans joined Democrats to vote for it. Thus, members of the clergy and a minor's grandparents could still be prosecuted and/or sued under the bill's provisions for transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding state parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 141
Apr 27, 2005
H.R. 748. Abortion/Vote on Amendment to Exempt Certain Drivers and Members of Medical Profession from the Provisions of Bill to Prohibit Anyone From Transporting a Minor Across State Lines to Seek an Abortion for the Purpose of Avoiding State Parental Consent or Notification Laws.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House rejected an amendment offered by Robert Scott (D-VA) to H.R. 748. H.R. 748 was a bill to prohibit anyone from transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding state parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion. Scott's amendment would have exempted taxicab drivers, bus drivers, nurses, medical providers or others in the business of professional transport from prosecution or civil liability (i.e., suit from, for example, a parent) under the bill. Making the Progressive argument, Scott noted that the bill would make these people "criminals for the simple task of doing their job, transporting someone between two places. Now, the bill also makes conspiracy and accessory after the fact criminal violations, so a nurse or receptionist or sorority sister who calls the cab could also be prosecuted for the Federal crime." Most Republicans opposed the amendment, calling it "an assault on the family," (Steve Chabot (R-OH)), and noting that, "[t]he amendment would allow the creation of an entire for-profit, interstate taxicab network specifically designed to thwart State parental notification laws." (James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).) They also maintained that someone like a cab driver who had no knowledge of why he was driving someone to a location where she would receive an abortion would not have the required criminal intent and thus could not be prosecuted under the bill's provisions. The House defeated Progressives and this amendment by a vote of 179 to 245, with 34 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans against the amendment, and 15 Republicans opting to vote with the Democrats. Thus, taxicab drivers, bus drivers, nurses, medical providers or others in the business of professional transport could still be prosecuted and/or sued under the bill's provisions for transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding state parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 140
Apr 27, 2005
H. Res. 22. Small Business/Procedural Vote on a Resolution Expressing the Sense of the Congress that U.S. Small Business Owners Are Entitled to a Small Business Bill of Rights.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a motion to recommit H. Res. 22, a resolution expressing the Sense of the Congress (a nonbinding resolution) that U.S. small business owners are entitled to a Small Business Bill of Rights. (A motion to recommit is a motion to send the bill back to committee. It is often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill it.) Sponsored by Ric Keller (R-FL), the resolution expressed the sentiment that small businesses in the U.S. ought to have certain rights, including: the right to band together to obtain affordable health insurance; the right to favorable tax laws; "the right to be free from frivolous lawsuits;" the right to be "free from unnecessary . . . regulations and paperwork;" "the right to relief from high energy costs;" and other rights. Progressives opposed the resolution, saying that it would do "nothing more than offer empty promises to small businesses, empty promises that Congress probably will not keep." (Nydia Velazquez (D-NY).) Democrats, including Progressives, were also angry because the Republican majority had prevented them from offering amendments that the Democrats maintained would have included important priorities for small businesses, including "strengthen[ing] programs for minority entrepreneurs," and supporting a microloan program that the Administration had eliminated in its budget proposal. (Doris Matsui (D-CA).) Republicans countered that the resolution would provide "a blueprint for Congress to follow" in order to create an improved environment for small businesses and to allow those businesses to create jobs. (Keller.) Republicans also asserted that the Democrats had had ample opportunity to air their concerns and make amendments to the legislation in committee. The House defeated Progressives and the motion to recommit by a vote of 188 to 222. Thus, the House went on to pass a "Small Business Bill of Rights" that set forth nonbinding principles with the stated purpose of helping small businesses thrive.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 139
Apr 27, 2005
H. Res. 236. Abortion/Procedural Vote on Governing Rule for Bill to Prohibit Anyone From Transporting a Minor Across State Lines to Seek an Abortion for the Purpose of Avoiding State Parental Consent or Notification Laws.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House ordered the previous question for the governing rule for H.R. 748, a bill to prohibit anyone from transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of avoiding parental consent or notification laws to seek an abortion. (Ordering the previous question means to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote. A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Progressives strongly opposed the legislation, noting that not only would the bill interfere with a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose, but it would also threaten broad categories of individuals–such as grandmothers, members of the clergy and cab drivers–with imprisonment. Democrats, including Progressives, were also irate about a provision in the Rules Committee's report (the Rules Committee is the body of the House that draws up special rules for consideration of bills and issues them in the form of "reports;" the Committee is weighted in favor of the majority party–currently the Republicans–and often works in conjunction with party leadership in formulating rules) which they maintained intentionally mischaracterized an amendment that Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) had wished to offer to the bill on the House floor. Nadler's amendment, which the Rules Committee did not permit him to offer on the House floor, would have exempted grandparents and clergy members from the bill's sanctions. The Rules Committee's report described Nadler's amendment as one which "could [have been] used by sexual predators to escape conviction under the bill." Republicans insisted that "this bill has absolutely nothing, let me repeat, nothing to do with a woman's right to choose. Rather, this bill ensures that no minor is deprived of any protection according [sic] to not only her but also her parents under the laws of her State." (Phil Gingrey (R-GA).) With regard to the controversy over the Rules Committee's wording of Nadler's amendment, they maintained that the difference in viewpoint was merely one of "intent versus effect," (Gingrey); in other words, they argued that their report language addressed the actual potential effects of Nadler's amendment, while Nadler's own description of his amendment only addressed the amendment's goal. By way of example, Republicans further explained their language by noting that if either a grandparent or a member of the clergy were a sexual predator, Nadler's language would have exempted that person from prosecution under the statute. The House voted 234 to 192 to order the previous question on the resolution. Thus, Progressives were defeated and consideration of the bill restricting the transportation of minors across state lines in order to avoid state parental consent or notification laws to obtain an abortion proceeded. Democrats, however, continued to fume over the Republicans' characterization of one of the Democrats' amendments.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 138
Apr 27, 2005
H. Res. 235. Small Business/Procedural Vote for the Governing Rule on H. Res. 22, a Resolution Expressing the Sense of the Congress that U.S. Small Business Owners Are Entitled to a Small Business Bill of Rights.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House approved the rule governing consideration of H. Res. 22, a resolution expressing the Sense of the Congress (a nonbinding resolution) that U.S. small business owners are entitled to a Small Business Bill of Rights. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) Democrats, including Progressives, protested that the majority party in Congress-the Republicans-had "muted debate on a piece of legislation for no legitimate reason." (Doris Matsui (D-CA).) Republicans had shut down debate after rejecting several Democratic amendments when the resolution was first considered in the Small Business Committee, and then the Rules Committee had issued a rule that prohibited anyone-including Democrats-from offering amendments on the House floor. Democrats maintained that their amendments would have included important priorities for U.S. small businesses, including "strengthen[ing] programs for minority entrepreneurs," and supporting a microloan program that the Administration had eliminated in its budget proposal. (Matsui.) Republicans focused their debate on what small businesses needed to thrive in the U.S., what had been done already by Congress toward meeting those needs-like passing the elimination of the estate tax and The Energy Policy Act of 2005-and what still needed to be done; for example, stemming the rising cost to small businesses of providing health insurance for their employees. They also asserted that the Democrats had had ample opportunity to air their concerns and make amendments to the legislation in committee. Finally, they asserted that anyone who opposed this Small Business Bill of Rights would by definition be in favor of: "higher health insurance costs, higher taxes, more frivolous lawsuits, more paper work and red tape, higher energy costs, more obstacles to getting capital and more obstacles to getting government contracts." (Rick Keller (R-FL).) This vote was actually a procedural one to "order the previous question" on the rule for the resolution, meaning that winning the vote meant ending debate, preventing further amendments and proceeding immediately to a vote on the rule. Progressives were defeated when the House voted 228 to 201 along straight party lines to order the previous question on the governing rule for the Sense of the Congress resolution in support of a Small Business Bill of Rights. Thus, they voted to override Democratic procedural concerns and to move to the next step toward passage of a resolution in favor of a Small Business Bill of Rights.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 132
Apr 21, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Passage of The Energy Policy Act of 2005, a Comprehensive Bill Dealing with Research and Development of Numerous Sources of Energy

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed The Energy Policy Act of 2005, a comprehensive bill dealing with research and development of numerous sources of energy. Making the Progressive argument, Eliot Engel (D-NY) condemned the bill as favoring "special interests over consumers." Progressives specifically criticized a number of the bill's provisions, including those that: protected manufacturers of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MBTE), a gasoline additive, from product liability lawsuits; authorized the spending of significant funds on behalf of the nuclear power industry; allowed for the first time drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); repealed the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA), which they alleged would allow large companies to drive smaller utility companies out of business; and included "a variety of special-interest favors for oil and gas production despite the fact that producers are already reaping profits from record high energy prices" and that these measures would not reduce gas prices. (Martin Meehan (D-MA).) All in all, they maintained that the bill was wrongheaded in that it would not reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and it did not take a sufficiently forward-looking approach to energy production, conservation and consumption. Republicans, however, hailed the legislation. They cited the rising price of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. and said that the bill would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and thus improve U.S. energy security, take a major step toward production of environmentally safe, renewable fuels, boost citizen access to more fuel-efficient cars, provide incentives to state and local governments to acquire alternatively-fueled vehicles, and create jobs. (Dennis Hastert (R-IL).) Handing Progressives a defeat, the House passed The Energy Policy Act of 2005 by a vote of 249 to 183, with a 41 Democrats joining Republicans to vote in favor of the bill while 22 Republicans opted to vote against the bill with most Democrats. Thus, the House adopted a comprehensive energy bill that took a number of steps that might or might not successfully reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but did specifically permit drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and provide a waiver of liability for manufacturers of the gasoline additive MBTE, amongst numerous other provisions.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Nuclear Energy Industry
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Nuclear Energy
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Automobile Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Nuclear Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 131
Apr 21, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Strike from Energy Bill Provision to Alter States' Roles in Relation to That of Federal Government Regarding the Location of Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Michael Castle (R-DE) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have altered the role of the states in relation to that of the federal government regarding the determination of where to locate liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. LNG terminals are facilities for receiving and distributing LNG. As LNG can cause explosions, supporters of this amendment argued that states ought to have the right to ensure that these facilities were established in locations sufficiently distant from dense populations, or to meet other state interests. The language of H.R. 6, they maintained, would remove the requirement that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) base its decision on whether to locate an LNG facility on a particular site "on community support or opposition, which it does now." (Castle.) But state and local governments, amendment supporters argued, would be the ones to deal with the consequences of any accident or terrorist attack on an LNG facility; thus, the ability of those governments to have a say in the decision was critical. Amendment supporters further argued that amendment opponents simply wanted to "wall out" individual state interests so that the federal government and oil industry would be free to place these facilities in densely populated areas, which are often the most easy to access. (Edward Markey (D-MA).) Those who opposed the Castle amendment and supported the language in H.R. 6 countered that importation of LNG was a necessary means of obtaining additional fuel supplies for the U.S. and thus, consequently, of checking the undesirable rise in electricity and other prices. Moreover, they insisted that states would still have a role in determining the sites for LNG facilities and that safety was being ensured. The House defeated the Progressive position and this amendment by a vote of 194 to 237, with 43 Democrats and 35 Republicans crossing party lines to vote. Thus, language arguably diminishing the role of states in deciding where to locate volatile liquefied natural gas facilities was left in the energy bill.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 130
Apr 21, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Codify Executive Orders Issued by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton to Achieve "Environmental Justice," Meaning to Collect Data and Develop Policies to Alleviate the Impact of Pollution on Minority and Low-Income Communities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have put into law executive orders issued by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton that aimed to achieve "environmental justice." (Executive orders can be reversed by subsequent executive orders; statutes (provisions of the U.S. code) must be reversed by other acts of Congress or overturned by a judicial act.) These orders mandated the collection of data and consequent development of policies to alleviate the impact of pollution on minority and low-income communities, which Progressives and other amendment supporters argued suffer disproportionate negative effects from pollution. Hastings stated that his amendment would have "establishe[d] offices of environmental justice in appropriate agencies and reestablishe[d] the Interagency Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice." In addition, he noted that "[p]erhaps, most importantly, the amendment represents the first time ever that Congress has attempted to define the term 'environmental justice.'" Arguing the Progressive position, Hastings noted that "more than 70 percent of African Americans and Latinos, compared to only 58 percent of the majority community, live in counties which regularly fail to meet current clean air standards." Finally, he added that "[i]t is not by coincidence that the majority of power plants and refineries in the United States are built in low-incomes [sic] areas. The land is cheap, the political influence of the neighborhood is virtually nonexistent, and in the bill we are considering this week, such siting is actually encouraged." Republicans countered that the existing executive orders were sufficient to achieve the cause of environmental justice, and that additional "environmental restrictions and quotas" would result if Hastings's amendment were passed, and that these would only inhibit necessary growth in "economically disadvantaged communities." The House defeated the Progressive position on this amendment by a vote of 185 to 243, with 19 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans against the amendment. Thus, the measures ordered by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton to achieve environmental justice were not put into law as part of the energy bill, and therefore remained subject to override by a single, at will retraction by a current or future president.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 129
Apr 21, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Remove from Energy Bill Provision Shielding Manufacturers of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MBTE) from Product Liability Lawsuits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Lois Capps (D-CA) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have removed from the bill provisions shielding manufacturers of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MBTE) from product liability lawsuits. MTBE has been the subject of numerous lawsuits alleging that it has polluted drinking water, and Democrats criticized Republicans' efforts to shield oil companies from liability. Protecting oil companies, explained Democrats, would impose up to $29 billion of clean-up costs on the states themselves. Moreover, Capps stated that the provision represented an improper "unfunded mandate," or a measure that would impose costs on the states without providing funding to cover those costs. Republicans countered that the energy bill would direct that some money from an existing trust fund of $2 billion go toward the cost of MTBE cleanup, and that fundamental questions concerning MTBE have still not been resolved (including the question of whether MTBE is itself a defective product). They also argued that amendment supporters had offered no proof that the energy bill provision represented an unfunded mandate. Progressives lost on this issue when the House defeated the amendment by a vote of 213 to 219, with 14 Democrats crossing party lines to vote against the amendment. 25 Republicans opted to vote with the Democrats in favor of the amendment. Thus, the provision in the bill shielding MBTE manufacturers from product liability lawsuits remained, thereby arguably leaving the responsibility and cost of cleanup of MTBE pollution with states and communities.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 128
Apr 21, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Strike Provision of Energy Bill Halting Collection of Royalty Fees from Oil and Gas Companies Operating in Deep Waters of Gulf of Mexico.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Ra??l Grijalva (D-AZ) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have stricken from the bill a provision directing the Secretary of the Interior to stop collecting royalty fees for the government from oil and gas companies operating in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Calling the provision a giveaway to gas and oil companies, Progressives and other amendment supporters cited a recent statement by President Bush to support their argument that the provision in H.R. 6 was unnecessary: "With oil at more than $50 a barrel, by the way, energy companies do not need taxpayer-funded incentives to explore for oil and gas." (Nick Rahall (D-WV) et al., citing President George W. Bush, in the Washington Post, April 21, 2005.) George Miller (D-CA) called the provision "a handout to the most profitable companies in the United States." Republicans countered that the provision in the bill was not a giveaway, noting that when royalty payments had been suspended in the past, more oil companies drilled in deep waters and produced more revenues than would otherwise have been the case. One representative stated: "[t]he language as written is common-sense language that encourages production and allows large investments. We are talking about investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe a billion. We are talking about drilling in deep water where there is great risk. This relief provision allows these companies to get the access to capital they need to take these risks." (Bobby Jindal (R-LA).) Progressives lost this vote when the House defeated the amendment 203 to 227, with 27 Democrats-primarily from oil-producing states-crossed party lines to vote with the Republicans. 29 Republicans voted with Democrats against the amendment. Thus, the provision stating that oil and gas companies operating in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico would not have to pay royalties to the government remained in the bill.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 127
Apr 21, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Authorize a Study on the Feasibility of Using Mustard Seed as a Feedstock for Biodiesel.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House approved an amendment offered by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, to authorize a study on the feasibility of using mustard seed as a feedstock for biodiesel. (Biodiesel is a clean-burning, alternative fuel made from fresh or waste vegetable oils, animal fats or similar substances.) Kucinich argued on behalf of his amendment that mustard seed offered "many advantages over other feedstocks, including higher oil content, it is easier to grow in colder and drier climates of the U.S., and the conversion process leaves behind an organic pesticide and herbicide." Kucinich also cited mustard seed's "deep roots in all cultures" and in the Bible to demonstrate its importance. Opponents of the amendment made no argument on the floor of the House. Progressives won this issue when the amendment passed by a vote of 259 to 171, with 68 Republicans joining Democrats to support it. Thus, a provision authorizing a study on the feasibility of using mustard seed as a feedstock for biodiesel was included in the energy bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Won
Roll Call 126
Apr 21, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Energy Bill to Require a Study of Consolidation of Gasoline Retailers with Refiners, Producers, Importers and Wholesalers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House approved an amendment offered by Steve Israel (D-NY) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would require a study of the consolidation of gasoline retailers with gasoline refiners, producers, importers and wholesalers. Making the Progressive argument, Israel noted that "corporate interests are dominating pricing, controlling the market and pricing out privately owned retail outlets. Corporations are earning windfall profits while privately owned stations are struggling to keep afloat." He contended that small, independent gasoline retailers were being hurt by the fact that many large oil companies were buying up smaller companies in every part of the gasoline industry. These smaller businesses included refiners, drillers, importers, wholesalers, gas stations, etc. In addition, Israel suggested that a study such as the one he proposed would help illuminate for the public the factors behind gas prices. Republicans who opposed the amendment claimed that the study would duplicate one done the previous year, which had been "fundamentally flawed and the results [viewed] as suspect." (Ralph Hall (R-TX).) Progressives won this vote when the amendment passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 302 to 128, with 102 Republicans joining Democrats to vote for the amendment. Thus, the energy bill set up a study of consolidation of retailers in the gasoline industry with refiners, producers, importers and wholesalers to determine the effects of such consolidation on gas prices and independent retailers.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Won
Roll Call 125
Apr 21, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Permit Additional Types of Renewable Fuels to Be Eligible for a Particular Grant Program in Energy Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House approved an amendment offered by Eliot Engel (D-NY) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would permit makers of additional types of renewable fuels, including a fuel made from "urban waste," to be eligible for grants made under the auspices of a program to fund "cellulosic biomass ethanol" and "waste-derived ethanol" (ethanols derived from wood and agricultural waste). Taking the Progressive position, Engel argued that his amendment would demonstrate Congress's seriousness regarding alternative, renewable fuels. He added that the amendment would simply open up the grant program to more renewable-fuels companies, and that the Secretary of Energy would still have the discretion to refuse to fund any company or project that was objectionable. Republicans who opposed the amendment termed it "an attempt to grant special treatment to one company, with one facility, in one State." (George Radanovich (R-CA).) Progressives won this vote when the House approved this amendment by a vote of 239 to 190, with 45 Republicans joining Democrats to support it. Thus, this particular renewable energy grant program was expanded in the bill.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 124
Apr 21, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Strike from Energy Bill Section Creating a Federally Funded Research and Development Program for Uranium Mining.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Tom Udall (D-NM) to strike from H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, a section creating a federally funded research and development program for uranium mining. Making the Progressive argument, Udall called the relevant section of the bill "a $30 million giveaway to dangerous uranium mine technology." He expressed concern over polluted water supplies that could result from uranium mining, and attacked the provision as "corporate welfare" that would unduly and negatively effect the Navajo population of his home state, New Mexico. Udall summed up the effects of the provision: "At its worst, this section targets a minority community with a dangerous technology and uses them in an experiment. At best, it is an unwarranted giveaway to the uranium mining industry." Republicans countered that uranium mining was an essential component for domestic nuclear power production, which in turn was an important source of domestic fuel. In addition, they stated that the fund in the bill would enable researchers to discover more "environmentally sensitive" ways "to feed the growing demand for nuclear power." (Joe Barton (R-TX).) The House defeated the Progressive position when it voted down this amendment 204 to 225, with 24 Republicans and 23 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with the other party. Thus, a $30 million research and development program for the uranium mining industry was left in the bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Nuclear Energy Industry
ENVIRONMENT Nuclear Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Nuclear Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 123
Apr 20, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Replace Electricity Provisions in Energy Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by John Dingell (D-MI) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have made several changes to the electricity provisions of the bill. These changes were designed to prevent and punish fraudulent behavior by electricity companies and to protect consumers. Most of them involved broadening the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and reversing the bill's repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), which Dingell argued in the Republican-drafted bill would "leav[e] consumers and investors even more vulnerable to deception by Enron-type players who concoct "special purpose entities'" to move money around while hiding behind complex, opaque corporate structures." Republicans countered that Dingell's amendment would have gutted the bill, "creat[ing] market uncertainty, . . . impos[ing] excessive penalties, and . . . institute[ing] almost continuous investigation of all utilities with market-based rates, not only burdening utilities, but also burdening FERC and stretching its resources." Progressives lost in this vote when the House defeated this amendment 188 to 243, with 19 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans. Thus, efforts to enhance the provisions in H.R. 6 that focused on anti-fraud activities by utility companies were left out of the bill.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 122
Apr 20, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Environment/Vote on Amendment to Strike from Energy Bill Language That Would Permit Oil and Gas Exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Edward Markey (D-MA) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, to strike language in the bill which would permit oil and gas exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Whether oil and gas companies should be permitted to drill in ANWR had long been a hot-button issue for environmentalists and energy concerns alike. Arguing the Progressive position, Markey noted the pristine quality of ANWR: "[t]he Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a national treasure, a place of ancient wilderness that remains much the same as it was at the end of the last Ice Age. It is one of the few places remaining in America where man has not scarred the land." He emphasized the precedent that would be set by allowing the protection afforded nature in ANWR to be violated, saying that such an action would be to "say good-bye to protection of all 544 [wildlife] refuges in this country." In addition, Progressives stated that "[d]rilling in ANWR will do little to reduce our current dependence on foreign oil because it will take more than 10 years, yes, more than 10 years to process what little oil may be there." (Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).) Republicans countered that a big focus of the energy bill was to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and that drilling in ANWR would provide an important step in that direction by opening a new source of domestic oil. They further argued that the impact of drilling on wildlife would be minimal, and at least one representative maintained the area in question was not "pristine wilderness" but "frozen tundra." (Jim Gibbons (R-NV).) The Progressives were defeated when this amendment failed by a vote of 200 to 231, with 29 Republicans and 30 Democrats crossing party lines to vote. Thus, the House paved the way to drill for oil and gas in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 121
Apr 20, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Raise Average Fuel Economy Standards for Cars from 25 Miles Per Gallon to 33 Miles Per Gallon By 2015.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) to raise average fuel economy standards for cars from 25 miles per gallon to 33 miles per gallon by 2105. Arguing the Progressive position, Boehlert cited reduction in U.S. dependence on foreign oil as a key reason for his amendment. He also noted that "we have been losing ground on fuel economy. We use more gas to drive a mile today than we did 20 years ago." Other rationales he offered for his amendment included the fact that the National Academy of Sciences had indicated that it would be possible to improve fuel economy without compromising safety, and that consumers were sick of paying $40 or $50 to fill up the tanks of their automobiles. Republicans, along with a few Democrats from auto industry-heavy states, countered that the actual effects of Boehlert's amendment would be to require an average fuel economy standard of 36 miles per gallon, and that the amendment would cost jobs in the auto industry, as well as dissatisfaction amongst those consumers who prefer large cars. The House voted 177 to 254 to defeat the Progressive position and this amendment, with 60 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans, and 36 Republicans choosing to vote with Democrats. Thus, a requirement to raise average auto fuel economy standards from 25 miles per gallon to 33 miles per gallon was not included in the energy bill.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Automobile Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 120
Apr 20, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Require the Environmental Protection Agency to Update Its Procedures for Rating Car Fuel Economies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Nancy Johnson (R-CT) to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to update its procedures for determining cars' fuel economy ratings in order to give consumers more accurate information about the cars they might be considering for purchase. Both Democrats, including Progressives, and Republicans claimed to be concerned about the inaccuracy of fuel economy labels on cars offered for sale. Initially taking the Progressive position, Rep. Johnson stated that the test used to determine car mileage was 30 years out-of-date, and her amendment would have required the EPA to update its testing procedures to reflect more accurately modern driving conditions. However, Johnson's amendment was essentially gutted by an amendment that was in turn offered to her amendment by Mike Rogers (R-MI), which mandated that only one test be required to determine auto mileage. Republicans and a few car-industry-friendly Democrats who backed Rogers's amendment had argued that the Johnson amendment would have unreasonably increased expenses for auto manufacturers and thus cost jobs by requiring a new test beyond the fuel economy test already required under a separate law, and/or that the Johnson amendment improperly altered those standards. Progressives had countered that the Johnson amendment would not have required an additional test and would not have cost jobs, but nevertheless, the Rogers amendment was passed and tacked onto the Johnson amendment. A large number of Democrats then joined those who had backed Rogers's changes to defeat the Progressive position and pass the amended Johnson amendment by an overwhelming 346 to 85. 121 Democrats voted with Republicans, even though the meat of Johnson's amendment had been removed by the passage of the Rogers amendment. So language to require updated procedures to determine cars' fuel economy ratings was included in the energy bill, but only after that language had been diluted. This result left in place the status quo, which does not provide accurate information to consumers regarding automobile fuel economy.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Automobile Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 119
Apr 20, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 118
Apr 20, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Take a Number of Measures to Check the Rise in Gas Prices.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Timothy Bishop (D-NY) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have added to the energy bill a number of measures to check the rise in gas prices in America. These measures would have included: considering the impact on oil and gas prices when deciding to move petroleum into the national Strategic Reserve; expressing the sense of the Congress that the executive branch of the government ought to take steps to guard against price-gouging and "market manipulation" (Edward Markey (D-MA)); making it easier for federal agencies to reduce their energy consumption; creating a $5 billion trust fund for emerging technology; and creating and extending numerous tax incentives geared toward renewable energy production, increased energy efficiency and decreased energy consumption. Progressives supported this amendment as taking "some modest but useful steps toward making this energy bill a more a balanced bill and a more consumer friendly bill." (Markey.) Republicans disagreed, arguing that the amendment consisted of new language that had not had been appropriately vetted through committee and other proceedings, that it did not include any measures to increase energy production, and that it included "some sort of a scheme to fix the price of oil." (Joe Barton (R-TX).) The House defeated the Progressive position on this amendment by a vote of 170 to 259, with 33 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans. Thus, these varied measures meant to check the rise in gasoline prices in the U.S. were not included in the energy bill.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 117
Apr 20, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Reduce U.S. Demand for Oil by at Least One Million Barrels Per Day.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Henry Waxman (D-CA) to take measures to reduce U.S. demand for oil by at least one million barrels per day from the amount of need projected in 2013. Making the Progressive argument, Waxman noted that responsible energy legislation ought to focus on conservation as well as production. He stated that his amendment sought voluntary reduction of the amount of oil wasted each year, and offered as evidence of the amendment's basic sense the fact that the U.S. Senate had passed the same amendment by a vote of 99 to 1. The amendment, he said, simply asked the "President to come up with some ideas for not wasting oil" and "to appeal to the American people on a patriotic basis that they simply should be more conscious of the waste and perhaps shut off their cars when they run into a Starbucks." Republicans countered that the language of the amendment left room for the President to take actions that could be mandatory. With regard to U.S. dependence on foreign oil, Joe Barton (R-TX) expressed skepticism, noting that "Well, oil is oil. We do get about 14 million barrels a day from overseas, and God bless us that we do. Our economy would come to a halt if we did not. So I am not sure how we would work on that." He also stated that "So the way to [reduce demand for oil] is to find ways to produce more and to find real-world ways to consume less and get more bang for the buck." Progressives lost on this issue by a vote of 166 to 262, with 52 Democrats crossing party lines to vote against the amendment and 18 Republicans choosing to vote for it. Thus, language asking the President to find ideas for ways to reduce U.S. demand on oil and then appeal to the American people to help implement them was not included in the energy bill.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 116
Apr 20, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Change "Strategic Petroleum Reserve" into "Strategic Fuels Reserve."

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have changed the "Strategic Petroleum Reserve" into the "Strategic Fuels Reserve." In addition to changing the name of the Reserve, the amendment would have granted to the Secretary of Energy discretionary authority to include in the Reserve alternative fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. Making the Progressive argument, Kaptur spoke of the need to utilize alternatives to petroleum in order to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and to find a "new fuel future" for America. In addition, she noted that farmers, including the National Farmers Union, supported the amendment. Opposing the amendment, Republicans noted that crude oil lasts indefinitely, while the contemplated alternative fuels have short shelf lives. Republicans argued that due to those short shelf lives, including those fuels in the reserve would not be effective because the fuels would constantly need to be changed. The House defeated Progressives and this amendment by a vote of 186 to 239, with 25 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans, and 12 Republicans choosing to vote with Democrats. Thus, the exclusive focus of the national Reserve remained on petroleum, and the Secretary of Energy was not granted the authority to include other fuels in the Reserve.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 115
Apr 20, 2005
H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Strike Oil Refinery Revitalization Provision from Energy Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Hilda Solis (D-CA) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have stricken from the energy bill a provision that would permit the Department of Energy to establish or revitalize oil refineries in places where there exist defunct refineries or manufacturing facilities and where there is high unemployment. Arguing the Progressive position, Joe Crowley (D-NY) noted: "[t]his amendment ensures that the Federal laws and regulations that pertain to ensuring clean air and water and a solid quality of life for our constituents are not stripped out just because they or their community is facing some economic distress. . . . Specifically, the Solis amendment would strip out language that cynically allows refineries to move into economically distressed communities, override Federal environmental laws, trample on local zoning laws and ignore community opposition to set up shop." Solis stated that, "[m]ost of the neighborhoods in refinery communities are low-income minority communities with the least availability to defend themselves from corporate pollution, and most are vulnerable to environmental and public health problems, yet are targets in this very language." Republicans countered that the United States needs more refineries to lessen its dependence on foreign oil, and that the provision would both help meet that goal and bring much-needed revitalization and employment to economically depressed communities. The House defeated the Progressive position and the amendment by a vote of 182 to 248, with 15 Republicans crossing party lines to vote for the amendment and 33 Democrats joining the Republicans. Thus, language permitting the Department of Energy to establish or reestablish oil refineries in an expedited manner in communities with high unemployment was left in the bill.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 112
Apr 20, 2005
H. Res. 219. Energy/Procedural Vote on Question of Whether Energy Bill Violates Federal Law Because It Would Impose Costs on States without Paying Those Costs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House determined that the rule for H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.), was in order and the House could proceed to consideration of the energy bill. Progressives raised a point of order (interruption in the proceedings contending that consideration of the pending legislation or other current business is improper and violates the Constitution or other law or House rules; points of order take precedence over pending legislation and must be resolved before the House can continue its other business) against the rule, arguing that the rule-which, if adopted, would waive all points of order against the bill-was out of order because federal law forbids waivers of points of order against unfunded mandates, or provisions in bills that would impose costs on the states without providing funding to cover those costs. Specifically, Progressives-and a number of other Democrats-argued that a provision in the energy bill would shield oil companies from liability associated with the fuel additive MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether). MTBE has been the subject of numerous lawsuits alleging that it has polluted drinking water, and Democrats criticized Republicans' efforts to shield oil companies from liability. Protecting oil companies, explained Democrats, would impose up to $29 billion of clean-up costs on the states themselves. Republicans countered that the energy bill would direct that some money from an existing trust fund of $2 billion go toward the cost of MTBE cleanup, and that fundamental questions concerning MTBE had still not been resolved, including the question of whether MTBE is itself a defective product. Progressives lost this vote 231 to 193. Thus, the House proceeded to consideration of the energy bill despite Progressives' contention that the bill contained costs to the states without providing funding to cover those costs.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 108
Apr 14, 2005
S. 256. Bankruptcy/Vote on Passage of a Bill to Alter Federal Bankruptcy Laws.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed S. 256, a bill to alter federal bankruptcy laws. The bill would introduce into the bankruptcy system a "means test" based on the median incomes of individual states. This means that individuals who are determined to have sufficient means–assets–would be ordered to repay all debts, while those deemed to have insufficient means would have their debts erased after certain assets are seized. The bill also specified that certain debts, like alimony and some luxury purchases, would have to be repaid, and that the amount of equity in some personal homes that could be protected would be limited to $125,000. Other provisions would seek to limit repeat bankruptcy-filers, better inform consumers about the bankruptcy process and about the consequences of credit-card use and repayment, and make special requirements for small businesses filing for bankruptcy. Progressives criticized the legislation, objecting both to its substance and to the procedure which forbade them from offering substantive amendments to try to improve the legislation on the House floor. Offering the Progressive argument, John Conyers (D-MI) noted that S. 256 was "the most special interest-vested bill that I have ever dealt with in my career in Congress. It massively tilts the playing field in favor of banks and credit card companies and against working people and their families." Republicans countered that the changes contained in the bill would help curb abuse of the bankruptcy system, and that adequate consumer protection provisions were included in the bill. "S. 256 restores personal responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy system and ensures that the system is fair to both debtors and creditors." (James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).) The House defeated the Progressive position and passed the bankruptcy bill by a vote of 302 to 126. Thus, legislation making sweeping changes to the U.S. bankruptcy system–including making it significantly more difficult for individuals to get out of debt by declaring bankruptcy–was passed and sent to the President for his signature.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 107
Apr 14, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: S 256 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 106
Apr 14, 2005
H. Res. 213. Ethics/Vote on Motion to Table (Kill) Resolution to Form a Bipartisan Task Force to Consider House Ethics Rules.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House approved a motion made by James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) to table (kill) a motion brought by Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Pelosi's motion requested that the Speaker of the House form "a bi-partisan task force with equal representation of the majority and minority parties to make recommendations to restore public confidence in the ethics process." Pelosi's motion followed Democrats' actions effectively to prevent the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the House committee with oversight over internal ethics issues) from forming due to strong objections concerning changes in the House ethics rules made earlier in 2005. At that time and as part of the process Congress goes through every two years to re-adopt the rules that will govern all of its work, Democrats had condemned the Republican-drafted ethics provisions of the proposed House rules, saying that those ethics provisions would "destroy" the House ethics process. (Louise Slaughter (D-NY).) Specifically, they had condemned a change in the operation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Under previous rules, if the Committee, which is evenly divided between the parties, had deadlocked on an ethics complaint, the complaint would have automatically proceeded to investigators. In the new rules for this 109th Congress (each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress"), this procedure was changed so that a complaint that deadlocked the committee was permitted simply to die. In addition, Congress eliminated the requirement that the Committee act on complaints within 45 days. Democrats had then argued that these changes would effectively grant the Republicans veto power over who might or might not be subject to an ethics investigation and would permit Republicans simply to ignore complaints by "running out the clock." Republicans had countered that its entire package of rules would uphold a very high ethics standard for the House, and that these changes would guarantee due process (procedures to safeguard the rights of someone accused of wrongdoing) and "restore the presumption of innocence" to members against whom ethics complaints have been filed. The House voted 218 to 195, nearly along straight party lines, to defeat Progressives and table or kill Pelosi's motion. Thus, the impasse in the ethics committee continued, hampering any attempts to settle internal, ethics-related disputes and continuing the standoff on congressional ethics.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 105
Apr 14, 2005
H. Res. 211. Bankruptcy/Procedural Vote on the Governing Rule for S. 256, a Bill to Alter Federal Bankruptcy Laws.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House voted to approve the rule governing consideration of S. 256, a bill to alter federal bankruptcy laws. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) (This vote was a follow-up to vote 104, which was also a procedural vote regarding the rule for S. 256.) Democrats, including Progressives, argued vehemently against the rule because the Rules Committee (the body of the House that draws up special rules for consideration of a bill; it is weighted in favor of the majority party–currently the Republicans–and often works in conjunction with party leadership in formulating rules) had brought to the floor a closed rule that did not permit amendments to be offered. Arguing the Progressive position, one representative noted, "Once again, the majority has squelched debate on a controversial piece of legislation for no legitimate reason." (Alcee Hastings (D-FL).) Republicans defended the closed rule, citing its history as "the culmination of nearly 8 years of intense and detailed congressional consideration" as the reason that no further amendments needed to be allowed on the House floor at this time. The House voted 227 to 199 along straight party lines to order the previous question on the rule, thus defeating the Progressive position and shutting out any opportunity for Democrats to offer amendments to the bankruptcy bill on the House floor.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 104
Apr 14, 2005
H. Res. 211. Bankruptcy/Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of the Rule Governing S. 256, a Bill to Alter Federal Bankruptcy Laws

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House voted to proceed to consideration of the rule governing S. 256, a bill to alter federal bankruptcy laws. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) This vote This particular vote was to order the previous question on the rule for S. 256, meaning that by approving the motion, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the rule governing the bankruptcy debate. Democrats, including Progressives, argued vehemently against the rule because the Rules Committee (the body of the House that draws up special rules for consideration of a bill; it is weighted in favor of the majority party–currently the Republicans–and often works in conjunction with party leadership in formulating rules) had brought to the floor a closed rule that did not permit amendments to be offered. Arguing the Progressive position, one representative noted, "Once again, the majority has squelched debate on a controversial piece of legislation for no legitimate reason." (Alcee Hastings (D-FL).) Republicans defended the closed rule, citing the legislation's history as "the culmination of nearly 8 years of intense and detailed congressional consideration" as the reason that no further amendments needed to be allowed on the House floor at this time. The House voted 227 to 199 along straight party lines to order the previous question on the rule, thus shutting out any opportunity to amend the bankruptcy bill on the House floor.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 102
Apr 13, 2005
H.R. 8. Taxation/Vote to Make Permanent the Repeal of the Estate Tax

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed H.R. 8, a bill introduced by Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax. The estate tax is a federal tax levied on the transfer of estates (money, property, etc.) to heirs upon the estate owner's death. Congress passed legislation gradually reducing the estate tax as part of President Bush's tax-cuts in 2001. The schedule of reductions ended with elimination of the estate tax in 2010, but the elimination was set to "sunset" (end) in 2011. Republicans sought to make the elimination of the estate tax–which they referred to as the "death tax"–permanent, claiming that it is wrong to tax people's deaths and that many people who inherit family farms or small businesses are forced to give them up in order to pay the estate tax. Progressives countered that the estate tax ought to be preserved with an increase in the amount of estate exempted from the tax to $3 million for individuals and $6 million for couples. Progressives argued that by preserving the tax with the increased exemption, the estate tax would clearly only affect the wealthiest Americans, and the "$300 billion over the next 10 years and perhaps another $700 billion over the decade following" was much needed revenue that could be used to shore up Social Security or the Medicare drug benefit, fully fund federal education commitments and/or eliminate contemplated cuts to Medicaid. (Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-CA).) They further noted that a $3 million per person exemption would ensure that the vast majority of small businesses and family farms would not be affected by the estate tax. Nevertheless, 42 Democrats joined Republicans to defeat the Progressive position and pass H.R. 8 by a vote of 272 to 162. Thus, efforts to preserve this source of federal revenue while ensuring that the vast majority of family farms and small businesses were protected was turned aside, and the House sent the bill to repeal permanently the estate tax to the Senate for its consideration.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 101
Apr 13, 2005
H.R. 8. Taxation/Vote on Amendment to Keep Estate Tax But Increase Amount of Estate Exempted from Tax to $3 Million

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment to H.R. 8 that would have kept the estate tax in place but significantly raised the amount of an estate that would be exempted from the tax. H.R. 8 was a bill introduced by Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) to make permanent the of repeal the estate tax. The estate tax is a federal tax levied on the transfer of estates (money, property, etc.) to heirs upon the estate owner's death. Congress passed legislation gradually reducing the estate tax as part of President Bush's tax-cuts in 2001. The schedule of reductions ended with elimination of the estate tax in 2010, but the elimination was set to "sunset" (end) in 2011. Republicans sought to make the elimination of the estate tax–which they referred to as the "death tax"–permanent, claiming that it is wrong to tax people's deaths and that many people who inherit family farms or small businesses are forced to give them up in order to pay the estate tax. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) offered a Democratic substitute amendment (language intended to replace wholly the language of the underlying bill) that would have kept the estate tax in place but raised the amount of an estate that would be exempted from the tax to $3 million for individuals or $6 million for couples. Progressives argued that with this amendment, the estate tax would clearly only affect the wealthiest Americans, and the "$300 billion over the next 10 years and perhaps another $700 billion over the decade following" was much needed revenue that could be used to shore up Social Security or the Medicare drug benefit, fully fund federal education commitments and/or eliminate contemplated cuts to Medicaid. (Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-CA).) They further noted that this amendment would ensure that the vast majority of small businesses and family farms would not be affected by the estate tax. Republicans defeated the Progressive position and rejected the amendment by a vote of 194 to 238. Thus, efforts to preserve this source of federal revenue while ensuring that the vast majority of family farms and small businesses were protected was turned aside.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 100
Apr 13, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 202 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8) to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 90
Mar 20, 2005
S. 686. Health Care/Vote on Bill to Grant Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo the Right to Pursue in Federal Court Their Case to Have Her Feeding Tube Re-Inserted

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill to grant to the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo the right to pursue in federal court their case to have her feeding tube reinserted. Schiavo's case sparked national attention following years of legal battle between various family members concerning whether, due to her persistently vegetative state, her feeding tube ought to be removed and she should be allowed to die. Progressives objected strenuously to this legislation, noting that the Florida courts had already spoken in this matter and that Congress ought not to substitute the judgment of the federal courts simply because they did not like the outcome of the case as it emerged from the state court. Moreover, they argued, no one in Congress had had the opportunity or the ability to examine Schiavo medically, and Congress had no business intervening and substituting its judgment for that of Schiavo's husband, doctors or of the Florida courts. Republicans countered that Schiavo's case was a basic right-to-life case, and that it was both appropriate and necessary that Congress intervene where others would not in order to save Schiavo's life. The House passed the bill by a vote of 203 to 58, with 47 Democrats choosing to vote with the Republicans. Press reports at the time ascribe the low turnout for this vote to the fact that it was held on a Saturday, as well as reluctance by some representatives to openly oppose the Religious Right on this issue. Thus, the House set a precedent of both interjecting federal court jurisdiction into what had been a state court case and of inserting itself into the question of who has the right to make life-or-death medical decisions when someone is unable to make them him or herself.


HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Absent N Lost
Roll Call 88
Mar 17, 2005
H. Con. Res. 95. Budget/Vote on Final Passage of Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2006.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed a budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06). The first step in Congress's annual budget process, following the submission of a proposed budget by the President, is to pass a non-binding budget resolution. That resolution establishes priorities and a framework for federal government spending in the coming year. Progressives opposed the Republican-drafted budget resolution because they believed that it reflected the wrong priorities for the nation. Among other factors in their opposition, they cited the transformation of a federal surplus into a federal deficit in four years as an example of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the Bush Administration, and what they characterized as wrongheaded tax cuts for the wealthy and spending that resulted from poor planning in Iraq. They also claimed that the Republican-drafted budget was dishonest: "It does not cut the deficit in half as Republicans claim. In fact, it makes the deficit worse. Republicans leave out the realistic cost of the war, the cost of expiring tax provisions, the true cost of fixing the alternative minimum tax and the cost of any changes to Social Security. The budget is dishonest in another way: it fails to show any deficit figures at all after 2010." (Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).) In particular, they touched on the hot-button issue of the future of Social Security: "It is clear that there would be plenty of money to deal with the Social Security trust fund if the President were not using the Social Security trust fund as a slush fund to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America." (Pelosi.) Democrats called instead for reduction of tax benefits for the wealthy: "The priorities in this budget are all wrong. Our priorities should focus on helping those who need help before we begin to help those who don't." (John Dingell (D-MI). They also advocated increased spending on priorities such as education, health care and veterans' benefits. Republicans countered that Democrats sought "more money, more spending, higher taxes, more government, more bureaucracy, more regulation, more laws, more politicians making decisions that individuals and families and communities should be making for themselves in the freest nation on the face of the Earth." (Jim Nussle (R-IA).) Further, they argued, reducing spending in general was the top priority after defense and homeland security. The House passed the Republican-drafted budget resolution by a vote of 218 to 214. Thus, the House supported a budget for FY06 that left in place a large deficit as well as large tax cuts, and heavily emphasized defense and homeland security. It also reduced spending in or provided smaller increases than those sought by Progressives for spending for education, health care and other domestic issues.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Assisting Crime Impacted Communities
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 87
Mar 17, 2005
H. Con. Res. 95. Budget/Vote on Amendment to Replace Republican-Drafted Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Resolution with Budget Reflecting Democratic Priorities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by John Spratt (D-SC) to replace the Republican-drafted Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06) budget resolution with a budget that reflected Democratic priorities. Following the submission of a proposed budget by the President, the first step in Congress's annual budget process is to pass a non-binding budget resolution. That resolution establishes priorities and a framework for federal government spending in the coming year. Democrats opposed the FY06 budget brought by Republicans to the floor because the Democrats believed, among other things, that the Republican budget prioritized tax benefits for the wealthiest Americans over spending on domestic priorities like education, health care, veterans' benefits, etc. As a result, Spratt offered this amendment, which was a budget proposal meant to replace the Republican resolution. Progressives argued that the Spratt amendment would balance the budget by 2012 and reflect important priorities like protecting Social Security and Medicaid, and other crucial domestic programs. Republicans countered that their budget reflected appropriately the nation's most important priorities, especially with its emphasis on defense and homeland security, and that it would promote economic growth through continued tax cuts. The House defeated the Progressive position and the Spratt amendment by a vote of 165 to 264, with 36 Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans. Thus, consideration of the budget proposal reflecting Republican priorities such as defense, homeland security and tax cuts continued.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 86
Mar 17, 2005
H.R. 1332. Health Care/Procedural Vote on Motion that the Committee on the Whole House Rise.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a motion that the "Whole House Rise." This vote was a move by Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) to protest the passage late the previous night of H.R. 1332, "The Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005." H.R. 1332 was drafted in response to the case of Theresa Marie Schiavo, whose parents sought the right to pursue in federal court their case to have her feeding tube reinserted. Schiavo's case sparked national attention following years of legal battle between various family members concerning whether, due to her persistently vegetative state, her feeding tube ought to be removed and she should be allowed to die. The Republican leadership had brought H.R. 1332 to the House floor late the previous night when many representatives were not present, and they had brought it up under "suspension of the rules." "Suspension of the rules" is a procedure usually reserved for noncontroversial legislation. Under that procedure, debate is strictly limited, amendments are prohibited and a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage. H.R. 1332 passed the House in that context by a mere voice vote (meaning that representatives were not required to record their individual votes). Blumenauer felt that the manner in which this legislation had been considered "bypassed proper legislative procedure," and that few representatives had even noticed that the legislation had been considered and passed. Thus, in the midst of a debate the next day about the budget, Blumenauer brought this procedural motion that the "Whole House Rise." (The House sometimes conducts its floor proceedings constituted as a "Committee of the Whole House," which symbolically puts the whole body on a par with other House Committees, for example, the Budget or the Judiciary Committee. The Committee on the Whole House, however, consists of all members of the House. The Committee of the Whole House "rises" when it has completed action on a bill to report the amended bill back to the House.) The sole purpose of this motion was to force representatives to come physically to the House floor so that Blumenauer could bring H.R. 1332 and the late-night proceedings under which it passed to the attention of the rest of the House. Members of the minority party–presently the Democrats–will often use procedural votes to register dissatisfaction with House proceedings, particularly if more substantive options are limited. Blumenauer said in a statement that, "[w]hile I have been hesitant in the past to use such procedural devices, I feel that this was a necessary step to bring the House's attention to a pressing matter. . . ." In the days preceding the vote on H.R. 1332, Progressives had objected strenuously to any intervention of Congress in the Schiavo case, noting that the Florida courts had already spoken in this matter and that Congress ought not to substitute the judgment of the federal courts simply because they did not like the outcome of the case as it emerged from the state court. Republicans had countered that Schiavo's case was a basic right-to-life case, and that it was both appropriate and necessary that Congress intervene where others would not in order to save Schiavo's life. The motion that the whole House rise was defeated by a vote of 101 to 313, with 89 Democrats joining Republicans to defeat the Progressive position. However, Blumenauer did succeed in drawing attention to the previous night's passage of H.R. 1332 by voice vote.


HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 85
Mar 17, 2005
H. Con. Res. 95. Budget/Vote on Amendment to Replace Republican-Drafted Budget with Budget Reflecting Priorities of Congressional Black Caucus

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Melvin Watt (D-NC) on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). The CBC's amendment would have substituted language reflecting their budgetary priorities as a replacement for those contained in the Republican-drafted budget resolution being considered on the House floor. The CBC priorities included restoring cuts made in the Republican-drafted budget and making increases in particular areas of the budget, including education (including providing full funding for the "No Child Left Behind Act," which authorizes most federal funding for public K-12 schools in America), job training and creation, community development, law enforcement, measures to help veterans, and others. The CBC's amendment also proposed to increase revenue by making a number of changes to the tax code, including rescinding tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and eliminating various tax shelters and loopholes. (The first step in Congress's annual budget process, following the submission of a proposed budget by the President, is to pass a non-binding budget resolution. That resolution establishes priorities and a framework for federal government spending in the coming year.) Arguing the Progressive position, Robert Scott (D-VA) noted the following regarding the CBC's amendment: "Its focus is to reduce disparities that exist in America's communities by investing in the priorities and challenges that Americans face today. It also provides significant support for our troops in Iraq. At the same time, the CBC budget alternative accomplishes these goals in a manner that is much more fiscally responsible than the Republican budget, so much so, as this chart shows, the budget deficit each year is much less, a total of a $167 billion deficit reduction over 5 years, so much so that it saves just in interest cost alone $27.5 billion over 5 years." Republicans countered that the CBC budget would have authorized too much spending in general and not enough defense spending, and that it would have raised taxes. In short, they believed that the amendment reflected the wrong priorities, noting especially that, "I think it is important that we keep cutting taxes for years to come so that we can keep this economic growth going." (Patrick McHenry (R-NC).) The House defeated Progressives and the CBC amendment by a vote of 134 to 292, with 67 more conservative Democrats opting to vote with the Republicans. Thus, consideration of a budget resolution prioritizing tax cuts primarily for wealthy Americans over spending in areas such as education, veterans' assistance, etc. continued.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Assisting Crime Impacted Communities
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 82
Mar 17, 2005
H. Con. Res. 95. Budget/Vote on Amendment to Increase Spending in Fiscal Year 2006 Budget in Areas of Education, Health Care, Veterans Needs, Homeland Security, the Environment and Infrastructure, and to Decrease Tax Benefits for People Earning More Than $1 Million.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment to H. Con. Res. 95, the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06). The amendment was offered by David Obey (D-WI). Obey's amendment proposed alternative budgetary priorities to those presented in the Republican-drafted resolution. His amendment would have increased by $15.8 billion spending authorization in the areas of education, health care, veterans needs, homeland security, the environment and infrastructure. It also would have decreased tax benefits for people earning more than $1 million, which he claimed would bring in $25.818 billion in revenue to offset the additional spending. (The first step in Congress's annual budget process, following the submission of a proposed budget by the President, is to pass a non-binding budget resolution. That resolution establishes priorities and a framework for federal government spending in the coming year.) Arguing the Progressive position, Obey claimed that the President's budget proposal made too drastic cuts in education, health care and the other areas mentioned above, and that those cuts didn't even fulfill the President's stated goal of reducing the national deficit. In arguing that his amendment would make tax policy more equitable, he noted that, "[t]hirty years ago, we had the smallest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized country in the world. Today, we have the largest gap between the rich and the poor of any industrialized country." Republicans countered that Obey's amendment would have authorized too much spending, except for in the area of defense, where they claimed it would not have authorized enough. They also objected to the higher taxes for the wealthy proposed in the amendment. The House defeated Progressives and the Obey amendment by a vote of 180 to 242, with 24 Democrats joining Republicans. Thus; spending in the FY06 budget on education, environment, health care and other areas did not increase from what was contained in the budget resolution being considered, and tax benefits for the wealthiest Americans were preserved.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 79
Mar 16, 2005
H. Res. 154. Budget/Procedural Vote on the Governing Rule for H. Con. Res. 95, the Bill to Set the United States Government Budget for Fiscal 2006.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House voted to approve the rule governing consideration of H. Con. Res. 95, a bill to set the United States government budget for Fiscal 2006 (FY06). (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) (This vote was a follow-up to vote 78, which was also a procedural vote regarding the rule for H.Con. Res. 95.) The first step in Congress's annual budget process is to pass a non-binding budget resolution, which establishes priorities and a framework for federal government spending in the coming year. Representatives focused their debate concerning the rule on the substance of the underlying budget resolution. Opposing the rule, Democrats–including Progressives–criticized the priorities set forth in the Republican-drafted FY06 budget resolution: "[t]he majority's budget resolution throws an additional $106 billion in tax cuts to the Nation's wealthiest, while cutting billions in crucial funding for health care, education and housing programs; programs that help the hardworking Americans get by from day-to-day; programs that give hope to mothers and fathers that they, too, may one day share in the American dream." (Louise Slaughter (D-NY).) They also expressed concerns about numerous other issues arising from the budget resolution as drafted, claiming that it hid the costs of Social Security privatization and deploring the included level of spending on the war in Iraq. Republicans countered that the budget resolution reflected sound tax and tax-cut policies. In general, they argued that it provided a balanced approach to important issues, including Social Security privatization and the war in Iraq, which they linked to the "war on terror." They further noted that the events of September 11, 2001 necessitated a reordering of national priorities to prevent further attacks, and that that reorganization was reflected appropriately in the resolution. The House voted 228 to 196 on a straight party-line vote to approve the rule for the FY06 budget resolution; thus allowing the House to proceed to consideration of the actual budget. However, some amendments Democrats wished to offer to oppose Social Security privatization and reflect other Democratic priorities were not permitted as part of the resolution's consideration.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 78
Mar 16, 2005
H. Res. 154. Budget/Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of the Rule Governing H. Con. Res. 95, the Bill to Set the United States Government Budget for Fiscal 2006.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House voted to proceed to consideration of the rule governing H. Con. Res. 95, a bill to set the United States government budget for Fiscal 2006 (FY06). (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) The first step in Congress's annual budget process is to pass a non-binding budget resolution, which establishes priorities and a framework for federal government spending in the coming year. This particular vote was to order the previous question on the rule for H. Con. Res. 95, meaning that by approving the motion, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the rule governing the budget debate. Rather than procedure, most representatives focused their debate on the substance of the underlying budget resolution. Opposing the rule, Democrats–including Progressives–criticized the priorities set forth in the Republican-drafted FY06 budget resolution: "[t]he majority's budget resolution throws an additional $106 billion in tax cuts to the Nation's wealthiest, while cutting billions in crucial funding for health care, education and housing programs; programs that help the hardworking Americans get by from day-to-day; programs that give hope to mothers and fathers that they, too, may one day share in the American dream." (Louise Slaughter (D-NY).) They also expressed concerns about numerous other issues arising from the budget resolution as drafted, claiming that it hid the costs of Social Security privatization and deploring the included level of spending on the war in Iraq. Republicans countered that the budget resolution reflected sound tax and tax-cut policies. In general, they argued that it provided a balanced approach to important issues, including Social Security privatization and the war in Iraq, which they linked to the "war on terror." They further noted that the events of September 11, 2001 necessitated a reordering of national priorities to prevent further attacks, and that these new priorities that emphasized security were reflected in the resolution. The House voted 230 to 202 on a straight party-line vote to order the previous question on the rule for the FY06 budget resolution; thus moving the House one step closer to consideration of the actual budget. However, some amendments Democrats wished to offer to oppose Social Security privatization and reflect other Democratic priorities were not permitted as part of the resolution's consideration.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 77
Mar 16, 2005
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of H.R. 1268, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Fund U.S. Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Provide Relief to Tsunami Victims

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1268, an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide relief to tsunami victims in Asia. (Each year, Congress appropriates the funds necessary for the running of the country for the coming fiscal year. Later in the year, Congress also generally considers an "emergency supplemental appropriations" bill to fund activities or areas of need that were, arguably, unanticipated at the time of the year's original appropriations process.) The measure provided for more than $80 billion in spending, most of it military-related. In addition, it included Republican-backed immigration legislation designed to make a number of broad changes to U.S. immigration laws, including restricting standards for those claiming asylum and standardizing procedures for obtaining driver's licenses amongst the states. Progressives expressed dissatisfaction with a number of aspects of the bill, including what they viewed as its failure to address the problem of federal contractors' abuse of American taxpayers' dollars in Iraq. They also objected to what they saw as the bill's inadequate provisions for veterans health-care and job-training assistance. Other Democratic concerns included a belief that funding for the war on terror ought to occur in the context of Congress's ordinary budget process, not in this "emergency" context, because these needs could be foreseen and ought to be considered at the same time as the country's other needs. Finally, a number of Progressives and other Democrats opposed the immigration-related provisions of the bill, in part, they said, because they were "unrelated" to the rest of the bill and because they would "allow millions of people to drive our streets and freeways without insurance or a driver's license [by denying driver's licenses to illegal immigrants]." (Joe Baca (D-CA).) Republicans countered that the emergency funds in the bill were absolutely critical to support U.S. troops and ongoing military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they supported the immigration-related provisions because they "seek[] to prevent another catastrophic terrorist act by deterring terrorist travel." (Christopher Cox (R-CA).) The House passed the Emergency Supplemental bill by a vote of 388 to 43, handing the Progressives a defeat. 162 Democrats voted "yes" with Republicans for this additional funding to support ongoing U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, the House sent a bill that had the House's overwhelming support to the Senate to spend nearly $80 billion in additional funds (beyond expenses already budgeted for Fiscal Year 2005) for U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 76
Mar 16, 2005
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Vote on Motion to Recommit with Instructions Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Fund U.S. Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Provide Relief to Tsunami Victims

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a motion offered by Darlene Hooley (D-OR) to recommit with instructions (send back to committee with instructions to take a specific action; often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation) H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill. (Each year, Congress appropriates the funds necessary for the running of the country for the coming fiscal year. Later in the year, Congress also generally considers an "emergency supplemental appropriations" bill to fund activities or areas of need that were, arguably, unanticipated at the time of the year's original appropriations process.) Hooley's motion would have required that the bill be changed to include $100 million in health and $50 million in job-training assistance for veterans. Progressives and other Democrats argued that the United States was not providing adequate assistance for veterans even as the country asked "more of its all-volunteer military force than it ever has before," (Hooley), and that even more was needed than the amount of funding called for in this motion. Republicans countered that speed was essential in passing the overall bill in order to provide the needed funds for the Middle East conflict and tsunami relief that were the bill's focus, and that recommitting the bill would result in delay. The House defeated the Progressives and the motion to recommit by a nearly party-line vote of 200 to 229. Thus, no additional money for veterans' health and job training assistance was included in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 74
Mar 15, 2005
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Foreign Aid/Vote on Amendment to Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Prohibit Federal Funds in This Bill From Being Used to Assist Saudi Arabia.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Anthony Weiner (D-NY) to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill that would have prohibited any federal funds from this bill from being used to assist Saudi Arabia. (Each year, Congress appropriates the funds necessary for the running of the country for the coming fiscal year. Later in the year, Congress also generally considers an "emergency supplemental appropriations" bill to fund activities or areas of need that were, arguably, unanticipated at the time of the year's original appropriations process. H.R. 1268 was the Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005.) Making the Progressive argument, Weiner stated that the Saudis were exporting terrorism and Wahabism (an extremely conservative–some say fanatical–sect of Islam) and that human rights were suffering in that country. Thus, he argued, none of the U.S. funds being appropriated in the Emergency Supplemental ought to go to the Saudis. Republicans countered that no funds were directed to the Saudis in the legislation as drafted, and that in any event, a prohibition against sending U.S. foreign aid funds to Saudi Arabia was already included and enshrined in law via the regular foreign aid appropriations bill passed in the previous year. The House defeated the Progressive position and Weiner's amendment by a vote of 196 to 231, with 39 Republicans and 44 Democrats crossing party lines in the vote. Thus, no explicit stipulation that Saudi Arabia could not receive U.S. foreign aid funds was included in the Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill.


WAR & PEACE Relations with Saudi Arabia
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 72
Mar 15, 2005
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Defense/Vote on Amendment to Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Spend $5 Million to Establish a Select Committee to Investigate Contracts and Related Federal Spending in Iraq and Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill offered by John Tierney (D-MA) that would have moved $5 million from the Department of Defense to the Congress for the purposes of establishing a committee to investigate contracts and related federal spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Each year, Congress appropriates the funds necessary for the running of the country for the coming fiscal year. Later in the year, Congress also generally considers an "Emergency Supplemental appropriations" bill to fund activities or areas of need that were, arguably, unanticipated at the time of the year's original appropriations process. H.R. 1268 was the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005.) Progressives argued that the public harbored "substantial doubt" about federal spending, particularly in Iraq, and that it was necessary to form a committee "which will have as its sole responsibility the reviewing of the use and misuse of taxpayer funds in Iraq." (David Obey (D-WI).) They added that Congress had a fiscal responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars were being spent appropriately, and that the desire to ensure that this was the case ought to be a bipartisan interest. Several Democrats cited as precedent the Truman Commission formed to examine American defense spending during World War II. They noted that that Commission had bipartisan support and is credited with saving taxpayers $15 billion. (Russ Carnahan (D-MO).) Republicans offered little argument on the floor against Tierney's amendment, although they did express a lack of confidence that the proposed committee would act as described by Democrats. The House defeated this amendment and the Progressive position by a vote of 191 to 236. Thus, no committee to investigate federal contracts and related spending in Iraq and Afghanistan was formed.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 71
Mar 15, 2005
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Veterans/Procedural Vote on Whether to Overrule Chair's Decision that Amendment Proposing Appropriation for Veterans' Health Administration May Not Be Considered As Part of Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this procedural vote, the House voted to uphold a decision by the Chair of the House proceedings that an amendment offered by Bob Filner (D-CA) that proposed to make a $3.1 billion appropriation for the Veterans' Health Administration (VHA) could not be considered. Filner had offered the amendment as part of the Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill then being debated on the House floor. Each year, Congress appropriates the funds necessary for the running of the country for the coming fiscal year. Later in the year, Congress also generally considers an "emergency supplemental appropriations" bill to fund activities or areas of need that were, arguably, unanticipated at the time of the year's original appropriations process. H.R. 1268 was the Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005. As part of the bill's consideration, Filner offered his amendment to provide $3.1 billion for the VHA. Arguing the Progressive position, Filner stated that the money would be necessary "for the veterans of this Nation, especially those who are returning from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan who may not be able to get the services they need for a variety of wounds, both physical and mental." Jerry Lewis (R-CA) then raised a point of order (an interruption in the proceedings contending that consideration of the pending legislation or other current business is improper and violates the Constitution or other law or House rules; points of order take precedence over pending legislation and must be resolved before the House can continue its other business), citing a House rule that forbids substantive legislation (meaning legislation that will "chang[e] existing law," as opposed to simply appropriate funds) from being offered on an appropriations bill. Lewis added that the funds needed for the VHA were already being considered in a more appropriate venue. The rule against what is known as "legislating on an appropriations bill" is frequently disregarded in the appropriations process when the House opts to suspend the rules for purposes of considering a particular piece of legislation. In this case, the Chair of the House ruled that Lewis's point of order was correct, and Filner asked for a recorded vote on whether the Chair's opinion ought to be upheld or overruled. Progressives lost this vote when the House upheld the Chair's opinion that the $3.1 billion for the VHA constituted legislation on an appropriations bill. The vote was 224 to 200 along straight party lines. Thus, the additional $3.1 billion for the Veterans' Health Administration was not included in the bill authorizing additional funds beyond those originally budgeted in 2005.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 70
Mar 15, 2005
H. Res. 153. Ethics/Procedural Vote to Table (Kill) Resolution to Establish Bipartisan Task Force to Recommend Changes to House Ethics Rules.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed to proceed to consideration of H.R. 1268, a bill to provide emergency supplemental funds for U.S. military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for other purposes. The vote was on ordering the previous question on the rule for H.R. 1268, meaning that by approving the resolution, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the measure preventing the minority-in this case, the Democrats-from offering amendments they believed to be critical. (A "rule" sets forth what amendments House members may offer with respect to a particular piece of legislation, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A bill's governing rule often reflects the majority party position on the underlying bill.) Progressives opposed the resolution both because of limits the Republican-dominated Rules Committee imposed on the bill's consideration and because they opposed the substance of the bill. Progressives' reasons behind their objections included: first, they felt that there was a lack of accountability with regard to the funding of contractors in Iraq; second, they objected to the fact that the rule would permit "points of order" to eliminate provisions in the bill increasing death-related military benefits (a "point of order" is an interruption in the proceedings contending that consideration of the pending legislation or other current business is improper and violates the Constitution or other law or House rules; points of order take precedence over pending legislation and must be resolved before the House can continue its other business); third, they objected to the rule's prohibition on considering several Democratic amendments, including some dealing with veterans health and mental health care; fourth, they objected to Republican intentions to attach another provision restricting the ability of aliens to prove asylum cases to the bill, as well as several other reasons. Republicans countered that these emergency supplemental funds were necessary to support U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the immigration measure was critical for U.S. efforts to keep potential terrorists out of the United States or to expel them if they are already here. On a nearly straight party-line vote of 220 to 195, the House accepted the rule to proceed with consideration of the emergency supplemental funding bill, including the immigration measure. Thus, Democrats were prevented from offering numerous provisions they deemed important-such as health and mental health care for veterans-during consideration of the bill.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 69
Mar 15, 2005
H. Res. 151. Appropriations/Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of H.R. 1268, a Bill to Provide Emergency Supplemental Funds Primarily for U.S. Military Activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed to proceed to consideration of H.R. 1268, a bill to provide emergency supplemental funds for U.S. military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for other purposes. The vote was on ordering the previous question on the rule for H.R. 1268, meaning that by approving the resolution, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the measure preventing the minority-in this case, the Democrats-from offering amendments they believed to be critical. (A "rule" sets forth what amendments House members may offer with respect to a particular piece of legislation, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A bill's governing rule often reflects the majority party position on the underlying bill.) Progressives opposed the resolution both because of limits the Republican-dominated Rules Committee imposed on the bill's consideration and because they opposed the substance of the bill. Progressives' reasons behind their objections included: first, they felt that there was a lack of accountability with regard to the funding of contractors in Iraq; second, they objected to the fact that the rule would permit "points of order" to eliminate provisions in the bill increasing death-related military benefits (a "point of order" is an interruption in the proceedings contending that consideration of the pending legislation or other current business is improper and violates the Constitution or other law or House rules; points of order take precedence over pending legislation and must be resolved before the House can continue its other business); third, they objected to the rule's prohibition on considering several Democratic amendments, including some dealing with veterans health and mental health care; fourth, they objected to Republican intentions to attach another provision restricting the ability of aliens to prove asylum cases to the bill, as well as several other reasons. Republicans countered that these emergency supplemental funds were necessary to support U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the immigration measure was critical for U.S. efforts to keep potential terrorists out of the United States or to expel them if they are already here. On a nearly straight party-line vote of 220 to 195, the House accepted the rule to proceed with consideration of the emergency supplemental funding bill, including the immigration measure. Thus, Democrats were prevented from offering numerous provisions they deemed important-such as health and mental health care for veterans-during consideration of the bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 64
Mar 10, 2005
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation/Vote on Motion to Recommit with Instructions Bill Reauthorizing the Nation's Surface Transportation Laws.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a motion offered by Brian Higgins (D-NY) to recommit to committee with instructions (send back to committee with instructions to take a specific action; often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation) H.R. 3. H.R. 3 was a bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. Progressives supported the motion, which they stated would have closed loopholes or tax shelters that permit companies to outsource jobs, thus resulting in an additional $34 billion in revenue for the United States while preserving jobs. That revenue, they contended, could be used to increase federal investment in national infrastructure. Progressives further argued that the President and Senate had both indicated support for providing additional funding for U.S. surface transportation needs. Republicans countered that while the Senate had indeed voted the previous year to authorize the additional $34 billion, that very fact had killed the most recent attempt at passing a highway bill. They hailed the current bill as "a very well-crafted, bipartisan effort[.]" (Don Young (R-AK).) Young continued: "this [motion] would disrupt what I would say is a great chariot that is going to go off on to the horizon and [to] become law." The House defeated the motion by a nearly party-line vote of 190 to 235; thus, the bill went on to a vote on final passage without closing the tax loopholes that make it easier for companies to move jobs offshore.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 63
Mar 10, 2005
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation/Vote on Amendment to Grant Urbanized Areas with Small Transit Systems Additional Flexibility Regarding How to Spend Their Federal Transit Funds.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed to an amendment offered by Joseph Pitts (R-PA) to H.R. 3 that would grant urbanized areas with small transit systems (e.g., public bus systems) additional flexibility regarding how to spend their federal transit funds. H.R. 3 was a bill reauthorizing the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. James Oberstar (D-MN) argued on behalf of most Progressives and many other Democrats and Republicans that allowing these areas additional flexibility to use their federal transit funds for ordinary operating expenses would violate an earlier carefully developed compromise regarding the formulas for distribution of these funds. Oberstar added that tacking this amendment onto the bill would "create confusion and would create unfairness among users, among other transit systems across the country." Pitts, on behalf of many other Republicans and Democrats (at least some of whom were from districts that included small urbanized areas), countered that because the current formula causes smaller urbanized areas to lose funding as they grow, that law "punishes smaller transit systems and the communities they serve simply because they are thriving. These smaller transit systems rely on budget flexibility and cannot make major revisions overnight." (James McGovern (D-MA).) He emphasized that these systems need time to determine how to make up for the shortfall under the formula caused by their growth. The House approved this amendment by a vote of 228 to 197 with many representatives crossing party lines due in part to interests particular to their districts. Thus, language permitting urbanized areas additional flexibility with regard to the use of their federal transit funds was incorporated into the bill.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
Y N Lost
Roll Call 62
Mar 10, 2005
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation/Vote on Amendment to remove from the bill language mandating that states establishing HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes include a lower fee for low-income drivers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the Senate approved an amendment offered by Tom Davis (R-VA) to remove language from H.R. 3 that would have mandated that states establishing HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes include a lower fee for low-income drivers. H.R. 3 was a bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. Progressives argued that creating HOT lanes without a reduced fee for low-income drivers would result in highway lanes for the use of the wealthy only, and that low-income workers might be "tolled out of" jobs that would require them to use those roads. (James Oberstar (D-MN).) Republicans countered that the tolls on these lanes represent "user fees, not taxes," and that requiring "income-based tolling" would make the HOT lanes extremely difficult to administrate and would discourage the critical formation of public-private partnerships to fund road construction and improvements. (Davis.) The House approved Davis's amendment by a vote of 224 to 201; thus, language requiring that low-income drivers be permitted to pay reduced rates on HOT lanes was removed from the bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 60
Mar 09, 2005
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation/Vote on Amendment to Eliminate State "Vicarious" Liability for Car or Truck Rental Companies Provided That There is No Negligence or Criminal Wrongdoing on the Part of Those Companies

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed to an amendment offered by Sam Graves (R-MO) to H.R. 3 that would eliminate "vicarious" liability-holding the company that owns a rented or leased car or truck responsible for the wrongdoing of someone who has rented or leased the vehicle-for car or truck rental companies, provided that there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing by the company in question. H.R. 3 was a bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. Progressives opposed the amendment on the grounds that it would allow rental companies to rent or lease vehicles to uninsured drivers, thus leaving the injured victims in accidents caused by those drivers with nowhere to turn for financial relief. They further objected to the fact that the amendment would override the laws of 15 states and the District of Columbia, which currently permit victims to seek compensation for their injuries through vicarious liability. Republicans countered that the amendment would merely bring the laws of a few states into conformity with the laws of most of the others and that it would "restore fair competition to the car and truck renting and leasing industry." (Graves.) They added that rental and leasing companies cannot control where customers drive their vehicles; thus, they can't keep people from driving into those states where vicarious liability is allowed, and therefore they must raise their rates. The amendment passed by a vote 218 to 201, with a number of representatives crossing party lines due in part to interests particular to their districts. Thus, the House inserted language into the bill mandating that states that have tried to preserve the ability of certain car or truck accident victims to seek financial compensation for their injuries may not do so when uninsured motorists driving rental cars cause accidents.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Auto & Truck Renting/Leasing Companies
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 59
Mar 09, 2005
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation (Highways, etc.)/Vote on an Amendment to Permit Tolls on New Federal Roads or New Lanes Only to Cover Costs of Building Them.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Mark Kennedy (R-MN) to H.R. 3 for a pilot program to permit the institution of tolls to cover the costs of building new federally funded roads or new lanes of federal roads, but to discontinue the tolls once these improvements have been paid for. H.R. 3 was a bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. Progressives, most other Democrats and numerous Republicans opposed the amendment on the grounds that dealing with traffic congestion requires a balanced, comprehensive approach, and this amendment would deny states the flexibility they need to fund their highway projects and find ways to manage their traffic flows. Kennedy, arguing on behalf of most Republicans and several Democrats, indicated that his amendment would provide needed money for road construction while winning the "trust of the driving public" by requiring the public to pay tolls only on what is needed to fund the construction of those toll roads or lanes. The House defeated this amendment by a vote of 155 to 265, with numerous Democrats and Republicans crossing party lines to vote due in part to interests particular to their districts. Thus, the federal toll highway pilot program in the bill does not include a provision for tolls to be removed once the particular, relevant highway costs have been paid for, and the tolls would continue to be charged to fund other public costs of surface transportation.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Won
Roll Call 58
Mar 09, 2005
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation (Highways, etc.)/Vote on Amendment to Exempt Custom Harvesters in the State of Nebraska from Federal Restriction on Maximum Truck Length.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed to an amendment offered by Tom Osborne (R-NE) to H.R. 3 to exempt the custom harvesters in the state of Nebraska from the federal restriction establishing a maximum length for trucks. H.R. 3 was a bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. Osborne stated that he was offering the amendment because length limits set in 1991 restricted custom harvester lengths to the then-existing limits set by each state. At that time, Nebraska's limit was 65 feet, but the limit in a number of surrounding states was roughly 80 feet. Progressives opposed the amendment, arguing that it would extend the already unsafe policy of permitting very long trucks on the roads that was grandfathered to Nebraska in the 1991 law, consequently making the roads there less safe. Most Republicans supported the amendment, countering that drivers of custom harvesters in Nebraska only now must unnecessarily double-back to the state line to retrieve all of their equipment because they can't drive very long trucks into Nebraska. This is the only way they can avoid running afoul of the length limitation. Republicans argued that this requirement thus imposes an undue and inefficient burden. A number of Democrats joined Republicans to approve this amendment by a vote of 236 to 184, thus putting in the bill a provision exempting Nebraskan custom harvesters from the safety-based length limits on trucks imposed in 1991.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
LABOR RIGHTS Occupational Safety and Health
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Lost
Roll Call 57
Mar 09, 2005
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation (Highways, etc.)/Vote on Amendment to Alter Safety Rule Governing How Much Down-Time Between Shifts is Required of Drivers of Agricultural Products During the Time of Harvest and Planting.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House approved an amendment offered by Jerry Moran (R-KS) to H.R. 3 that would broaden an exemption in the safety rule governing how much down-time between shifts is required of drivers in the agricultural sector during the times of harvest and planting. H.R. 3 was a bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. Moran's amendment would make explicit that for purposes of this rule, the definition of "agricultural product" includes "livestock, milk and other farm products." Progressives opposed this amendment, stating that it would actually broaden the agricultural-products exemption-which exists "to ensure that products grown and harvested get from the farm to market in timely fashion,"-to include "processed products, processed foods, [and] beverages" (James Oberstar (D-MN)), thus including tens of thousands more carriers in the safety exemption. Most Republicans supported the amendment, arguing that it would merely clarify the existing exemption to clear up unnecessary confusion about what the exemption covers within the agricultural sector. The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 257 to 167, with numerous Democrats voting in favor in part due to interests particular to their districts. Thus, language was added to the bill to make it clear that the agricultural exemption to this safety rule ought to be applied broadly in the sector and cover many edible products.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
LABOR RIGHTS Occupational Safety and Health
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Lost
Roll Call 56
Mar 09, 2005
H.R. 3. Surface Transportation (Highways, etc.)/Vote on Amendment to Alter Safety Rule Governing How Much Down-Time Between Shifts is Required of Drivers Transporting Oil and Gas Equipment and Machinery.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Michael Conaway (R-TX) to H.R. 3 that would have altered the safety rule governing how much down-time between shifts is required of drivers transporting oil and gas equipment and machinery. H.R. 3 was a bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation (highways, etc.) laws. Presently, in order to ensure that drivers of heavy equipment have adequate rest and thus do not pose a fatigue-induced danger on the roads, drivers and the companies who hire them must follow the rule of no more than 11 consecutive hours of driving and no more than 14 consecutive hours on-duty. Conaway's amendment would have removed this rule with regard to truck drivers in the oil and gas industries in favor of less stringent requirements that were in place prior to January 2004. Progressives, together with a number of other Democrats and Republicans, opposed the amendment, stating that road safety must be the top priority regardless of industry and that reinstating the old rule would permit truck drivers to be back on the road after only two hours of rest. Republicans who supported the amendment argued that the current restrictions place an undue, inefficient burden on oil and gas companies, and that returning to the old rule would not compromise highway safety. Progressives won this amendment by a vote of 198 to 226, with a number of both Democrats and Republicans crossing party lines due in part to both regional and oil and gas industry interests. Thus, the House bill went forward with this safety requirement for oil and gas industry drivers intact.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
LABOR RIGHTS Occupational Safety and Health
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Won
Roll Call 52
Mar 03, 2005
H.R. 841. Governance/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill to Require, in Extraordinary Circumstances, States to Hold Special Elections to Fill Vacancies in the House of Representatives No More Than 49 Days After the Vacancy is Announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed a bill that would require states to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives no more than 49 days after the vacancies are announced by the Speaker of the House if more than 100 members of the House have been killed or incapacitated. This legislation was prompted by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and had been discussed by Congress since that time. Progressives argued that 49 days was an insufficient period of time in which to put together fair and accurate special elections, and they pushed for a period of 60 days. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA) stated that 60 days "is a more practical and realistic deadline, places less burden on the States, and still accomplishes the bill's goals to expedite special elections in a large number of States." She also noted that a 60-day deadline "would also allow some States more options if they wish to preserve their primary elections which at the insistence of the minority are no longer explicitly prohibited by this version of the legislation. But while primaries may no longer be barred, 49 days to hold both a primary and a special election is still a high bar to meet." Republicans countered that in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack or other disaster, the priority would be to ensure that the government of the United States could function, and that a 60-day period would leave too great of a vacuum. (The original language of the bill set forth a 45-day period, but Republicans later agreed to extend the period to 49 days.) Candace Miller (R-MI) argued that extending the time limit to 60 days would weaken the United States' ability to respond militarily to an event that took the lives of more than 100 members of Congress, because the War Powers Act requires Congress to approve or disapprove of any presidential military action within 60 days. She also stated that "[a] survey of election officials . . . shows that 49 days is a reasonable period of time in which to conduct a special election." The bill passed by a vote of 329 to 68, thus leaving a 49-day time period in the bill for states to hold special elections in the event more than 100 members of the House of Representatives are killed or incapacitated by a terrorist attack or other catastrophe.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Fair Elections
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 51
Mar 03, 2005
H.R. 841. Governance: Procedural Vote to Recommit to Committee with Instructions A Bill to Require, in Extraordinary Circumstances, States to Hold Special Elections to Fill Vacancies in the House of Representatives No More Than 49 Days After the Vacancy is Announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a procedural motion to recommit to committee with instructions (send back to committee with instructions to take a specific action; often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation) H.R. 841, a bill to require, in extraordinary circumstances, states to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives no more than 49 days after the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The motion, made by John Conyers (D-MI), would have required that in the event of such an election, each state provide a minimum required number of functioning and accurate voting machines and poll workers for each precinct on the day of any special election. On behalf of Democrats, including Progressives, Conyers harkened back to the uncertainty regarding some voting procedures in Ohio following the 2004 presidential election, and stated that this amendment would help to avoid such problems in a special election. Republicans did not offer specific arguments against this amendment, but instead countered only by discussing the importance of the bill itself and ensuring that it became law to guarantee that the U.S. government could still function in the event of a devastating terrorist attack or other disaster. The motion to recommit with instructions was defeated on a straight party-line vote of 196 to 223; thus, no additional protections to ensure fair voting procedures were added to the legislation.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Fair Elections
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 50
Mar 03, 2005
H.R. 841. Governance/Vote on Amendment to Allow 5 Days to File an Appeal in U.S. District Court Following a Special Election Held Pursuant to an Announcement by the Speaker of the House Due to the Death or Disability of More Than 100 Members of the House of Representatives.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment by Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) that would have expanded by 3 days the time allowed to file an appeal in H.R. 841. H.R. 841 was a bill to require, in extraordinary circumstances when more than 100 members of the House of Representatives have been killed or disabled, states to hold special elections to fill House vacancies no more than 49 days after the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of the House. The bill as drafted by Republicans stated that in the event someone wanted to contest a special election held in these circumstances, that person or party would have 2 days to file an appeal. Jackson-Lee argued on behalf of Progressives that information does not always travel rapidly in all states, and the additional time would make the bill more fair in places not as well-equipped to respond in such rapid fashion. Her amendment also would have permitted citizens to file a suit pertaining to the special election, while the original bill would only permit the governor of a state to do so. Progressives felt that this amendment was important to ensure that democracy and citizens' rights would be preserved even in extraordinary circumstances requiring special elections. Republicans countered that the short time period was necessary to ensure the continued function of the U.S. government, and that this amendment sought lawsuits rather than elections. The House defeated the amendment by a vote of 183 to 239; thus, someone wishing to challenge the validity of a special election held under these expedited rules would have only two days to file that suit, regardless of where he or she lived in the United States.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Fair Elections
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 49
Mar 03, 2005
H.R. 841. Governance/Vote on Amendment to A Bill to Require, in Extraordinary Circumstances, States to Hold Special Elections to Fill Vacancies in the House of Representatives No More Than 49 Days After the Vacancy is Announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment to H.R. 841, a bill to require, in extraordinary circumstances, states to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives no more than 49 days after the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of the House. That amendment would have extended the deadline for holding special elections from the 49 days set forth in the bill's language to 60 days. The amendment was offered by Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA), who argued that 49 days would not be enough for states to set up and hold special elections in the event of a catastrophe claiming the lives or capacities of more than 100 members of the House. She stated that 60 days "is a more practical and realistic deadline, places less burden on the States, and still accomplishes the bill's goals to expedite special elections in a large number of States." In addition, she noted that a 60-day deadline "would also allow some States more options if they wish to preserve their primary elections which at the insistence of the minority are no longer explicitly prohibited by this version of the legislation. But while primaries may no longer be barred, 49 days to hold both a primary and a special election is still a high bar to meet." Republicans countered that expanding the time limit to 60 days would undermine the point of the bill, which was to ensure that the House could quickly reconvene and continue to govern in the event it was struck by a terrorist act or other disaster. Candace Miller (R-MI) argued that extending the time limit to 60 days would weaken the United States' ability to respond militarily to an event that took the lives of more than 100 members of Congress, because the War Powers Act requires Congress to approve or disapprove of any presidential military action within 60 days. She also stated that "[a] survey of election officials . . . shows that 49 days is a reasonable period of time in which to conduct a special election." Progressives lost this vote 192 to 229, thus leaving states 49 days to hold elections in the event of a catastrophe killing or incapacitating more than 100 members of the House of Representatives.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Fair Elections
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 48
Mar 02, 2005
H.R. 27. Jobs/Vote on Passage of Bill to Reauthorize Federal Job-Training Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed H.R. 27, a bill to reauthorize federal job-training programs. Most Democrats, including Progressives, opposed the bill because it would "block-grant" numerous job-training programs for veterans, the disabled, youth and others (eliminate and send funds previously authorized under the programs to the states to be used in a discretionary manner). In addition, Progressives contended that the bill would authorize religious institutions to receive federal job-training funds while permitting them to discriminate in their hiring on the basis of religion, which they claimed could lead to federally prohibited discrimination on other grounds such as race or gender. Republicans countered that the job-training bill would make the Workforce Investment Act more efficient and more relevant to the skills needed for employment in the 21st century. (The Workforce Investment Act is a law passed in 1998 to create federal programs to provide veterans, migrant workers, youth and others with the skills they need to find jobs.) They further argued that the bill actually eliminated religious discrimination by putting religious organizations on the same level as other groups with respect to being permitted to apply for and receive federal funding. Progressives were defeated by a vote of 224 to 200; thus, the House sent to the Senate a bill to reauthorize federal job-training programs that would eliminate many of those programs and that would permit religious organizations to receive federal funding while discriminating on the basis of religion in their hiring processes.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 47
Mar 02, 2005
H.R. 27. Jobs/Procedural Vote on Motion to Recommit to Committee with Instructions a Bill to Reauthorize Federal Job-Training Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a motion to recommit to committee with instructions H.R. 27, a bill to reauthorize federal job-training programs. (A motion to recommit to committee with instructions means to send back to committee with instructions to take a specific action. This motion is often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation.) Offered by Dale Kildee (D-MI), the motion would have added language to the bill providing additional assistance to veterans and individuals whose jobs have been outsourced to other countries. Progressives argued that veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan deserve more assistance than the language in H.R. 27 would provide, and that the outsourcing of American jobs to other countries is a "crisis" touching "every community in the United States." (Rosa DeLauro (D-CT).) Republicans countered that the motion to recommit was unnecessary because the U.S. economy is strong, jobs are being created, and that veterans and workers whose jobs have been outsourced already have access to services to help them find new jobs. In general, Progressives opposed the job-training bill itself because it would "block-grant" numerous job-training programs for veterans, the disabled, youth and others (i.e., eliminate and send funds previously authorized under the programs to the states to be used in a discretionary manner). In addition, Progressives contended that the bill would authorize religious institutions to receive federal job-training funds while permitting them to discriminate in their hiring on the basis of religion, which they claimed could lead to federally prohibited discrimination on other grounds such as race or gender. Republicans countered that the job-training bill would make the Workforce Investment Act more efficient and more relevant to the skills needed for employment in the 21st century. (The Workforce Investment Act is a law passed in 1998 to create federal programs to provide veterans, migrant workers, youth and others with the skills they need to find jobs.) They further argued that the bill actually eliminated religious discrimination by putting religious organizations on the same level as other groups with respect to being permitted to apply for and receive federal funding. Democrats, including Progressives, lost this motion in a straight party-line vote of 197 to 228; thus, additional jobs assistance for veterans and workers whose jobs had been outsourced was kept out of the bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
LABOR RIGHTS Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 46
Mar 02, 2005
H.R. 27. Jobs/Vote on Amendment to Remove Provision Permitting Religious Groups to Obtain Federal Job-Training Funds While Discriminating in Their Hiring on the Basis of Religion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Bobby Scott (D-VA) to remove language in the bill to reauthorize federal job-training programs that would permit religious groups to obtain federal job-training funds while discriminating in their hiring on the basis of religion. Scott and other Progressives claimed that retaining this language in the bill would permit a setback in the area of civil rights, because not only would churches and other religious organizations be permitted to turn away job applicants based on their religion, but such a practice could lead to discrimination in other areas as well. For example, Progressives noted, discrimination based on religion could lead to the hiring, with federal funds, of persons of only certain races or of only one gender (if an individual church or other organization included among its tenets superiority of one race, or permitted only men or only women to hold certain jobs). "[T]his bill would allow a religious organization that discriminates based on religion, like a Bob Jones University, to get taxpayer money and use that Federal funding to legally discriminate on religious grounds when hiring staff to carry out the job training programs and services in this bill." (James McGovern (D-MA).) Republicans countered that in fact it is current law that discriminates against religion by not permitting religious organizations to compete for federal funds with other organizations and that a few other federal programs already permit religious organizations to apply for funds. Progressives lost on this issue by a vote of 186 to 239, thus leaving in the bill language that would permit religious organizations to discriminate in their hiring with federal funds.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 45
Mar 02, 2005
H.R. 27. Jobs/Vote on Amendment to Allow Use of "Personal Reemployment Accounts" to Obtain Capital Needed to Start a Small Business

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) to permit the use of certain funds under the Workforce Investment Act to obtain the capital necessary to start a small business. (The Workforce Investment Act is a law is a law passed in 1998 to create federal programs to provide veterans, migrant workers, youths and others with the skills they need to find jobs.) H.R. 27 would establish Personal Reemployment Accounts to provide up to $3,000 to individuals looking for work; workers could choose to use these funds for job-training, child care, or other related expenses. On behalf of Progressives, Velazquez decried the Bush Administration's running of the small-business-loan program, noting that in recent years, the program has had its funding slashed and fees hiked. She stated that "[a] vote for this amendment is a vote against the Bush administration's policy raising the fees on [small business] loans," and "[i]t is a vote for our Nation's up-and-coming small business owners," because it would provide them with the means necessary to obtain a small capital loan to start a small business. Progressives also objected to the establishment of the voucher-like Personal Reemployment Accounts on the grounds that the creation of these accounts really masked a cut in funding for job-training programs. Republicans offered no specific argument on the floor against the amendment, though most supported the Personal Reemployment Accounts that would be established in the bill. Democrats, including Progressives, lost on this issue by a nearly party-line vote of 202 to 221; thus, people hoping to obtain a federal loan to start a small business would not be able to use Personal Reemployment Accounts to obtain the loans they need.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 44
Mar 02, 2005
H.R. 27. Jobs/Vote on Amendment to Remove All Provisions Relating to Youth from the Bill to Reauthorize Federal Job-Training Programs

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Dale Kildee (D-MI) to remove all provisions relating to youth from H.R. 27, a bill to reauthorize federal job-training programs, thus leaving current law in place. On behalf of Democrats, including Progressives, Kildee argued that the bill's targeting of federal job-training funds to youths out of school would eliminate programs that were having a very positive impact on kids who are in school. He stated that current law permits states to choose whether to focus these funds on in-school or out-of-school youths, and that states ought to retain that flexibility. Republicans countered that the changing times made it more important for these funds to be directed at youths not presently in school and that states would still retain flexibility with regard to 30 percent of these funds. In general, Progressives opposed the job-training bill itself because it would "block-grant" numerous job-training programs for veterans, the disabled, youths and others (i.e., eliminate and send funds previously authorized under the programs to the states to be used in a discretionary manner). In addition, Progressives contended that the bill would authorize religious institutions to receive federal job-training funds while permitting them to discriminate in their hiring on the basis of religion, which Progressives claimed could lead to federally prohibited discrimination on other grounds such as race or gender. Republicans countered that the job-training bill would make the Workforce Investment Act more efficient and more relevant to the skills needed for employment in the 21st century. (The Workforce Investment Act is a law passed in 1998 to create federal programs to provide veterans, migrant workers, youths and others with the skills they need to find jobs.) Republicans further argued that the job-training bill actually eliminated religious discrimination by putting religious organizations on the same level as other groups with respect to being permitted to apply for and receive federal funding. Democrats, including Progressives, lost on this issue by a nearly party-line vote of 200 to 222; thus, provisions remained in the job-training bill that would prohibit states from continuing to target youth funds at both in-school and out-of-school youths even if states determine that both populations have equal needs in this area.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 42
Mar 02, 2005
H.Res. 126. Jobs/Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of H.R. 27, a Bill to Reauthorize Federal Job-Training Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed to proceed to consideration of H.R. 27, a bill to reauthorize federal job-training programs. Democrats, including Progressives, opposed this resolution to approve the "rule" governing consideration of the job-training bill. (The Rules Committee of the House often reports a special rule that determines the structure of debate, amendments that will be allowed and other details when a particular bill is brought to the floor. The Rules Committee is dominated by the majority party, and thus a bill's governing rule often favors that party's position. Additionally, a vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) On behalf of Democrats, James McGovern (D-MA) argued that the Republican leadership was consistently preventing Democrats from offering important amendments to legislation, and this job-training bill was no exception. Progressives also opposed the underlying job-training bill itself because it would "block-grant" numerous job-training programs for veterans, the disabled, youths and others (i.e., eliminate and send funds previously authorized under the programs to the states to be used in a discretionary manner). In addition, Progressives contended that the bill would authorize religious institutions to receive federal job-training funds while permitting them to discriminate in their hiring on the basis of religion, which they claimed could lead to discrimination on other grounds such as race or gender. Republicans countered that consideration of some important Democratic amendments was permitted under the rule. They added that the job-training bill would make the Workforce Investment Act more efficient and more relevant to the skills needed for employment in the 21st century. (The Workforce Investment Act is a law passed in 1998 to create federal programs to provide veterans, migrant workers, youth and others with the skills they need to find jobs.) Republicans further argued that the bill actually eliminated religious discrimination by putting religious organizations on the same level as other groups with respect to being permitted to apply for and receive federal funding. In a straight party-line vote, the House approved the rule for the job-training bill 227 to 191; thus, the House proceeded to consideration of the job-training legislation without allowing the Democrats to offer several amendments on the floor that they deemed essential to a fair and constitutional job-training program.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Absent N Lost
Roll Call 38
Feb 17, 2005
S. 5. Class-Action Lawsuits/Vote on Final Passage of Bill to Move Many Interstate, Class-Action Lawsuits from State to Federal Courts, Which are Less Friendly to Consumers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House approved S. 5, a bill to move many interstate, class-action lawsuits (multiple claims from various lawsuits with parties in more than one state combined into one, larger lawsuit) from state to federal courts and to make other changes regarding this type of lawsuit. Procedure in federal courts is generally considered less friendly to consumers than in state courts. The bill, strongly favored by corporations that assert that a glut of lawsuits is threatening their survival, would grant federal jurisdiction over these suits where the total disputed amount is larger than $5 million. Supporters of the legislation claimed that the bill would prevent what they consider to be abuses such as "forum shopping;" i.e., when lawyers file suits in the jurisdictions where plaintiffs tend to win large awards. In opposing the legislation, Progressives were joined by civil rights, consumer and other public interest groups in arguing that it would prevent seriously injured plaintiffs from obtaining justice, as the federal courts are already overburdened with case backlogs and because those courts might be less inclined to approve large monetary awards even where they are truly deserved. The House passed S. 5 by a vote of 279 to 149, thereby defeating Progressives and approving legislation that would make it more difficult for whole classes of injured consumers to obtain justice in federal courts.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 37
Feb 17, 2005
S. 5. Class-Action Lawsuits/Procedural Vote on Motion to Commit with Instructions Bill to Move Many Interstate, Class-Action Lawsuits from State to Federal Courts, Which are Less Friendly to Consumers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a motion to commit to committee with instructions S. 5, a bill to move many interstate, class-action lawsuits (multiple claims from various lawsuits with parties in more than one state combined into one, larger lawsuit) from state to federal courts and to make other changes regarding this type of lawsuit. (A motion to commit to committee with instructions means to send a piece of legislation to committee with instructions to take a specific action; this motion is often a last attempt by the opponents of a bill to kill or amend substantively the pending legislation.) Procedure in federal courts is generally considered less friendly to consumers than in state courts. The bill, strongly favored by corporations that assert that a glut of lawsuits is threatening their survival, would grant federal jurisdiction over these suits where the total disputed amount is larger than $5 million. Supporters of the legislation claimed that the bill would prevent what they consider to be abuses such as "forum shopping;" i.e., when lawyers file suits in the jurisdictions where plaintiffs tend to win large awards. In opposing the legislation, Progressives were joined by civil rights, consumer and other public interest groups in arguing that it would prevent seriously injured plaintiffs from obtaining justice, as the federal courts are already overburdened with case backlogs and because those courts might be less inclined to approve large monetary awards even where they are truly deserved. The House defeated the motion to commit with instructions by a vote of 175 to 249, thereby defeating Progressives and approving legislation that would make it more difficult for whole classes of injured consumers to obtain justice in the federal courts.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 36
Feb 17, 2005
S. 5. Class-Action Lawsuits/Vote on Conyers Substitute Amendment to Bill to Move Many Interstate, Class-Action Lawsuits from State to Federal Courts, Which are Less Friendly to Consumers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated a substitute amendment (language intended wholly to replace the language of the underlying bill) offered by John Conyers (D-MI) to S. 5, a bill to move many interstate, class-action lawsuits (multiple claims from various lawsuits with parties in more than one state combined into one, larger lawsuit) from state to federal courts and to make other changes regarding this type of lawsuit. Procedure in federal courts is generally considered less friendly to consumers than in state courts. Conyers's amendment would have "carved out" certain types of cases from the actions proposed in S. 5, including civil rights cases, workers' rights cases, suits brought on behalf of citizens by states' attorneys general and non-class-action suits involving physical injuries (which the language of S. 5 included). The bill, strongly favored by corporations that assert that a glut of lawsuits is threatening their survival, would grant federal jurisdiction over these suits where the total disputed amount is larger than $5 million. In supporting the amendment, Progressives were joined by civil rights, consumer and other public interest groups who feared that workers, consumers and citizens in general might be prevented from obtaining justice, as the federal courts are already overburdened with case backlogs and because those courts might be less inclined to approve large monetary awards even where they are truly deserved. Opponents of the Conyers amendment claimed that S. 5 as written would prevent what they consider to be abuses such as "forum shopping;" i.e., when lawyers file suits in the jurisdictions where plaintiffs tend to win large awards. The House defeated Conyers's substitute amendment by a vote of 178 to 247, thus ensuring that the language making it more difficult for workers, consumers and many citizens to seek justice in the federal courts remained in the bill.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 35
Feb 16, 2005
H.R. 310, a Bill to Increase Penalties for Indecent Behavior on Television or Radio.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 310, a bill that would increase penalties for indecent behavior on television or radio. The bill, sponsored by Fred Upton (R-MI), would raise substantially the maximum fines allowable per incident to $500,000 for both broadcasters and performers, punishing performers only if they "intentionally" violate decency standards. The bill would also impose a "three-strikes" rule, requiring that a broadcaster's license be revoked following three violations. Progressives opposed to the legislation argued that the bill encouraged self-censorship and represented "Big Brother decid[ing] what constitutes free speech and artistic expression." (Jan Schakowsky (D-IL).) Republicans and a number of Democrats countered that this legislation was necessary to restore family-appropriate programming to television and radio. Most Democrats joined Republicans to approve this bill by a vote of 389 to 38; thus passing more aggressive disincentives for indecent behavior in broadcasting.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
Y N Lost
Roll Call 34
Feb 16, 2005
H. Res. 95. Procedural Vote to Proceed to Consideration of H.R. 310, a Bill to Increase Penalties for Indecent Behavior on Television or Radio.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed to proceed to consideration of H.R. 310, a bill to increase penalties for indecent behavior on television and radio. The vote was to order the previous question on the rule for H.R. 310, meaning that by approving the resolution, the House agreed to end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed immediately to a vote on the measure preventing the minority-in this case, the Democrats-from offering amendments they believed to be critical. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party. )Democrats, including Progressives and most of whom supported the underlying legislation, expressed frustration that this rule would permit neither amendments nor debate concerning several broadcast decency-related issues they believed to be important, such as media consolidation, the elimination of the "Fairness Doctrine" that used to require that all coverage of controversial issues by a television or radio station be fair and balanced, and incidents where journalists who appeared objective were in fact paid to espouse a particular point of view. Republicans were content to leave H.R. 310 "clean," meaning that they were not interested in adding additional broadcast issues, because they knew that a narrowly-tailored bill would enjoy bipartisan support. The underlying bill, sponsored by Fred Upton (R-MI), would raise the maximum fines allowable per incident to $500,000 for both broadcasters and performers, a substantial increase. The bill would also impose a "three-strikes" rule, requiring that a broadcaster's license be revoked following three violations. In this vote, the nearly party-line vote of 230 to 198 reflected alliance with party leadership and Democratic frustration with the terms of the debate. The resolution passed and Democrats, including Progressives, were prevented from discussing what they believed to be critical issues of fairness and decency in broadcasting.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
N N Lost
Roll Call 31
Feb 10, 2005
H.R. 418. REAL ID Act/Vote on Final Passage of Bill to Make Broad Changes to Various Aspects of U.S. Immigration and Asylum Law, Including Making It Harder for Asylum-Seekers to Prove Their Cases.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed The REAL ID Act (H.R. 418), a bill to make broad changes to certain aspects of U.S. immigration and asylum laws. H.R. 418, sponsored by Sensenbrenner (R-WI), contains numerous provisions, including restricting standards for those claiming asylum, expanding the authority of immigration judges in asylum proceedings, standardizing procedures for obtaining driver's licenses amongst the states and limiting their use for federal purposes, forbidding entry into the United States of those people who have supported terrorist organizations, and removing local and state barriers to construction of a border fence at San Diego. According to Republican supporters, the bill was designed to keep terrorists out of the country. Progressives opposed the bill, stating that it would make it unjustifiably difficult for legitimate asylum-seekers to prove their cases. Republicans countered in part by comparing the asylum process to other judicial proceedings, asserting that H.R. 418 would merely grant to immigration judges the same tools that are already used by other judges, and asserting that the bill "is about protecting our borders and making our country safer." (Chabot, R-OH.) The bill passed by a vote 261-161; thus the bill containing new restrictions on driver's licenses and erecting new barriers for those who seek asylum was sent to the Senate for its consideration.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Immigration Law Reform
N N Lost
Roll Call 30
Feb 10, 2005
H.R. 418. REAL ID Act/Vote to Defeat Motion to Recommit with Instructions (Amend or Kill) Bill to Make Broad Changes to Various Aspects of U.S. Immigration and Asylum Law, Including Making It Harder for Asylum-Seekers to Prove Their Cases.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House voted not to recommit with instructions (send back to committee with instructions to take a specific action; usually a final effort by opponents of the bill to amend or kill it) H.R. 418 (The REAL ID Act), a bill to make broad changes to certain aspects of U.S. immigration and asylum laws. H.R. 418, sponsored by Sensenbrenner (R-WI), contains numerous provisions, including restricting standards for those claiming asylum, expanding the authority of immigration judges in asylum proceedings, standardizing procedures for obtaining driver's licenses amongst the states and limiting their use for federal purposes, forbidding entry into the United States of those people who have supported terrorist organizations, and removing local and state barriers to construction of a border fence at San Diego. According to Republican supporters, the bill was designed to keep terrorists out of the country. Progressives opposed the bill, stating that it would make it unjustifiably difficult for legitimate asylum-seekers to prove their cases. Republicans countered in part by comparing the asylum process to other judicial proceedings, asserting that H.R. 418 would merely grant to immigration judges the same tools that are already used by other judges, and asserting that the bill "is about protecting our borders and making our country safer." (Chabot, R-OH.) A motion to recommit with instructions is generally the final effort by opponents of a bill to amend or kill legislation in a way that favors their cause. The motion to recommit failed 195 to 229-a nearly party-line vote-with almost all Democrats voting to recommit in order to show support for the leadership position; thus, the House then proceeded to vote on final passage of the bill, which contained new restrictions on driver's licenses and would erect new barriers for whose who seek asylum in the U.S.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Immigration Law Reform
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 29
Feb 10, 2005
H.R. 418. Illegal Immigration, Homeland Security/A Vote to Defeat an Amendment to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, to Narrow a Provision Granting Broad Authority to the Secretary for Homeland Security to Waive Any Law, Including Those that Protect Workers and the Environment, that Interferes with Construction of Any Physical Barrier Designed to Impede Illegal National Border Crossings.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Sam Farr (D-CA) offered an amendment to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, a bill to make broad changes to certain aspects of U.S. immigration and asylum laws. Changes to existing immigration law in the REAL ID Act included restricting standards for those claiming asylum, expanding the authority of immigration judges in asylum proceedings, standardizing procedures for obtaining driver's licenses amongst the states and limiting their use for federal purposes, forbidding entry into the United States of those people who have supported terrorist organizations, and removing all local and state barriers to construction of a border fence at San Diego. Farr's amendment would have removed the fence-facilitating provisions from the bill. Progressives stated that they did not oppose the construction of the border fence at San Diego; rather, they argued that the provision was phrased too broadly and would give the Secretary for Homeland Security unprecedented, sweeping authority to waive any state and local laws anywhere, including child labor, environmental and other types of laws. Republicans countered that this provision was necessary because the fence-which nearly everyone agrees should be built-has been under construction without reaching completion for an unduly long time, and that the delays were at least in part due to state or local environmental barriers. (They did not raise specific arguments on the floor regarding the Democrats' contention that the bill would grant authority for waivers in places other than at San Diego.) The House defeated the amendment by a vote of 179 to 243, thus retaining in the bill language granting the Secretary of Homeland Security broad authority to bypass state and local laws at San Diego and elsewhere, including laws designed to protect workers and the environment.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 28
Feb 10, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 418
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 27
Feb 10, 2005

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 75 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 418, REAL ID Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 23
Feb 09, 2005
H. Res. 71. Immigration, Homeland Security/Vote to Defeat a Point of Order Regarding Mandates to be Imposed upon the States in H.R. 418, a Bill to Alter Certain Aspects of U.S. Immigration and Asylum Laws.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House voted to overrule a point of order (an interruption in the proceedings contending that consideration of the pending legislation or other current business is improper and violates the Constitution or other law or House rules; points of order take precedence over pending legislation and must be resolved before the House can continue its other business) made by Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) against H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, a bill to make broad changes to certain aspects of U.S. immigration and asylum laws. Those changes would include restricting standards for those claiming asylum, expanding the authority of immigration judges in asylum proceedings, standardizing procedures for obtaining driver's licenses amongst the states and limiting their use for federal purposes, forbidding entry into the United States of those people who have supported terrorist organizations, and removing local and state barriers to construction of a border fence at San Diego. Jackson-Lee argued the Progressive position, stating that the driver's license-related provisions would unlawfully impose an "unfunded mandate" on the states, (meaning that Congress would impose some requirement or action to be taken on the individual states that would cost money, but fail to appropriate the funds needed to cover the states' costs, thus imposing a financial burden on the states), because it would require the states to take numerous measures to standardize and implement new procedures for issuing driver's licenses that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars over the next five years. She pointed out that numerous important state government-related organizations, including the National Governors Association, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators and the National Conference of State Legislatures, opposed the bill for this reason. Republicans countered that the Progressives were overestimating the cost, and that the financial burden on the states, which was not as severe as Progressives claimed, was within the acceptable limits of the relevant budget law, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. This vote was technically a procedural one-Jackson-Lee made her point of order during consideration of the rule that would govern consideration of H.R. 418. (A rule sets forth what amendments House members may offer, how much time each side will be permitted to speak, how long the debate can last, etc. A vote on the rule usually reflects existing support and opposition for the underlying legislation and/or loyalty to one's party.) However, it was important substantively because the terms of the rule made it clear that neither this nor other points of order would be permitted during consideration of H.R. 418 once the rule was adopted. The House voted by a nearly party-line vote of 228-191 to defeat the point of order and allow consideration of H.R. 418, thus proceeding to consideration of a bill that would require states to spend money to take specific actions without providing the states with funding to cover the costs of those actions.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Immigration Law Reform
N N Lost
Roll Call 16
Feb 02, 2005
H. Con. Res. 36. Gay Rights/Military Recruitment/Vote Expressing Congress's Continued Support for Solomon Amendment-Law that Permits Withholding of Federal Funding from Universities Which, Due to the Military's Policy of Discriminating Against Gays and Lesbians, Do Not Permit Military Recruitment on Their Campuses.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed by overwhelming numbers a resolution expressing Congress's continued support for a law known as the Solomon Amendment, which permits the withholding of federal funds from universities who refuse to allow the U.S. military to recruit on their campuses. Some universities attempted to bar the military from recruiting on campus because the military's policy concerning gays and lesbians in the service violated the universities' nondiscrimination policies. The Solomon Amendment was passed to override these universities' actions. Republicans who, along with many Democrats, supported this resolution affirming the Solomon Amendment, asserted that it is critical that the military be able to recruit broadly and have access to all of the brightest, most capable young people to defend the country, particularly in a post-September 11 world and where the nation is presently at war. They maintained that if a university is not willing to allow the military access to help defend the country, then that university should be willing to forego federal funding. Progressives countered that universities should not be forced to permit a practice on their campuses that violates their own policies of nondiscrimination, and that it is the supporters of the military's policies on gays and lesbians who are depriving the U.S. military of access to as many "able-bodied people" as it would like to have in the service. (Barney Frank (D-MA).) H. Con. Res. 36 is a concurrent resolution, which is a statement expressing the intent or sentiment of Congress that must be passed by both houses, but does not require a presidential signature and does not have the force of law. The House passed this resolution by a vote of 327 to 84, thus expressing its continued support of a policy compelling universities to allow access to military recruiters.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 13
Jan 26, 2005
H.R. 54. Congressional Gold Medal Program/Vote on Final Passage of Bill to Implement New Restrictions in the Congressional Gold Medal Program.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House passed H.R. 54, a bill sponsored by Michael Castle (R-DE) that would implement new restrictions in the Congressional Gold Medal program. (The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor awarded by Congress to persons who perform great acts of service to the country.) H.R. 54 would limit the number of Congressional Gold Medals that could be awarded to two per year, and further would only permit the Medal to be awarded to individuals, not couples or groups. Progressives and many other Democrats were upset that the Republican-sponsored rule governing debate of this legislation prohibited consideration of what they viewed as a reasonable amendment by Crowley (D-NY) to continue to permit the Medal to be granted to couples or groups when warranted. In addition, they argued that other restrictions imposed by the bill would be too narrow, and that had such restrictions been in place at an earlier date, many worthy individuals and groups who have received the Medal would not have been able to do so. Republicans countered that not only was the governing rule a fair one because Crowley was allowed to offer two other amendments, but in addition, the legislation was necessary because the prestige of the Congressional Gold Medal program, the "highest civilian honor bestowed by Congress" (Michael Oxley, R-OH), was becoming diluted due to the abundance of medals awarded in recent years. On January 26, 2005, the House voted 231 to 173 to pass the legislation, thus helping to establish early a tone of partisan bitterness: "Unfortunately, the bipartisan spirit that has characterized the House's consideration of gold medals in the past has not carried over to the debate on this bill. . . . Does this action foretell what lies ahead in terms of the existence of bipartisanship throughout this Congress?" (Joe Crowley (D-NY).) (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress.")


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 12
Jan 26, 2005
H.R. 54. Congressional Gold Medal Program/Procedural Vote to Recommit (Amend or Kill) Bill to Implement New Restrictions in the Congressional Gold Medal Program.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House voted not to recommit with instructions (send back to committee with instructions to change significantly) H.R. 54, a bill sponsored by Michael Castle (R-DE) that would implement new restrictions in the Congressional Gold Medal program. (The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor awarded by Congress to persons who perform great acts of service to the country.) H.R. 54 would limit the number of Congressional Gold Medals that could be awarded to two per year, and further would only permit the Medal to be awarded to individuals, not couples or groups. Democrats were upset by the earlier approval of a Republican-sponsored rule governing consideration of the bill that prevented the Democrats from offering what they viewed as an entirely reasonable amendment, and thus they resorted to the bill to recommit to make their point. A motion to recommit with instructions is generally the final effort by opponents of a bill to kill or amend legislation in a way that favors their cause. The motion to recommit failed by a nearly party-line vote of 187 to 217 on January 26, 2005, thus ending the Democrats' chances to further amend the bill and setting an early tone of inter party bitterness: "Unfortunately, the bipartisan spirit that has characterized the House's consideration of gold medals in the past has not carried over to the debate on this bill. . . . Does this action foretell what lies ahead in terms of the existence of bipartisanship throughout this Congress?" (Joe Crowley (D-NY).) (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress.")


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 11
Jan 26, 2005
H.R. 54. Congressional Gold Medal Program/Vote to Defeat an Amendment Requiring that Designation of Medal Recipients Be Evenly Divided Between the Two Political Parties.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment by Joe Crowley (D-NY) to H.R. 54, a bill sponsored by Michael Castle (R-DE), that would implement new restrictions in the Congressional Gold Medal program. (The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor awarded by Congress to persons who perform great acts of service to the country.) H.R. 54 would limit the number of Congressional Gold Medals that could be awarded to two per year, and further would only permit the Medal to be awarded to individuals, not couples or groups. Crowley's amendment would have required that the designation of Medal recipients be evenly divided between the Republicans and Democrats, which he argued would ensure that the minority party in Congress would always have at least one opportunity per year to name a worthy Medal recipient. Republicans countered that the current practice of requiring co-sponsorship by two-thirds of the Congress for any potential Medal recipient already ensures a bipartisan process. Crowley's amendment was defeated by a nearly party-line vote of 182 to 211; thus, the bill contains no official guarantee that the minority party-presently the Democrats-will be able to honor an individual of their choosing with the Congressional Gold Medal.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 10
Jan 26, 2005
H.R. 54. Congressional Gold Medal Program/Vote to Defeat an Amendment Increasing Number of Congressional Gold Medals that Congress Can Award in a Two-Year Period.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment by Joe Crowley (D-NY) to H.R. 54, a bill sponsored by Michael Castle (R-DE), that would implement new restrictions in the Congressional Gold Medal program. (The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor awarded by Congress to persons who perform great acts of service to the country.) H.R. 54 would limit the number of Congressional Gold Medals that could be awarded to two per year, and further would only permit the Medal to be awarded to individuals, not couples or groups. Crowley's amendment would have increased the number of Medals that could be awarded from the number set forth in H.R. 54 to six per each two-year Congress (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress"), which he argued was only a minor change from the number specified in the bill. Crowley maintained that six per two years represented a small enough number to meet the Republicans' goals of preserving the prestige of the "highest civilian honor bestowed by Congress" (Michael Oxley, R-OH), and noted that many worthy past recipients would not have received the Medal if the restriction proposed by H.R. 54 had been in place at the time of their awards. Republicans countered that the small number of annual awards contained in H.R. 54 represented the necessary limit to contain a program that, like the commemorative coin program, had "spun out of control," and further noted that only 45 Congressional Gold Medals had been granted in the first 123 years of the United States's existence, but that "Congresses have awarded nearly 10 times that many in just 10 years." (Oxley.) Crowley's amendment was defeated by a nearly party-line vote of 189 to 212; thus, the restriction of Medal awards to two per year remained in the bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 7
Jan 06, 2005
Electoral College/Vote to Override an Objection to Certification of Presidential Electors from Ohio.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House voted 31 to 267 to override an objection raised by Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) to the certification of electors (persons who, based on the results of the November presidential elections, were designated to cast their votes for particular candidates in the Electoral College, the constitutionally created body that technically elects the President of the United States) from Ohio in the U.S. presidential election. Jones based her objection on the grounds that the electors' votes were not "regularly given," meaning that there were substantial problems with the voting in Ohio in the November presidential election, such as lines to vote that were so long that people left in frustration without casting their vote, thus creating doubt about the casting of Ohio's electoral votes for President George W. Bush. Following a presidential election, the U.S. Senate and House meet in a joint session and, via a roll call of the states, certify the electoral votes for each state. If a representative raises an objection to certification that is also signed by a senator, then by law the joint session is interrupted and the objection is heard by the House alone. Jones, whose objection was signed by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), pointed out that ongoing lawsuits existed in Ohio regarding the alleged denial of ballots to voters, and contended that these irregularities ought to be addressed before Ohio's votes could be certified and the roll call of the electors could proceed. Progressives further argued that "there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior," (Conyers (D-MI)). Progressives offered the results of a substantial investigation to support their case, and advocated the adoption of uniform standards for U.S. federal elections. Republicans, noting that neither the Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, nor the Democratic State Chairman in Ohio had raised objections to the balloting in Ohio, countered that Progressives' objection was frivolous and designed only to generate public distrust of the electoral results. The Progressives' objections were overridden by a wide margin; thus, the roll call continued, all electors were certified, and President George W. Bush was elected to his second term as President of the United States.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Ensuring Fair Elections
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 6
Jan 04, 2005
H. Res. 5. Rules of the House of Representatives/Vote on Final Passage of Republican-Drafted Resolution Establishing Rules to Govern the 109th Congress.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House agreed 220 to 195 to H. Res. 5, the Republican-drafted resolution establishing the rules that would govern the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress.") These rules must be re-adopted every two years when a new Congress begins. H. Res. 5 contained a number of significant changes from the rules that governed the 108th Congress, including the creation of a Committee on Homeland Security, the introduction of the concept of a "provisional quorum" (provisional majority required in order for Congress to vote and otherwise conduct certain business) in the case of catastrophe, and changes in ethics-related provisions designed to make it easier for the committee with oversight responsibility for internal ethics questions to dismiss complaints against House members. Democrats objected to the section of the bill establishing procedures for governance by provisional quorum, arguing that this measure would unconstitutionally alter the manner in which Congress is to operate in the event of a catastrophe. They argued that this change to the rules would, in effect, be amending the Constitution because it would permit the Speaker "nearly unfettered authority to change the number of the Members of the whole House to exclude Members who are chosen, sworn, and living . . . . This would seem to amount to a constructive expulsion without a [constitutionally required] two-thirds vote of the whole House." ( Nadler, D-NY.) (The U.S. Constitution requires two-thirds of the House to vote to expel a member from its ranks.) In addition, Democrats objected to provisions in the Resolution which they believed would weaken House ethics standards. These objections included, first, a provision which would change the outcome of a complaint on which the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the House committee with oversight over internal ethics issues) was deadlocked from sending it to an investigator to letting the matter drop. Second, Democrats objected to a provision that would eliminate the requirement that the Committee act on complaints within 45 days, thereby letting Republicans "bury" ethics complaints in the Committee. Finally, a number of Democrats expressed concerns about the jurisdiction (areas of responsibility) of the new Committee on Homeland Security, which was gathered from the jurisdiction of several already existing committees. Republicans countered that not only was the provisional quorum provision constitutional, but the entire package of rules was tightly constructed and observed a high standard of ethics, and that the jurisdiction of the new committee was appropriately drawn. The resolution passed on a strict party-line vote. Thus, the rules under which the House will operate for the two-year duration of the 109th Congress passed as proposed by Republicans and include rules which Democrats, including Progressives, will have to follow, despite the fact that many Democrats believe some of the rules to be unconstitutional or unfair.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 5
Jan 04, 2005
H. Res. 5. Rules of the House of Representatives/Vote on a Motion to Commit with Instructions (Last Effort to Amend or Kill) Republican-Drafted Resolution Establishing Rules to Govern the 109th Congress.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House voted 196 to 219 against a motion to commit with instructions (send to committee for further consideration and/or amendment; a motion to commit with instructions is often a minority party's last effort to try to amend or kill the legislation in question) H. Res. 5, the Republican-drafted resolution establishing the rules that would govern the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress.") These rules must be re-adopted every two years when a new Congress begins. H. Res. 5 contained a number of significant changes from the rules that governed the 108th Congress, including the creation of a Committee on Homeland Security, the introduction of the concept of a "provisional quorum" (provisional majority required in order for Congress to vote and otherwise conduct certain business) in the case of catastrophe and changes in ethics-related provisions designed to make it easier for the committee with oversight responsibility for internal ethics questions to dismiss complaints against House members. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) offered this motion on behalf of Democrats to "prohibit Members from negotiating lucrative job deals that capitalize on their committee membership" and to "guarantee that Members have at least 3 days to read a House report [from a committee] before voting on it." The latter provision, she argued would prevent bills from being "rushed to the floor" without members having had the chance to read them, as well as guard against staff slipping "outrageous provisions" into bills at the last minute. Republicans countered that the package of rules in its entirety would uphold a very high ethics standard for the House, and in order to demonstrate their support for the package as a whole, they voted against the motion. Thus, consideration of the Resolution and the Republican-drafted rules package proceeded without the above-mentioned provisions, thus ensuring that these ethics safeguards would not be among those governing House conduct for the next two years.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 4
Jan 04, 2005
H. Res. 5. Rules of the House of Representatives/Procedural Vote to End Debate, Prevent Further Amendments and Proceed to a Vote on Final Passage of Republican-Drafted Resolution Establishing Rules to Govern the 109th Congress.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In this vote, the House voted 222 to 196 to order the previous question (end debate, prevent further amendments and proceed to a vote) on H. Res. 5, the Republican-drafted resolution establishing the rules that would govern the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress.") These rules must be re-adopted every two years when a new Congress begins. H. Res. 5 contained a number of significant changes from the rules that governed the 108th Congress, including the creation of a Committee on Homeland Security, the introduction of the concept of a "provisional quorum" (provisional majority required in order for Congress to vote and otherwise conduct certain business) in the case of catastrophe and changes in ethics-related provisions. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) argued on behalf of Democrats that the Republican-drafted ethics provisions of H. Res. 5 would "destroy" the House ethics process; specifically, she condemned a change in the operation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the House committee with oversight over internal ethics issues). Under previous rules, if the Committee, which is evenly divided between the parties, deadlocked on an ethics complaint, the complaint would automatically proceed to investigators. H. Res. 5 proposed to change this procedure by permitting a complaint that deadlocked the committee simply to die. In addition, H. Res. 5 proposed to eliminate the requirement that the Committee act on complaints within 45 days. Democrats argued that these changes would effectively grant the Republicans veto power over who might or might not be subject to an ethics investigation and would permit Republicans simply to ignore complaints by "running out the clock." Republicans countered that the package of rules in its entirety would uphold a very high ethics standard for the House, and that these provisions would guarantee due process (procedures to safeguard the rights of someone accused of wrongdoing) and "restore the presumption of innocence" to members against whom ethics complaints have been filed. By voting along party lines to order the previous question, the House allowed consideration of the Republican rules package to proceed with the ethics proposals intact, thereby making it easier effectively to dismiss ethics complaints.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Enforcing Congressional Ethics
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 3
Jan 04, 2005
H. Res. 5. Rules of the House of Representatives/Vote on a Point of Order Asserting that Proposed Rules Governing House of Representatives Permitting a "Provisional Quorum" to Govern House of Representatives in the Event of a Catastrophe is Unconstitutional.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House voted to proceed to consideration of H. Res. 5, the Republican-drafted resolution establishing the rules that would govern the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. (Each two-year period beginning in January following congressional elections the previous November is considered a "Congress.") These rules must be re-adopted every two years when a new Congress begins. H. Res. 5 contained a number of significant changes from the rules that governed the 108th Congress, including the creation of a Committee on Homeland Security, the introduction of the concept of a "provisional quorum" (provisional majority required in order for Congress to vote and otherwise conduct certain business) in the case of catastrophe, and changes in ethics-related provisions. In this vote, Brian Baird (D-WA) raised a point of order (interruption in the proceedings contending that consideration of the pending legislation or other current business is improper and violates the Constitution or other law or House rules; points of order take precedence over pending legislation and must be resolved before the House can continue its other business) against the resolution containing the proposed rules. Baird argued on behalf of Democrats that the proposed rules contained an unconstitutional provision permitting the Speaker of the House (the highest-ranking member of the House of Representatives; the Speaker is always a member of the majority party), in the case of "catastrophic circumstances," to conduct House business with a quorum of House members who are physically available. This provision ran counter to the usual requirement that a quorum of House members duly elected and sworn in be present for the conduct of House business. Democrats stated that this change to the rules would, in effect, be amending the Constitution because it would permit the Speaker "nearly unfettered authority to change the number of the Members of the whole House to exclude Members who are chosen, sworn, and living . . . . This would seem to amount to a constructive expulsion without a [constitutionally required] two-thirds vote of the whole House." (Nadler, D-NY.) (The U.S. Constitution requires two-thirds of the House to vote to expel a member from its ranks.) Democrats further argued that the Constitution requires amendment to address the question of how to govern the country in the event of an act of mass terrorism or other catastrophe affecting Congress, but that such an amendment would need to be completed via the amendment process as set forth in the Constitution, and the Republican resolution did not follow that requirement. Republicans responded that this rule change would be constitutional because "the Constitution as drafted permits the Congress to ensure the preservation of government." The Speaker (in this context, member of Congress presiding over floor proceedings) determined that the outcome of Baird's point of order ought to be determined by a vote of the House, and the House voted 224 to 192-almost completely along party lines-to proceed to consideration of the resolution, meaning that it believed the proposed rule to be constitutional. Thus, the provision altering the manner in which the House might govern in the case of certain emergencies was retained in the rule, so that the Speaker of the House could, in the event of a "catastrophe," conduct official legislative business without the majority of 435 elected members of the House of Representatives specified in the Constitution.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 541
Nov 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5382 Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Lost
Roll Call 540
Nov 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 866 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4818) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005, and providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) Further Continuing Appropriations for FY 2005
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 538
Nov 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 846 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of Rule XIII with respect to the same day consideration of certain resolutions reported by the Rules committee
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 536
Nov 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 2986 To amend title 31 of the United States Code to increase the public debt limit
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 535
Nov 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Commit with Instructions: S 2986 To amend title 31 of the United States Code to increase the public debt limit
On Motion to Commit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 534
Nov 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 856 Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 2986) to amend title 31 of the United States Code to increase the public debt limit
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 527
Oct 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 518 Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 526
Oct 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 845
On Motion to Table

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 525
Oct 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: S 2845 To reform the intelligence community and the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, and for other purposes
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 524
Oct 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 843 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 4200, National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 523
Oct 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 10 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 522
Oct 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 10 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 521
Oct 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 519
Oct 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 518
Oct 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 517
Oct 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 516
Oct 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 515
Oct 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 514
Oct 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 510
Oct 07, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 509
Oct 07, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4520 American Jobs Creation Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 506
Oct 07, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 828 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 499
Oct 06, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 819 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5212) making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, for additional disaster assistance relating to storm damage, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 493
Oct 05, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: S 878 To authorize an additional permanent judgeship in the district of Idaho, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 492
Oct 05, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to S 878
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 491
Oct 05, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 814 Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 878) to authorize an additional permanent judgeship in the district of Idaho, and for other purposes.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 490
Oct 05, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 814 Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 878) to authorize an additional permanent judgeship in the district of Idaho, and for other purposes.
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 484
Sep 30, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 106 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 480
Sep 30, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5183 Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 478
Sep 29, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 107 Continuing Appropriations for FY 2005
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 477
Sep 29, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3193 District of Columbia Personal Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 476
Sep 29, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4520 American Jobs Creation Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 473
Sep 28, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4200 DOD Authorization, Fiscal Year 2005
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 472
Sep 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1308 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax relief and simplification, and for other purposes.
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 471
Sep 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 794 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the increase in the refundability of the child tax credit, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 470
Sep 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 794 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the increase in the refundability of the child tax credit, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 469
Sep 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 785 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 467
Sep 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2028 Pledge Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 466
Sep 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2028
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 464
Sep 22, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 5025 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2005
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 461
Sep 22, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 5025
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 460
Sep 21, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 5025
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 459
Sep 21, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 5025
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 458
Sep 21, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5025
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 457
Sep 21, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 5025
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 456
Sep 15, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 5025
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 453
Sep 14, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5025
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 452
Sep 14, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5025
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 450
Sep 14, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4571 Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 449
Sep 14, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4571 Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 448
Sep 14, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4571
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 445
Sep 14, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 3369 Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 444
Sep 14, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 766 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4571) to amend rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 439
Sep 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 5006
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 437
Sep 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 5006
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 435
Sep 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 5006
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 434
Sep 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 5006
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 432
Sep 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1308 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax relief and simplification, and for other purposes.
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 430
Sep 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 5006 Making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes
On Motion that the Committee Rise

N N Lost
Roll Call 429
Sep 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 5006
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 427
Sep 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 5006
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 426
Sep 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5006
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 425
Sep 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5006
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 424
Sep 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 754 Providing for consideration of the bill (H. R. 5006) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 421
Jul 22, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1308 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax relief and simplification, and for other purposes.
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 416
Jul 22, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4837 Making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 413
Jul 22, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4842 United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 410
Jul 22, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3313 Marriage Protection Act of 2004
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 407
Jul 22, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 738 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4842) to implement the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 401
Jul 21, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 732 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4837) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 400
Jul 21, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 732 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4837) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 397
Jul 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3574 Stock Option Accounting Reform Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 396
Jul 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3574
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 395
Jul 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3574
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 394
Jul 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3574
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 389
Jul 15, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4818
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 388
Jul 15, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4818
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 387
Jul 15, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4818
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 386
Jul 15, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4818
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 385
Jul 15, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4818
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 384
Jul 15, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 375
Jul 14, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4759 United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 373
Jul 14, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 4418 Customs Border Security and Trade Agencies Authorization Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 371
Jul 14, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 712 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4759) to implement the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 369
Jul 13, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4766
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 367
Jul 13, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4766
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 366
Jul 13, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4766
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 364
Jul 13, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4766
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 363
Jul 13, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4766
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 361
Jul 12, 2004
A Democratic-requested vote on a motion to send the $2.7 billion fiscal year 2005 legislative appropriations branch spending bill (H.R. 4755) back to its committee of origin, with instructions that the bill impose a $25,000 limit on the amount that any single committee can spend on postage during fiscal year 2005.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 359
Jul 12, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4755 Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 358
Jul 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3598 Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 357
Jul 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3598
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 356
Jul 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3598
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 355
Jul 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3598
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 354
Jul 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2828 Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 352
Jul 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 711 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2828) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement water supply technology and infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water resources
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 351
Jul 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 711 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2828) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement water supply technology and infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water resources
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 350
Jul 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 711 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2828) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement water supply technology and infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water resources
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 348
Jul 09, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H RES 711 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2828) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement water supply technology and infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water resources
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 345
Jul 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4754 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 342
Jul 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 4754
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 341
Jul 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4754
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 340
Jul 08, 2004
A vote on passage of a Republican amendment which would ensure that no money appropriated in FY05 to fund the Commerce, Justice and State departments (H.R. 4754) would be used to promote legalization of prostitution or sex trafficking, and that no funds would be allotted to any group or organization that does not have a policy that is explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, Domestic
HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, International
N N Lost
Roll Call 339
Jul 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4754
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 337
Jul 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 706 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3598, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 336
Jul 08, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 707 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4755, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 334
Jul 07, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4754
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 333
Jul 07, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4754
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 332
Jul 07, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4754
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 330
Jul 07, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4754
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 329
Jul 07, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4754
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 328
Jul 07, 2004
A vote on an amendment to help small businesses by shifting $79 million from other accounts to the Small Business Administration's guaranteed lending program, to help keep fees assessed to lenders and borrowers at current rates.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


WAR & PEACE General US Intervention Overseas
Y Y Won
Roll Call 323
Jun 25, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4614
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 322
Jun 25, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4614
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 321
Jun 25, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4614
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 320
Jun 25, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 694 Providing for consideration of H. R. 4614, Energy and Water Appropriations, FY 2005
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 319
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 691 Congratulating the Interim Government of Iraq on its forthcoming assumption of sovereign authority in Iraq
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 318
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4663 Spending Control Act
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 317
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4663 Spending Control Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 316
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4663
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 314
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4663
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 313
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4663
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 312
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4663
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 310
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4663
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 309
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4663
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 307
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4663
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 306
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4663
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 305
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4663
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 303
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 692 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4663) to amend part C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to extend the discretionary spending limits and pay-as-you-go through fiscal year 2009
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 302
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 692 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4663) to amend part C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to extend the discretionary spending limits and pay-as-you-go through fiscal year 2009
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 301
Jun 24, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 685 Revising the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 as it applies in the House of Representatives
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 300
Jun 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4548 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 299
Jun 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4548 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 298
Jun 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4548
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 297
Jun 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4548
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 293
Jun 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4548
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 292
Jun 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4548
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 291
Jun 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4548
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 287
Jun 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 686 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4548) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability system, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 286
Jun 23, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 686 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4548) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability system, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 283
Jun 22, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4613
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 280
Jun 22, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 683 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4613) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 279
Jun 22, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 683 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4613) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 274
Jun 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4567
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 273
Jun 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4567
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 272
Jun 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4567
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 271
Jun 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4567
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 270
Jun 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4567
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 269
Jun 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4567
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 268
Jun 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4567
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 267
Jun 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4567
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 266
Jun 17, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4567
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 265
Jun 17, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4567
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 264
Jun 17, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4568 Making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 263
Jun 17, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4568
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 262
Jun 17, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4568
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 261
Jun 17, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4568
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 259
Jun 17, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4520 American Jobs Creation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 258
Jun 17, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4520 American Jobs Creation Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 257
Jun 17, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 681 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4520) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service, and high-technology businesses and workers more competitive and productive both at home and abroad
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 256
Jun 17, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 681 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4520) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service, and high-technology businesses and workers more competitive and productive both at home and abroad
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 254
Jun 16, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: H R 4568
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 253
Jun 16, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4568
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 252
Jun 16, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4568
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 251
Jun 16, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4568
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 250
Jun 16, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4568
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 248
Jun 16, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4568
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 247
Jun 16, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 4545 The Gasoline Price Reduction Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 246
Jun 16, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4517 United States Refinery Revitalization Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 244
Jun 16, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 675 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4567, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 243
Jun 16, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 675 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4567, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 242
Jun 15, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4513 To provide that in preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement required under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with respect to any action authorizing a renewable energy project, no Federal agency is required to identify alternative project locations etc...
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 241
Jun 15, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4503 Energy Policy Act of 2004
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 240
Jun 15, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4503 Energy Policy Act of 2004
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 239
Jun 15, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 672 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4513, Environmental Review for Renewable Energy Projects; and H.R. 4529, Arctic Coastal Plain and Surface Mining Improvement Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 238
Jun 15, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 672 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4513, Environmental Review for Renewable Energy Projects; and H.R. 4529, Arctic Coastal Plain and Surface Mining Improvement Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 237
Jun 15, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 671 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4503, Energy Policy Act; and H.R. 4517, United States Refinery Revitalization Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 236
Jun 15, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 671 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4503, Energy Policy Act; and H.R. 4517, United States Refinery Revitalization Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 234
Jun 14, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 4323 To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide rapid acquisition authority to the Secretary of Defense to respond to combat emergencies
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Lost
Roll Call 225
Jun 03, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 444 Back to Work Investment Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 224
Jun 03, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 444 Back to Work Investment Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 218
Jun 02, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 83 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the appointment of individuals to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 217
Jun 02, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 656 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 444) to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish a Personal Reemployment Accounts grant program to assist Americans in returning to work
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 216
Jun 02, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 656
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 215
Jun 02, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 656 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 444) to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish a Personal Reemployment Accounts grant program to assist Americans in returning to work
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 214
Jun 02, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 657 Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 83) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the appointment of individuals to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 213
Jun 02, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 657 Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 83) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the appointment of individuals to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 209
May 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4359 Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 208
May 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4359
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 207
May 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 432 Adjournment of Both Houses of Congress
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 206
May 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4200 DOD Authorization, Fiscal Year 2005
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 205
May 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4200 DOD Authorization, Fiscal Year 2005
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 204
May 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 203
May 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 200
May 20, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 198
May 19, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S CON RES 95 Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for FY 2005
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 197
May 19, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 196
May 19, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 194
May 19, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 648 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4200) DOD Authorization, FY 2005
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 193
May 19, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 648 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4200) DOD Authorization, FY 2005
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 192
May 19, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 649 Providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 95) the Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for FY 2005
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 191
May 19, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 649 Providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 95) the Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for FY 2005
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 189
May 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2731 Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act of 2004
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 188
May 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2432 Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 187
May 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2432
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 185
May 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2730 Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act of 2004
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 184
May 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2729 Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 183
May 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2728 Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 181
May 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2660 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, Appropriations FY 2004
On Motion to Table Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 180
May 18, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 645 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2728, H.R. 2729, H.R. 2730, H.R. 2731 and H.R. 2432.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 174
May 13, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4281 Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2004
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 173
May 13, 2004
A vote on a Democratic motion to send back to its drafting committee HR 4281, -- legislation allowing small business to band together as a means of lowering the cost of providing their employees with health insurance -- with instructions that the bill must not preempt state regulations regarding coverage for breast cancer, pregnancy and childbirth, and well-child OB/GYN services.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 172
May 13, 2004
Vote on passage of a Democratic substitute to the Republican-backed HR 4281, legislation designed to enable small businesses to join together to form ``associations'' that will leverage their collective buying power to get lower-cost health insurance for their employees

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 171
May 13, 2004
A vote on a Democratic motion to instruct House conferees reconciling their chamber's Republican-backed budget resolution (S CON RES 95) with that of the Senate, to adopt the Senate's position that tax cuts and other pending contributing to raising the deficit should have corresponding offsets somewhere else in the budget.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 170
May 13, 2004
A vote on final passage of Bush administration-backed legislation (HR 4275), which would make permanent certain soon-to-expire income tax breaks for middle and lower income earners.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y N Lost
Roll Call 169
May 13, 2004
A vote on passage of a Democratic substitute bill to a White House supported measure (HR 4275) which would make permanent certain income tax cuts on middle and lower-income individuals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 166
May 12, 2004
A vote on final passage of medical malpractice liability reform legislation (HR 4280) to rein in "frivolous" lawsuits by curtailing an individual's right to sue for medical-related damages.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HEALTH CARE Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 165
May 12, 2004
A vote on a Democratic motion to send back to committee for redrafting medical malpractice legislation (HR 4280) to ensure that any monetary savings afforded to insurers from the bill's goal of reining in medical lawsuits would be passed onto health insurance policyholders

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 163
May 12, 2004
A vote on passage of Republican legislation (HR 4279) updating "flexible spending arrangements" (FSAs), which enable individuals who have health insurance through an employee to set aside money in an employer-established benefit plan that can be used on a tax-free basis to meet their out-of-pocket health care expenses during the year.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
N N Lost
Roll Call 162
May 12, 2004
A vote on a Democratic motion to recommit (send back to committee) Republican healthcare legislation (HR 4279), with instructions that none of the bill's tax breaks would be footed by dipping into Social Security Trust Fund monies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Preserving Social Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 161
May 12, 2004
A vote on a Democratic substitute to a Republican-backed bill (HR 4279), a bill that grants further tax exemptions for employees who channel portions of their salaries into an employer-established health care fund called "flexible spending account" (FSA).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 159
May 12, 2004

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2660 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, Appropriations FY 2004
On Motion to Table Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 158
May 12, 2004
A vote on a Republican-drafted resolution allowing for consideration of three health-care related bills (HR4279, HR4280, HR4281), including a bill that Democrats said would create a tax shelter for "the healthy and wealthy" to preserve tax free health care spending accounts, and in so doing add billions to the deficit over a decade.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
N N Lost
Roll Call 157
May 12, 2004
A vote on a Republican motion to order the previous question -- thus ending debate and possibility of amendment -- on adoption of the rule (H Res 638) to provide for House floor consideration of three health care related bills (HR4279, HR4280, HR4281), measures which Democrats labeled as an assault on the U.S. healthcare system.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
N N Lost
Roll Call 156
May 12, 2004
A vote on a Republican motion to order the previous question -- thus ending debate and possibility of amendment -- on adoption of the rule (H Res 637) to provide for House floor consideration of the bill (H.R. 4275) that would make permanent a tax break on middle-class earners.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 150
May 06, 2004
A vote on passage of a Republican-drafted resolution (H Res 627) entitled "Deploring the Abuse of Persons in United States Custody in Iraq," which Democrats say does not go far enough in terms of holding anyone accountable for such abuses.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 147
May 06, 2004
A vote by the full House on a Republican motion to "order the previous question" (cut off debate) on this resolution (H Res 628) condemning the harsh treatment of Iraqi prisoners, but which Democrats say fails to call for accountability, including an independent congressional inquiry into the prison abuses.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 145
May 05, 2004
A vote on a Democratic motion to instruct House members participating in a conference committee with Senate budgeters on a compromise fiscal year 2005 budget resolution (S Con Res 95) to agree to the Senate's position that tax cuts and spending increases must be paid for with corresponding revenue increases or tax hikes somewhere else in the budget.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 144
May 05, 2004
A vote on final passage of the Republican Alternative Minimum Tax bill (HR 4227) to extend for one year the current income exemptions -- up to $40,250 for individual taxpayers and $58,000 for married couples -- from the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 143
May 05, 2004
A vote on a Democratic substitute to the Republican-backed Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) bill (HR 4227) which would exempt individuals with gross incomes of less than $125,000 and married couples with incomes below $250,000 from the AMT in 2005.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 142
May 05, 2004
Vote on a Republican motion to "order the previous question" -- thus ending debate and possibility of amendment -- on adoption of the rule (H Res 619) to provide for House floor consideration of a bill (HR 4227) that would extend for one year the current income exemptions from the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 138
Apr 28, 2004
A vote on final passage by the full House of the Republican "Marriage Penalty Relief Act" (HR 4181) would permanently eliminate the so-called marriage penalty by making the standard tax deduction for married couples double that of single taxpayers to the tune of $105 billion over 10 years.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 137
Apr 28, 2004
A vote on a Democratic motion to send back to its committee of origin for redrafting the White House-backed "Marriage Penalty Relief Act" (H R 4181) to amend the Internal Revenue Code to permanently extend the increased standard tax deduction for married taxpayers filing joint returns.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 136
Apr 28, 2004
A House Vote on passage of a Democratic substitute to a Republican-drafted measure (HR 4181) designed to eliminate the "marriage penalty" contained in federal tax law by amending the Internal Revenue Code to permanently extend the increased standard tax deduction for married taxpayers filing joint returns.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 130
Apr 22, 2004
A vote on final passage of the Republican-drafted Continuity in Representation Act (HR 2844) designed to ensure the continuity of the House of Representatives in the event of a massive disaster.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y N Lost
Roll Call 129
Apr 22, 2004
A vote on a Democratic amendment to the "Continuity in Representation Act (HR 2844) -- a bill permitting expedited elections to assure the House's continued functioning in case large numbers of its members are killed in a terrorist attack or other catastrophe - striking the bill's 10-day deadline for political parties to select nominees.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 128
Apr 22, 2004
A vote on passage of a Democratic amendment that would have altered the Republican "Continuity in Representation Act" (HR 2844) -- a measure designed to ensure the continuity of the House membership in the event of a catastrophe that kills most of the House members -- by extending the time frame for conducting special elections from 45 to 75 days.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 127
Apr 22, 2004
A vote on passage of a rulemaking underlying the Continuity in Representation Act (HR 2844) that allows the full chamber to begin consideration of a measure designed to provide for new elections in the event more than 100 representatives are killed in a mass catastrophe.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 126
Apr 22, 2004
A Democratic-requested procedural vote related to the Republican-drafted "Continuity in Representation Act" (HR 2844) in an attempt to keep the bill from advancing on the House floor. The bill provides a statutory plan for salvaging the legislative branch of government, in the event a large number of House lawmakers were killed, such as through a major terrorist attack.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 117
Apr 02, 2004
A vote on final passage of a pension reform conference report -- the culmination of House and Senate negotiations to reconcile their differing bills - which would allow the bill to pass the House and travel to President Bush's desk for his signature.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
N N Lost
Roll Call 116
Apr 02, 2004
A vote on a Democratic motion offered in protest over their inability to shape a Republican-drafted pension bill (HR 3108) and to send the measure back to its committee of origin for reconsideration.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 115
Apr 02, 2004
In a show of protest by Democrats over the Congress' lack of legislative accomplishments, Democrats requested this vote on passage of a customary resolution (H Con Res 404) offered by Republicans that would permit the House and Senate to adjourn for the chambers' two-week-long April recess.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
N N Lost
Roll Call 113
Apr 02, 2004
A vote on a Democratic motion to send back the Republican highway funding bill (HR 3550) bill to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with instructions to increase funding for the bill to the Senate-passed level of $318 billion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 112
Apr 02, 2004
A vote on passage of a Republican amendment to the highway funding bill (HR 3550) that would increase the number of state projects included in the federal government's calculation for determining the minimum of funding support for each state.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
N N Won
Roll Call 111
Apr 02, 2004
A vote on passage of a Republican amendment that would insert in the House highway bill (HR 3550) language that would permit tolls only on new voluntary-use lanes until the new lanes are paid for as opposed to letting those tolls to continue to operate in order to pay for routine road maintenance.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Lost
Roll Call 108
Apr 01, 2004
A vote on passage of a Republican amendment to the highway transportation bill (HR 3550) that would have allowed heavy trucks to add air ventilation units weighing up to 400 pounds to their rigs as a way of reducing fuel emissions, but which would place more wear and tear on the road.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
N N Won
Roll Call 105
Apr 01, 2004
A procedural vote to cut off Democratic debate and the possibility of hostile amendments to a Republican bill to fund federal highway and highway safety programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 104
Mar 31, 2004
A vote on passage of a Democratic resolution (H.Res.585), which states that federal civilian employees will receive the same annual pay raise as military personnel in fiscal year 2005.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Won
Roll Call 101
Mar 30, 2004
A vote on final passage of the Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act (H R 3966), a bill that affords military recruiters open access to students even as the military denies access to its ranks based on an applicant's sexual orientation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 98
Mar 30, 2004
A vote on a procedural motion made by Republicans, to cut off Democratic debate in opposition to the Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act (H.R. 3966), a bill that would grant military recruiters the same access to students at higher learning centers as have other prospective employers, even if the learning centers in question take offense at the military's practice of discriminating against recruiting homosexuals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Gay Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 97
Mar 30, 2004
Democrats forced a vote on a motion instructing House conferees working to reconcile their chamber's Republican-drafted fiscal year 2005 budget with that of the Senate to adopt the Senate's bipartisan pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules, which require that both spending increases and tax cuts are paid for somewhere else in the budget, either through spending cuts or revenues increased.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 92
Mar 25, 2004
H. Con. Res. 393. Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution/Vote on Final Passage of the Republican Version of the Budget Resolution Which Would Provide $152.6 Billion in Tax Cuts Over Five Years and Spending Increases in Social Security, Medicare, Defense Spending, and Homeland Security Protections.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 91
Mar 25, 2004
H. Con. Res. 393. Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution/ Vote on the Blue Dog Democrats' Version of the Budget Resolution Which Would Balance the Budget by 2012 and Prevent the Passage of Additional Tax Cuts Until Congress and the President Had Taken Action to Reduce the Deficit.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 90
Mar 25, 2004
H. Con. Res. 393. Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution/Vote on the Republican Study Committee's Version of the Budget Resolution Which Would Provide More Tax Cuts and Domestic Spending Reductions than the Republican Leadership's Version of the Budget Resolution.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Won
Roll Call 89
Mar 25, 2004
H. Con. Res. 393. Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution/Vote on the Blue Dog Democrats' Version of the Budget Resolution Which Would Balance the Budget by 2012 and Prevent the Passage of Additional Tax Cuts Until Congress and the President Had Taken Action to Reduce the Deficit.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 88
Mar 25, 2004
H. Con. Res. 393. Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution/Vote on the Congressional Black Caucus' Version of the Budget Resolution Which Would Reduce Previously-Enacted Tax Cuts to Wealthy Individuals and Increase Funding for Domestic Spending Priorities such as Education and Health Care.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 84
Mar 25, 2004
H. Con. Res. 393. Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution/Motion to Proceed to a Vote on the Rules of Debate Governing Consideration of the Budget Resolution.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 67
Mar 18, 2004
H.R. 1375. Financial Services Regulation/Vote on a Non-Binding Resolution Which Would Express the Sense of the Congress that Bank Merger Applications Should Assess the Impact of the Merger on the Communities Involved.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
N Y Lost
Roll Call 66
Mar 18, 2004
H.R. 1375. Financial Services Regulation/Vote to Prevent Commercial Banks From Charging Their Customers for Depositing Bad Checks Even if the Customer Did Not Know that the Check Would Bounce.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 64
Mar 17, 2004
H. Res. 557. War in Iraq and U.S. Troops/Vote on Final Passage of a Resolution Which Would Reaffirm that the United States and the World are Safer with the Removal of Saddam Hussein and His Regime from Power in Iraq.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 63
Mar 17, 2004
H. Res. 557. War in Iraq and U.S. Troops/Vote on the Rules Governing Debate on a Resolution Which Would Reaffirm that the United States and the World are Safer with the Removal of Saddam Hussein and His Regime from Power in Iraq.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 62
Mar 17, 2004
H. Res. 557. War in Iraq and U.S. Troops/Vote to Allow Consideration of the Rules Governing Debate on a Resolution Which Would Reaffirm that the United States and the World are Safer with the Removal of Saddam Hussein and His Regime from Power in Iraq.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 54
Mar 10, 2004
H.R. 339. Food Industry Lawsuits/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill to Shield the Fast Food Industry from Lawsuits Alleging that the Consumption of Fast Food Caused Weight-Related Health Problems Among Consumers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Genetically Engineered Organisms' Effect on Environment
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Dietary & Health Supplements Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Fast Food Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
HEALTH CARE Preventing Obesity
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 53
Mar 10, 2004
H.R. 339. Food Industry Lawsuits/Vote to Maintain Consumers' Access to the Courts for Alleged Weight-Related Health Problems Caused by the Consumption of Fast Food Until the Underlying Legislation Became Law.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Fast Food Industry
HEALTH CARE Preventing Obesity
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 52
Mar 10, 2004
H.R. 339. Food Industry Lawsuits/ Vote to Exclude Corporations That Sell Harmful Weight Loss Products or Dietary Supplements from the Legal Protections Contained in the Underlying Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Dietary & Health Supplements Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 51
Mar 10, 2004
H.R. 339. Food Industry Lawsuits/Vote to Exclude Corporations That Illegally Sell Downed Animal Meat to Humans from the Legal Protections Contained in the Underlying Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 50
Mar 10, 2004
H.R. 339. Food Industry Lawsuits/Vote to Exclude Producers and Distributors of Genetically-Modified Foods from the Legal Protections Contained in the Underlying Bill Unless They Fully Disclose the Exact Nature of Genetic Modifications Contained in Their Food.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Genetically Engineered Organisms' Effect on Environment
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Fast Food Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 49
Mar 10, 2004
H.R. 339. Food Industry Lawsuits/Vote to Preserve States' Rights to Litigate on Behalf of Consumers in Weight-Related Lawsuits Involving Alleged Violations of State Consumer Protection Laws.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Fast Food Industry
HEALTH CARE Preventing Obesity
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 48
Mar 10, 2004
H.R. 339. Food Industry Lawsuits/Vote to Preserve States' Rights to Litigate on Behalf of Consumers in Cases Involving Alleged Deception by Corporations on Issues of Obesity.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HEALTH CARE Preventing Obesity
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 31
Feb 26, 2004
H.R. 1997. Fetal Protection/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill Which Would Increase Penalties for Crimes Against Pregnant Women and Grant Fetuses Legal Rights Independent of Mothers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 30
Feb 26, 2004
H.R. 1997. Fetal Protection/Vote on Democratic Version Which Would Increase Penalties for Crimes Against Pregnant Women Without Granting Fetuses Legal Rights Independent of Mothers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 22
Feb 11, 2004
H.R. 743. Social Security Protection Act/Motion to Proceed to a Vote on the Rules Governing Debate on a Bill to Prevent Retired Public Employees in Texas and Georgia from Claiming the Retirement Benefits of a Dead Spouse.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Lost
Roll Call 18
Feb 04, 2004
H.R. 3030. Community Services Block Grants/Vote to Extend Unemployment Benefits to Jobless Americans by Six Months.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
Y Y Won
Roll Call 17
Feb 04, 2004
H.R. 3030. Community Services Block Grants/Vote on Democratic Version Which Would Prevent Organizations Which Receive Taxpayer Funding to Conduct Anti-Poverty Programs from Discriminating Against Potential Employees on the Basis of Religion and Requiring Recipients of Poverty Aid to Participate in Religious Activities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 16
Feb 04, 2004
H.R. 3030. Community Services Block Grants/Vote to Prevent Organizations Which Receive Taxpayer Funding to Conduct Anti-Poverty Programs from Requiring Recipients of Poverty Aid to Participate in Religious Activities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 15
Feb 04, 2004
H.R. 3030. Community Services Block Grants/Vote to Prevent Organizations Which Receive Taxpayer Funding to Conduct Anti-Poverty Programs From Discriminating Against Potential Employees on the Basis of Religion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 11
Jan 28, 2004
S. 1920. Bankruptcy Extension and Overhaul/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Restore Conflict-of-Interest Provisions Which Would Prohibit Cozy Relationships Between Investment Banks and their Bankrupt Clients.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 10
Jan 28, 2004
S. 1920. Bankruptcy Extension and Overhaul/Vote on Final Passage of Bankruptcy Reform Legislation Which Would Limit the Availability of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Protections to Consumers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 9
Jan 28, 2004
S. 1920. Bankruptcy Extension and Overhaul/Vote to Recommit to Committee Bankruptcy Reform Legislation with Instructions to Strengthen Bankruptcy Protections for Active and Former U.S. Military Personnel and Their Families.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 8
Jan 28, 2004
S. 1920. Bankruptcy Extension and Overhaul/Vote to Make Permanent Chapter 12 Bankruptcy Protections for the Nation's Family Farmers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 677
Dec 08, 2003
H. Res. 474. Disapproval of Conduct.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

According to many Democrats in the House, Republican leaders have relied on heavy-handed and sometimes unethical tactics to ram their legislative agenda through Congress. During the vote on House passage of prescription drug legislation, Speaker Hastert (R-IL) extended a fifteen minute roll call vote to three hours in order to persuade Republican lawmakers who voted against the measure to change their vote (had the voting ended after fifteen minutes, which is the usual time allotted for House votes, the Republican-drafted prescription drug bill would have been defeated). Of even greater concern to Democrats were allegations of bribery involving Republican leaders and their rank-and-file. According to Representative Nick Smith (R-MI), Republican leaders offered to provide financial assistance to his son's House campaign if he would change his vote and support the prescription drug bill (Nick Smith's son, Brad Smith, had declared his candidacy for his father's seat after the elder Smith announced his plans to retire). Nick Smith declined the "offer" and, according to Smith, Republican leaders then threatened to withhold all support for Brad Smith's candidacy. In the view of Progressives, the alleged offers and threats made by Republican leaders to Representative Smith constituted bribery and, in an effort to sanction Republicans who participated in the alleged wrongdoing, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) drafted a resolution which would have formally disapproved of the three-hour prescription drug vote and the alleged bribery attempt on Representative Smith. During House debate on the resolution of disapproval, Congresswoman Johnson (R-CT) motioned to table (strike down) the resolution. Progressives opposed the tabling motion because, in their view, Republican leaders had acted inappropriately by holding a three-hour vote, possibly illegally by offering a bribe to Nick Smith, and needed to be formally admonished for their actions. Conservatives supported the tabling motion, argued that the alleged bribery had not occurred, and contended that the Speaker of the House had the right to extend the fifteen minute vote on the prescription drug bill to three-hours. On a perfectly party-line vote of 214-189, the motion to table was adopted, the resolution of disapproval was struck down, and a formal complaint was not lodged against Republican leaders for their actions during the vote on prescription drug legislation. (Note: The alleged bribery attempt on Representative Smith was referred to the House Ethics Committee and formal hearings on the matter were to commence in 2004.)


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Broadcast Media
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 676
Dec 08, 2003
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of an Omnibus Spending Bill to Fund the Operation of Government in 2004.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In a series of four procedural votes which were held prior to this vote, Republican leaders were able to circumvent House rules and pave the way for passage of the omnibus appropriations bill on the same day that it was reported out of committee (see Roll Call Votes 672, 673, 674, and 675). Each year, Congress must pass and the president must sign into law thirteen appropriations bills either separately or in the form of an omnibus bill in order to fund the operation of government. If all thirteen spending bills are not adopted by October 1, the end of the fiscal year, then the areas of government which failed to receive funding for the upcoming year shut down, a situation which occurred in 1995 when the Republican-controlled Congress and President Clinton failed to come to agreement on spending issues. Omnibus appropriations bills, which have increased in usage in recent years, bundle two or more of the thirteen individual appropriations bills into a single measure. Given their often enormous size and complexity, lawmakers readily admit that omnibus bills are not the ideal vehicle for debating budgetary issues. Nonetheless, if Congress appears unable to complete action on all thirteen spending bills by the end of the congressional session, then House leaders often rely on the omnibus method in order to expedite passage of those bills. Generally, lawmakers are less willing to oppose an omnibus bill based on specific policy or funding objections because omnibus legislation raises the stakes of budgetary policy-making (witness the public outcry in 1995 after the partial government shutdown). The subject of this vote was final passage of the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill, a bill which bundled seven uncompleted appropriations bills into one enormous spending package. Specifically, the omnibus bill included appropriations for the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs (more than seven federal departments are listed here because some appropriations bills, such as the Transportation and Treasury Department appropriations bill, include funding for more than one department). Progressives voted against the omnibus bill and argued that the Republicans' procedural tactics on the omnibus bill were in violation of the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives protested that holding House floor debate on the omnibus bill on the same day that it was reported from the Rules Committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the bill and understand its contents. Progressives also voiced specific policy objections to the seven appropriations bills which were lumped together into the omnibus legislation. While those objections are far too numerous to detail here, a sampling of complaints include the failure to extend unemployment benefits to the millions of out-of-work Americans, the inclusion of administration-supported rules to deny overtime pay to certain classes of white-collar workers, provisions to allow greater media concentration, and language to privatize some government jobs. Conservatives voted in favor of the omnibus bill and argued that the end of the congressional session justified their efforts to complete action on appropriations legislation. On a vote of 242-176, the 2004 omnibus spending bill was adopted and the measure was signed into law on January 23, 2004 and a partial government shutdown was narrowly avoided.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Broadcast Media
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 675
Dec 08, 2003
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations/Vote on the Rules of Debate Governing Consideration of the 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In two previous votes-Roll Call Votes 672 and 673-House rules were waived in order to allow omnibus appropriations legislation to be debated on the House floor despite the fact that the legislation was reported from committee earlier that day. Republican leaders wanted to enact the measure on the House floor as quickly as possible, while Democrats (including Progressives) protested that the consideration of this bill by the entire House on the same day that it was reported out of committee gave them insufficient time to read and understand the contents of the complex piece of legislation. This vote was the last of four procedural votes which were held prior to a vote on final passage of the omnibus appropriations bill. Before legislation can be officially debated on the House floor, (at least) two procedural matters must first be disposed of. The first involves a motion to proceed. If adopted, the motion to proceed (or, in Capitol Hill parlance, the "motion to order the previous question") allows the House to vote on the rules governing debate on a particular bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). Rules are required to set the terms of debate, including the amount of time allocated for discussion and the number and types of amendments which can be offered to a particular bill. After a rule has been reported out of the House Rules Committee, lawmakers are usually provided three days to review both the rule itself and, more importantly, the contents of the underlying legislation to which the rule would apply. If House leaders schedule a vote on a rule on the same day that it emerged from the Rules Committee, then a two-thirds majority vote, rather than a simple majority, must be obtained to adopt the rule (the two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a rule is intended to insure that lawmakers have ample time to review a particular piece of legislation prior to House floor debate). However, to circumvent the two-thirds vote requirement, Republican leaders secured passage of a resolution which waived that requirement and allowed a simple majority vote in favor of the rules governing debate on omnibus appropriations legislation (see House vote 673). Omnibus appropriations bills bundle two or more of the thirteen individual appropriations bills into a single measure (each year, Congress must pass and the president must sign into law thirteen appropriations bills either separately or in the form of an omnibus bill in order to fund the operation of government). Given their enormous size and complexity, lawmakers readily admit that omnibus bills are not the ideal vehicle for debating budgetary issues. Nonetheless, if Congress appears unable to complete action on all thirteen spending bills by the end of the congressional session, then House leaders often rely on the omnibus method in order to expedite passage of those bills. Generally, lawmakers are less willing to oppose an omnibus bill based on specific policy or funding objections because omnibus legislation raises the stakes of budgetary policy-making (if Congress fails to pass all thirteen spending bills by October 1, the end of the fiscal year, then the areas of government which failed to receive funding for the upcoming year shut down). The subject of this vote was the rules of debate on the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill (the 2004 omnibus bill contained seven uncompleted appropriations bills). Progressives opposed the rules of debate, which based a previous vote only required a simple majority for passage, and argued that the Republicans' procedural tactics on the omnibus bill were in violation of the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives protested that holding House floor debate on the omnibus bill on the same day that it was reported from the Rules Committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the bill and understand its contents. Progressives also voiced specific policy objections to the seven appropriations bills which were lumped together into the omnibus. While those objections are far too numerous to detail here, a sampling of complaints include the failure to extend unemployment benefits to the millions of out-of-work Americans, the inclusion of administration-supported rules to deny overtime pay to certain classes of white-collar workers, provisions to allow greater media concentration, and language to privatize some government jobs. Conservatives voted in favor of the rules of debate and argued that the end of the congressional session justified their efforts to complete action on appropriations legislation. On a party line vote of 216-189, the rules of debate were adopted and a vote was allowed on final passage of the 2004 omnibus spending bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Broadcast Media
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 674
Dec 08, 2003
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations/Motion to Proceed to a Vote on the Rules of Debate Governing Consideration of the 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In two previous votes-Roll Call Votes 672 and 673-House rules were waived in order to allow omnibus appropriations legislation to be debated on the House floor despite the fact that the legislation was reported from committee earlier that day. Republican leaders wanted to enact the measure on the House floor as quickly as possible, while Democrats (including Progressives) protested that the consideration of this bill by the entire House on the same day that it was reported out of committee gave them insufficient time to read and understand the contents of the complex piece of legislation. This vote was the third of four procedural votes which were held prior to a vote on final passage of the omnibus appropriations bill. Before legislation can be officially debated on the House floor, (at least) two procedural matters must first be disposed of. The first involves a motion to proceed. If adopted, the motion to proceed (or, in Capitol Hill parlance, the "motion to order the previous question") allows the House to vote on the rules governing debate on a particular bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). Rules are required to set the terms of debate, including the amount of time allocated for discussion and the number and types of amendments which can be offered to a particular bill. After a rule has been reported out of the House Rules Committee, lawmakers are usually provided three days to review both the rule itself and, more importantly, the contents of the underlying legislation to which the rule would apply. If House leaders schedule a vote on a rule on the same day that it emerged from the Rules Committee, then a two-thirds majority vote, rather than a simple majority, must be obtained to adopt the rule (the two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a rule is intended to insure that lawmakers have ample time to review a particular piece of legislation prior to House floor debate). However, to circumvent the two-thirds vote requirement, Republican leaders secured passage of a resolution which waived that requirement and allowed a simple majority vote in favor of the rules governing debate on omnibus appropriations legislation (see House vote 673). Omnibus appropriations bills bundle two or more of the thirteen individual appropriations bills into a single measure (each year, Congress must pass and the president must sign into law thirteen appropriations bills either separately or in the form of an omnibus bill in order to fund the operation of government). Given their often enormous size and complexity, lawmakers readily admit that omnibus bills are not the ideal vehicle for debating budgetary issues. Nonetheless, if Congress appears unable to complete action on all thirteen spending bills by the end of the congressional session, then House leaders often rely on the omnibus method in order to expedite passage of those bills. Generally, lawmakers are less willing to oppose an omnibus bill based on specific policy or funding objections because omnibus legislation raises the stakes of budgetary policy-making (if Congress fails to pass all thirteen spending bills by October 1, the end of the fiscal year, then the areas of government which failed to receive funding for the upcoming year shut down). The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate on the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill (the 2004 omnibus bill contained seven uncompleted appropriations bills). Progressives opposed the motion to proceed and argued that the Republicans' procedural tactics on the omnibus bill were in violation of the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives protested that holding House floor debate on the omnibus bill on the same day that it was reported from the Rules Committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the bill and understand its contents. Progressives also voiced specific policy objections to the seven appropriations bills which were lumped together into the underlying omnibus bill. While those objections are far too numerous to detail here, a sampling of complaints include the failure to extend unemployment benefits to the millions of out-of-work Americans, the inclusion of administration-supported rules to deny overtime pay to certain classes of white-collar workers, provisions to allow greater media concentration, and language to privatize some government jobs. Conservatives voted in favor of the motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate and argued that the end of the congressional session justified their efforts to complete action on appropriations legislation. On a perfectly party line vote of 214-189, the motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate on the 2004 omnibus spending bill was adopted.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Broadcast Media
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 673
Dec 08, 2003
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations/Vote on a Resolution Which Would Waive the Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Enacting the Rules of Debate Governing Consideration of the 2004 Omnibus Spending Bill on the Same Day that the Rules Were Reported From the House Rules Committee.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In a previous vote-Roll Call Vote 672-House rules were waived in order to allow omnibus appropriations legislation to be debated on the House floor despite the fact that the legislation was reported from committee earlier that day. Republican leaders wanted to enact the measure on the House floor as quickly as possible, while Democrats (including Progressives) protested that the consideration of this bill by the entire House on the same day that it was reported out of committee gave them insufficient time to read and understand the contents of the complex piece of legislation. This vote was the second of four procedural votes which were held prior to a vote on final passage of the omnibus appropriations bill. Before legislation can be officially debated on the House floor, (at least) two procedural matters must first be disposed of. The first involves a motion to proceed. If adopted, the motion to proceed (or, in Capitol Hill parlance, the "motion to order the previous question") allows the House to vote on the rules governing debate on a particular bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). Rules are required to set the terms of debate, including the amount of time allocated for discussion and the number and types of amendments which can be offered to a particular bill. After a rule has been reported out of the House Rules Committee, lawmakers are usually provided three days to review both the rule itself and, more importantly, the contents of the underlying legislation to which the rule would apply. If House leaders schedule a vote on a rule on the same day that it emerged from the Rules Committee, then a two-thirds majority vote, rather than a simple majority, must be obtained to adopt the rule (the two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a rule is intended to insure that lawmakers have ample time to review a particular piece of legislation prior to House floor debate). However, in an effort to circumvent the two-thirds vote requirement, Republican leaders in the House drafted a resolution which would waive that requirement and allow a simple majority vote in favor of the rules governing debate on omnibus appropriations legislation. Omnibus appropriations bills bundle two or more of the thirteen individual appropriations bills into a single measure (each year, Congress must pass and the president must sign into law thirteen appropriations bills either separately or in the form of an omnibus bill in order to fund the operation of government). Lawmakers readily admit that omnibus bills are not the ideal vehicle for debating budgetary issues. Nonetheless, if Congress appears unable to complete action on all thirteen spending bills by the end of the congressional session, then House leaders often rely on the omnibus method in order to expedite passage of those bills. Generally, lawmakers are less willing to oppose an omnibus bill based on specific policy or funding objections because omnibus legislation raises the stakes of budgetary policy-making (if Congress fails to pass all thirteen spending bills by October 1, the end of the fiscal year, then the areas of government which failed to receive funding for the upcoming year shut down). The subject of this vote was adoption of the resolution which would waive the two-thirds vote requirement required for same-day consideration of a rule governing debate on the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill (the 2004 omnibus bill contained seven uncompleted appropriations bills). Progressives characterized the resolution as yet another attempt by Republicans to violate both the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives protested that holding House floor debate on the omnibus bill on the same day that it was reported from the Rules Committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the bill and understand its contents. Progressives also voiced specific policy objections to the seven appropriations bills which were lumped together into the underlying omnibus bill. While those objections are far too numerous to detail here, a sampling of complaints include the failure to extend unemployment benefits to the millions of out-of-work Americans, the inclusion of administration-supported rules to deny overtime pay to certain classes of white-collar workers, provisions to allow greater media concentration, and language to privatize some government jobs. Conservatives voted in favor of the resolution and argued that the end of the congressional session justified their efforts to complete action on appropriations legislation. On a party line vote of 212-182, the resolution to waive the two-thirds vote requirement for same-day consideration of the rules of debate on the 2004 omnibus spending bill was adopted.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Broadcast Media
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Absent N Lost
Roll Call 672
Dec 08, 2003
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations/Motion to Proceed to a Vote on a Resolution Which Would Waive the Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Enacting the Rules of Debate Governing Consideration of the 2004 Omnibus Spending Bill on the Same Day that the Rules Were Reported From the House Rules Committee.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before legislation can be officially debated on the House floor, (at least) two procedural matters must first be disposed of. The first involves a motion to proceed. If adopted, the motion to proceed (or, in Capitol Hill parlance, the "motion to order the previous question") allows the House to vote on the rules governing debate on a particular bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). Rules are required to set the terms of debate, including the amount of time allocated for discussion and the number and types of amendments which can be offered to a particular bill. After a rule has been reported out of the House Rules Committee, lawmakers are usually provided three days to review both the rule itself and, more importantly, the contents of the underlying legislation to which the rule would apply. If House leaders schedule a vote on a rule on the same day that it emerged from the Rules Committee, then a two-thirds majority vote, rather than a simple majority, must be obtained to adopt the rule (the two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a rule is intended to insure that lawmakers have ample time to review a particular piece of legislation prior to House floor debate). However, in an effort to circumvent the two-thirds vote requirement, Republican leaders in the House drafted a resolution which would waive that requirement and allow a simple majority vote in favor of the rules governing debate on omnibus appropriations legislation. Omnibus appropriations bills bundle two or more of the thirteen individual appropriations bills into a single measure (each year, Congress must pass and the president must sign into law thirteen appropriations bills either separately or in the form of an omnibus bill in order to fund the operation of government). Lawmakers readily admit that given their enormous size and complexity, omnibus bills are not the ideal vehicle for debating budgetary issues. Nonetheless, if Congress appears unable to complete action on all thirteen spending bills by the end of the congressional session, then House leaders often rely on the omnibus method in order to expedite passage of those bills. Generally, lawmakers are less willing to oppose an omnibus bill based on specific policy or funding objections because omnibus legislation raises the stakes of budgetary policy-making (if Congress fails to pass all thirteen spending bills by October 1, the end of the fiscal year, then the areas of government which failed to receive funding for the upcoming year shut down). The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed to the resolution which would waive the two-thirds vote requirement required for same-day consideration of a rule governing debate on the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill (the 2004 omnibus bill contained seven uncompleted appropriations bills). Progressives characterized the resolution as yet another attempt by Republicans to violate both the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives protested that holding House floor debate on the omnibus bill on the same day that it was reported from the Rules Committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the bill and understand its contents. Progressives also voiced specific policy objections to the seven appropriations bills which were lumped together into the underlying omnibus bill. While those objections are far too numerous to detail here, a sampling of complaints include the failure to extend unemployment benefits to the millions of out-of-work Americans, the inclusion of administration-supported rules to deny overtime pay to certain classes of white-collar workers, provisions to allow greater media concentration, and language to privatize some government jobs. Conservatives voted in favor of the motion to proceed and argued that the end of the congressional session justified their efforts to complete action on appropriations legislation as quickly as possible. On a party line vote of 211-179, the motion to proceed was adopted and a vote was allowed on the resolution to waive the two-thirds vote requirement for same-day consideration of the rules of debate on the 2004 omnibus spending bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Broadcast Media
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Absent N Lost
Roll Call 670
Nov 22, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to End Debate on the Final Version of Prescription Drug Legislation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

House debate on the final version of legislation to provide a $400 billion prescription drug benefit to the nation's seniors began on November 21, 2003 and a final vote on the bill was held shortly after midnight (in total, about one day was spent debating the monumental piece of legislation). Many Democrats were furious that the Republican leadership scheduled a final vote on passage of the 1,100 page bill in the middle of the night without providing them ample time to review and understand the contents of the legislation (lawmakers are usually provided three days to review legislation prior to House floor debate). In an effort to appease Democrats and allow them an opportunity to further debate the prescription drug bill (albeit only after the House had already adopted the bill on a 220-215 vote), Representative Thomas (R-CA) motioned to reconsider the previous vote on final passage. After several additional hours of debate on the prescription drug bill, House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) motioned to table (strike down) Thomas's motion to reconsider which, in effect, had allowed debate to continue after the final vote had been held. Progressives voted against Delay's motion to table Thomas's motion and argued that debate on the prescription drug bill should continue until all lawmakers had an opportunity to read, comprehend, and discuss the merits of the legislation. Conservatives voted in favor of Delay's motion to table and argued that the House needed to proceed to other important pieces of legislation-especially appropriations legislation-which had yet to be completed. On a vote of 210-193, the Delay motion was adopted and debate on the prescription drug bill was subsequently ended.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
N N Lost
Roll Call 669
Nov 22, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote on Final Passage of a Conference Report on Prescription Drug Legislation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of the Republican-crafted prescription drug bill. When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors are now unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. Legislative proposals aimed at expanding prescription drug coverage and reducing drug prices have been a fixture on the congressional agenda since 1999 but, until 2003, policymakers have been unable to reach a compromise on the issue because the two political parties have fundamentally different ideas about how to expand drug coverage and address the rising costs of prescription drugs. Republicans have typically favored approaches that would subsidize private insurance companies to provide the coverage, while Democrats have advocated for adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. Earlier in the year, both the House and the Senate completed action on their respective proposals to provide Medicare recipients with prescription drug coverage through private insurers (rather than through Medicare). The House and Senate versions of the legislation, however, were not identical and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation. The conference committee produced a conference report, the final version of the legislation, and the measure was brought to a final vote. Progressives opposed final passage of the prescription drug conference report for two main reasons. First, Progressives objected to what they characterized as a "donut hole" in drug coverage which was contained in the prescription drug conference report. The conference report, Progressives noted, would provide zero drug coverage to seniors for yearly drug expenditures above $2250 and below $4900; seniors would be required to pay full price for drug costs incurred within that gap in drug coverage under the Republican-drafted plan. Progressives characterized the coverage gap as irresponsible and mischievous lawmaking on the part of Republicans and argued that if Congress was serious about prescription drugs, then seniors should receive at least some drug coverage for all drug purchases regardless of their yearly expenditures on prescription drugs. Second, Progressives opposed language in the conference report which would create a pilot program to allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private insurance plans-which can drop an individual's coverage on a whim, limit a patient's treatment options to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company, and provide unequal coverage to individuals based demographic or geographic data-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives voted in favor of final passage and argued that the free-market provisions contained in the prescription drug conference report would reduce prescription drug costs and increase the drug coverage choices available to seniors. On a close vote of 220-215, the prescription drug conference report was adopted and President Bush signed the measure into law on December 8, 2003. (Note: The original cost estimate of the prescription drug bill by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-the budget arm of the White House-was $395 billion. Several weeks after final passage, however, the OMB revised its cost estimate upward to $534 billion which prompted allegations that the Bush Administration purposely underestimated the cost of the bill in order to attract support for the measure among fiscal conservatives. At the time of this vote, however, lawmakers were operating under the assumption that the true cost of the measure was $395 billion.)


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
N N Lost
Roll Call 668
Nov 22, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Conference Report on Prescription Drug Legislation With Instructions that the Measure Be Amended to Allow the Importation of Prescription Drugs from Canada.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote-a motion to recommit-was the fifth and final procedural vote prior to the vote on final passage of the prescription drug bill. One of the few procedural rights of the minority party in the House is the motion to recommit. If successful, the motion recommits a bill to committee and is usually accompanied with instructions to amend the legislation in a specific fashion. On this vote, Representative Turner (D-TX) motioned to recommit the conference report on prescription drug legislation to committee with instructions that the legislation be amended to allow the importation of prescription drugs from Canada (a conference report is the product of conference committee negotiations which are undertaken by House and Senate lawmakers after each legislative body completes action on its respective version of a piece of legislation). Progressives voted in support of the motion to recommit and argued that the underlying conference report failed to address the rising costs of prescription drugs. A common-sense approach to lower drug prices, Progressives argued, was to allow citizens and health providers in the U.S. to purchase prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies. Canadian drugs, Progressives noted, are identical to those sold in the U.S. but are sold in Canada at significantly reduced prices. Progressives characterized the price differential between prescription drugs sold in the U.S. and Canada as price gouging on the part of U.S. pharmaceutical companies and attributed the differences in prices to the enormous lobbying power of the pharmaceutical industry on Capitol Hill. Conservatives opposed the motion to recommit based on their concerns that Canadian prescription drugs might be unsafe. Canada, Conservatives argued, does not test the purity and quality of prescription drugs as rigorously as does the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. On a party-line vote of 211-222, the motion to recommit was defeated and the conference report on prescription drug legislation was allowed to proceed to a final vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Pharmaceutical Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 667
Nov 21, 2003
H.R. 2622. Credit Reporting/Vote to Prevent Credit Card Companies from Raising Interest Rates on Cardholders Who Pay Their Bills on Time.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In 1996, Congress adopted legislation known as the Fair Credit Reporting Act. That Act, among other things, imposed federal regulations on the credit reporting industry and mandated uniform credit reporting standards across states. Provisions in the 1996 Act-specifically those which mandated uniform credit reporting standards across states-were due to expire on January 1, 2004. The subject of this vote was a motion to suspend House rules and adopt a conference report on legislation to extend the 1996 law into the future (a conference report is the product of conference committee negotiations which are undertaken by House and Senate lawmakers after each legislative body completes action on its respective version of a piece of legislation). The suspension procedure, which is generally used to pass non-controversial measures, limits the time available for debate, bars amendments, and requires a two-thirds majority vote in favor of passage of the legislation. Conservatives, as well as a significant number of Democrats, voted to suspend House rules and adopt the conference report on the credit reporting bill because, in their view, the conference report would expand consumer access to credit, strengthen protections against credit card and identity theft, streamline credit reporting systems, and provide consumers with free access to their credit reports. Progressives voted against the motion to suspend House rules based on their concerns with the underlying conference report. Specifically, Progressives opposed provisions in the conference report which would allow credit card companies to increase the interest rates on individuals' credit cards if: 1) the cardholder makes a late payment on another credit card or a student loan; 2) the cardholder's credit score is lowered; 3) or the cardholder obtains a new mortgage or loan to pay for a house, car, or medical emergency. In the view of Progressives, credit activity which is not directly related to an individual's payments on his or her credit card should not be used by credit card companies-the big three being Chase Manhattan, Citigroup, and Bank One-to increase interest rates. Progressives, however, were outnumbered and, on a vote of 379-49, the motion to suspend House rules was adopted, the conference report was passed, and President Bush signed the measure into law on December 4, 2003.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
N N Lost
Roll Call 666
Nov 21, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Allow Consideration of the Conference Report on Prescription Drug Legislation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was the fourth of five procedural votes which were held prior to a vote on final passage of the prescription drug bill. When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors are now unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. Legislative proposals aimed at expanding prescription drug coverage and reducing drug prices have been a fixture on the congressional agenda since 1999 but, until 2003, policymakers have been unable to reach a compromise on the issue because the two political parties have fundamentally different ideas about how to expand drug coverage and address the rising costs of prescription drugs. Republicans have typically favored approaches that would subsidize private insurance companies to provide the coverage, while Democrats have advocated for adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. Earlier in the year, both the House and the Senate completed action on their respective proposals to provide Medicare recipients with prescription drug coverage through private insurers (rather than through Medicare). The House and Senate versions of the legislation, however, were not identical and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation. The conference committee produced a conference report, the final version of the legislation, and the conference report was reintroduced into the House and Senate for final passage. On this vote, Republican leaders sought passage of the rules of debate governing House consideration of the prescription drug conference report (before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-a de facto arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set the guidelines for debate). Progressives voted against the rules of debate based on their opposition to the conference report. Specifically, Progressives objected to what they characterized as a "donut hole" in drug coverage which was contained in the prescription drug conference report. The conference report, Progressives noted, would provide zero drug coverage to seniors for yearly drug expenditures above $2250 and below $4900; seniors would be required to pay full price for drug costs incurred within that gap in drug coverage under the Republican-drafted plan. Progressives characterized the coverage gap as irresponsible and mischievous lawmaking on the part of Republicans and argued that if Congress was serious about prescription drugs, then seniors should receive at least some drug coverage for all drug purchases regardless of their yearly expenditures on prescription drugs. Progressives also opposed language in the conference report which would create a pilot program to allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private insurance plans-which can drop an individual's coverage on a whim, limit a patient's treatment options to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company, and provide unequal coverage to individuals based demographic or geographic data-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives supported the rules of debate and argued that the free-market provisions contained in the prescription drug conference report would reduce prescription drug costs and increase the drug coverage choices available to seniors. On a party-line vote of 225-205, the rules of debate governing consideration of the prescription drug conference report were adopted.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
N N Lost
Roll Call 665
Nov 21, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Allow Consideration of the Conference Report on Prescription Drug Legislation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In a previous vote-Roll Call Vote 662-House rules were waived in order to allow prescription drug legislation to be debated on the House floor despite the fact that the legislation was reported from committee earlier that day. Republican leaders wanted to enact the measure on the House floor as quickly as possible, while Democrats (including Progressives) protested that the consideration of this bill by the entire House on the same day that it was reported out of committee gave them insufficient time to read and understand the contents of the complex piece of legislation. This vote was the third of five procedural votes which were held prior to a vote on final passage of the prescription drug bill. When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors are now unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. Legislative proposals aimed at expanding prescription drug coverage and reducing drug prices have been a fixture on the congressional agenda since 1999 but, until 2003, policymakers have been unable to reach a compromise on the issue because the two political parties have fundamentally different ideas about how to expand drug coverage and address the rising costs of prescription drugs. Republicans have typically favored approaches that would subsidize private insurance companies to provide the coverage, while Democrats have advocated for adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. Earlier in the year, both the House and the Senate completed action on their respective proposals to provide Medicare recipients with prescription drug coverage through private insurers (rather than through Medicare). The House and Senate versions of the legislation, however, were not identical and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation. The conference committee produced a conference report, the final version of the legislation, and the conference report was reintroduced into the House and Senate for final passage. The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate governing House consideration of the prescription drug conference report (before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-a de facto arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set the guidelines for debate). Progressives voted against the motion to proceed based on their opposition to the conference report. Specifically, Progressives objected to what they characterized as a "donut hole" in drug coverage which was contained in the prescription drug conference report. The conference report, Progressives noted, would provide zero drug coverage to seniors for yearly drug expenditures above $2250 and below $4900; seniors would be required to pay full price for drug costs incurred within that gap in drug coverage under the Republican-drafted plan. Progressives characterized the coverage gap as irresponsible and mischievous lawmaking on the part of Republicans and argued that if Congress was serious about prescription drugs, then seniors should receive at least some drug coverage for all drug purchases regardless of their yearly expenditures on prescription drugs. Progressives also opposed language in the conference report which would create a pilot program to allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private insurance plans-which can drop an individual's coverage on a whim, limit a patient's treatment options to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company, and provide unequal coverage to individuals based demographic or geographic data-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives supported the motion to proceed and argued that the free-market provisions contained in the prescription drug conference report would reduce prescription drug costs and increase the drug coverage choices available to seniors. On a perfectly party-line vote of 224-203, the motion to proceed was adopted and a vote was allowed on the rules of debate governing consideration of the prescription drug conference report.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 662
Nov 21, 2003
H Res. 458. Fiscal 2004 Appropriations/Vote on a Resolution Which Would Waive the Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Same-Day Consideration of Any Rule Completed on November 21, 2003 Which Related to an Appropriations Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before legislation can be considered in the House, agreement must be reached on a rule governing debate on a particular bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). Moreover, according to procedural rules in the House, passage of a rule on the same day that the rule was reported from the Rules Committee requires a two-thirds majority vote rather than a simple majority vote. (The two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a rule is intended to insure that lawmakers have ample time to review a particular piece of legislation prior to House floor debate.) In a effort to circumvent the two-thirds requirement for same day consideration of a rule, Republicans offered a resolution which would waive the two-thirds majority requirement on any rule brought to the floor on November 21, 2003 which related to appropriations legislation. Progressives characterized the resolution as yet another attempt by Republicans to violate both the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives argued that holding House floor debate on the same day that the appropriations legislation was reported from the House Rules Committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the legislation and understand its contents (lawmakers are normally provided three days to examine a completed piece of legislation before it is considered on the House floor). Conservatives supported the resolution and argued that the end of the congressional session in two weeks justified their efforts to expedite action on appropriations legislation. On a party line vote of 224-203, the resolution to allow a simple majority vote in favor of a same-day rule governing debate on appropriations legislation was adopted.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 661
Nov 21, 2003
H Res. 458. Fiscal 2004 Appropriations/Motion to Proceed to a Vote on a Resolution Which Would Waive the Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Same-Day Consideration of Any Rule Completed on November 21, 2003 Which Related to an Appropriations Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before legislation can be considered in the House, agreement must be reached on a rule governing debate on a particular bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). Moreover, according to procedural rules in the House, passage of a rule on the same day that the rule was reported from the Rules Committee requires a two-thirds majority vote rather than a simple majority vote. (The two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a rule is intended to insure that lawmakers have ample time to review a particular piece of legislation prior to House floor debate.) In a effort to circumvent the two-thirds requirement for same day consideration of a rule, Republicans offered a resolution which would waive the two-thirds majority requirement on any rule brought to the floor on November 21, 2003 which related to appropriations legislation. The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed on the resolution to allow same-day consideration of appropriations legislation. Progressives opposed motion to proceed because, in their view, the underlying resolution was yet another attempt by Republicans to violate both the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives argued that holding House floor debate on the same day that the appropriations legislation was reported from the House Rules Committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the legislation and understand its contents (lawmakers are normally provided three days to examine a completed piece of legislation before it is considered on the House floor). Conservatives supported the motion and argued that the end of the congressional session in two weeks justified their efforts to expedite action on appropriations legislation. On a party line vote of 225-202, the motion to proceed to a vote on the same-day waiver was adopted and the resolution which would waive the two-thirds vote requirement was allowed to proceed to a final vote.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 660
Nov 21, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Allow Same-Day Consideration of a Rule Governing Debate on the Prescription Drug Conference Report.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote was the second in a series of five procedural votes which were held prior to a vote on final passage of the prescription drug bill. Before legislation can be considered in the House, agreement must be reached on a rule governing debate on a particular bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, a de facto arm of the majority party leadership). Additionally, according to procedural rules in the House, passage of a rule on the same day that the rule was reported from the Rules Committee requires a two-thirds majority vote rather than a simple majority vote. (The two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a rule is intended to insure that lawmakers have ample time to review a particular piece of legislation prior to House floor debate.) In a effort to circumvent the two-thirds requirement for same day consideration of a rule governing debate on the prescription drug conference report, Republicans proposed a resolution which would waive the two-thirds majority requirement as required under normal House practices and allow the rule to be passed by a simple majority. Progressives characterized the resolution as yet another attempt by Republicans to violate both the rules of the House and the rights of minority Democrats (see also House vote 590 for other examples of what Democrats have characterized as strong-arm, or even unlawful, tactics by the Republican leadership). Progressives protested that holding House floor debate on the 1,100 page prescription drug conference report on the same day that it was reported from conference committee provided them with an insufficient amount of time to read the document and understand its contents (lawmakers are normally provided three days to examine a completed piece of legislation before it is considered on the House floor). Conservatives supported the same-day rule and argued that the end of the congressional session in two weeks justified their efforts to complete action on the prescription drug conference report. On a party line vote of 228-200, the resolution to allow a simple majority vote in favor of the same-day rule governing debate on the prescription drug conference report was adopted.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
N N Lost
Roll Call 659
Nov 21, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Allow the Consideration of a Rule Governing Debate on the Prescription Drug Conference Report.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors are now unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. Legislative proposals aimed at expanding prescription drug coverage and reducing drug prices have been a fixture on the congressional agenda since 1999 but, until 2003, policymakers have been unable to reach a compromise on the issue because the two political parties have fundamentally different ideas about how to expand drug coverage and address the rising costs of prescription drugs. Republicans have typically favored approaches that would subsidize private insurance companies to provide the coverage, while Democrats have advocated for adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. Earlier in the year, both the House and the Senate completed action on their respective proposals to provide Medicare recipients with prescription drug coverage through private insurers (rather than through Medicare). The House and Senate versions of the legislation, however, were not identical and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation. The conference committee produced a conference report, the final version of the legislation, and the conference report was reintroduced into the House and Senate for final passage. The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate governing House consideration of the prescription drug conference report (before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-a de facto arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set the guidelines for debate). Progressives voted against the motion to proceed based on their opposition to the conference report. Specifically, Progressives objected to what they characterized as a "donut hole" in drug coverage which was contained in the prescription drug conference report. The conference report, Progressives noted, would provide zero drug coverage to seniors for yearly drug expenditures above $2250 and below $4900; seniors would be required to pay full price for drug costs incurred within that gap in drug coverage under the Republican-drafted plan. Progressives characterized the coverage gap as irresponsible and mischievous lawmaking on the part of Republicans and argued that if Congress was serious about prescription drugs, then seniors should receive at least some drug coverage for all drug purchases regardless of their yearly expenditures on prescription drugs. Progressives also opposed language in the conference report which would create a pilot program to allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private insurance plans-which can drop an individual's coverage on a whim, limit a patient's treatment options to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company, and provide unequal coverage to individuals based demographic or geographic data-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives supported the motion to proceed and argued that the free-market provisions contained in the prescription drug conference report would reduce prescription drug costs and increase the drug coverage choices available to seniors. On a perfectly party-line vote of 225-202, the motion to proceed was adopted and a vote was allowed on the rules of debate governing consideration of the prescription drug conference report.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
N N Lost
Roll Call 656
Nov 21, 2003
H R 1904. Forest Thinning/Vote on Final Passage of a Conference Report Which Would Expedite Forest Thinning Projects on Twenty Million Acres of Federal Forestland.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In response to the outbreak of wildfires in California and elsewhere, the Bush Administration drafted so-called "Healthy Forests" legislation to promote "forest thinning" projects (i.e. timber extraction) in forests near populated areas. Conservatives argued that forest thinning projects were needed to mitigate the damages caused by wildfires. Progressives, however, were more skeptical; in their view, the administration's real goal in drafting the "Healthy Forests" initiative was to enable the timber industry greater access to forested areas. The subject of this vote was final passage of a conference report on forest thinning legislation which would expedite environmental and judicial reviews of forest thinning projects on twenty million acres of federal forestland to allow more thinning projects to be undertaken. (After the House and Senate completed action earlier in the year on their respective versions of a forest thinning bill, a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation. The product of conference committee negotiations is a conference report-the final version of the bill which is the subject of this vote.) Progressives voted in opposition to the forest thinning conference report based on their concerns that provisions in the bill could be interpreted broadly for purposes of increasing timber extraction on federal forestland. Specifically, Progressives argued that the language included in the conference report could be used to justify logging activities in old growth forests. Conservatives argued that provisions were included in the conference report, such as a public review and comment process, to protect old growth forests. On a vote of 286-140, the forest thinning conference report was adopted and President Bush signed the measure into law on December 3, 2003.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Forest and Paper Industry
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 650
Nov 20, 2003
H R 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Sixth and Final Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the Conference Report Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors have been unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. In an effort to contain prescription drug costs, legislation was adopted by the House and Senate earlier in the congressional session which would provide federal subsidies to HMOs and other private insurance companies to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors. Additionally, the House version of the legislation would, by 2010, allow private insurers to compete directly with the Medicare program to provide health benefits traditionally covered by Medicare (the Senate's version of the bill did not include this language). After the House and Senate completed action on their prescription drug bills, a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill. (Note: The House and Senate versions were not limited to prescription drug coverage. Both versions included provisions which would alter-and in the view of Progressives fundamentally undermine-the Medicare program.) In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Representative Hooley (D-OR) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers selected by the House leadership to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to drop language in the House bill which would allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private insurance plans-which can drop an individual's coverage on a whim, limit a patient's treatment options to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company, and provide unequal coverage to individuals based demographic or geographic data-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare will reduce health care costs and provide seniors with more choices regarding their health coverage. On a party line vote of 201-222, Hooley's motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to delete the provisions from the conference report which would allow private insurers to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. (Note: Five other attempts were made by Democrats to prevent competition between Medicare and private insurance companies; see House votes 573, 599, 615, 619, and 637.) hey


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 649
Nov 20, 2003
H R 2417. Fiscal 2004 Intelligence Authorization/Vote on Final Passage of a Conference Report Which Would Authorize Federal Funding for Intelligence Activities in 2004.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a conference report on the intelligence authorization bill which would authorize an estimated $40 billion in 2004 for fourteen U.S. intelligence agencies including the CIA, FBI, and NSC (a conference report, the final version of a piece of legislation, is hashed out in conference committee negotiations between the House and Senate after each legislative body completed action on the measure). The exact amount provided in the conference report to intelligence agencies generally and intelligence related activities specifically is classified. The major issue which arose during debate on the conference report involved a provision which would expand the FBI's search powers in terrorism-related cases. Under the original 1978 law governing FBI searches, the FBI is allowed to examine an individual's financial records from banks, credit unions, and other traditional financial institutions without a court order. The provision included in the intelligence authorization would expand the FBI's search powers to include financial records from car dealerships, pawn shops, casinos, and travel agencies as well as banks and credit unions. Progressives opposed expanding the FBI's search powers and argued that the new powers could be used to violate individuals' civil liberties. Perhaps the most concise statement in opposition to the search provision came from Representative Otter, a Republican from Idaho: "With this legislation we eliminate the judicial oversight that was built into our system for a reason-to make sure our precious liberties are protected." Other Conservatives disagreed with Otter's assessment and argued that the expanded search powers stuck an appropriate balance between the intelligence gathering needs of the FBI and the civil liberties of U.S. citizens. On a vote of 264-163, the conference report on the intelligence authorization bill was adopted and the measure was signed into law by President Bush on December 13, 2003.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
N N Lost
Roll Call 637
Nov 19, 2003
H R 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Fifth of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the Conference Report Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors have been unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. In an effort to contain prescription drug costs, legislation was adopted by the House and Senate earlier in the congressional session which would provide federal subsidies to HMO's and other private insurance companies to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors. Additionally, the House version of the legislation would, by 2010, allow private insurers to compete directly with the Medicare program to provide health benefits traditionally covered by Medicare (the Senate's version of the bill did not include this language). After the House and Senate completed action on their prescription drug bills, a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill. (Note: The House and Senate versions were not limited to prescription drug coverage. Both versions included provisions which would alter-and in the view of Progressives fundamentally undermine-the Medicare program.) In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Representative Berkley (D-NV) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers selected by the House leadership to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to drop language in the House bill which would allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private insurance plans-which can drop an individual's coverage on a whim, limit a patient's treatment options to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company, and provide unequal coverage to individuals based demographic or geographic data-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare will reduce health care costs and provide seniors with more choices regarding their health coverage. On a party line vote of 203-218, Berkley's motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to delete the provisions from the conference report which would allow private insurers to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. (Note: Five other attempts were made by Democrats to prevent competition between Medicare and private insurance companies; see House votes 573, 599, 615, 619, and 650.)


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 630
Nov 18, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Policy/Vote on Final Passage of an Energy Conference Report to Overhaul the Nation's Energy Policies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Overhauling the nation's energy policies has been a key domestic priority for the Bush Administration. In early 2001, Vice President Cheney, in concert with a number of highly placed energy industry representatives, drafted a comprehensive energy policy to increase the domestic production of oil by, among other things, creating new tax breaks for oil producers, expanding drilling operations in the U.S. including a highly-contentious proposal to drill for oil in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and easing environmental regulations on the oil and gas industry. The original energy plan, however, was defeated in Congress in 2001 and 2002 in large part because the proposed oil drilling in ANWR galvanized opposition to the energy bill among environmentally-minded lawmakers. In 2003, the administration dropped the ANWR provisions from their energy plan and added ethanol subsidies to attract support from lawmakers representing corn-producing states in this country (ethanol, a gasoline additive, is generally made from corn). The modified energy plan was then adopted by the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation in the form of a conference report (a conference report is the product of conference committee negotiations and is the final version of a piece of legislation when each house of Congress has passed a different initial version of a bill). The subject of this vote was final passage of the energy conference report which would, among other things, authorize $25.7 billion in energy-related tax breaks over the next ten years, authorize $18 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska, shield the makers of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from liability for environmental damage caused by the gasoline additive, and impose reliability standards for electricity transmission networks. Progressives voted against final passage of the energy conference report for two main reasons. First, Progressives opposed the provisions in the bill which would shield MTBE producers from paying any of the costs associated with cleaning up groundwater pollution caused by MTBE. Progressives pointed out that MTBE has been found to contaminate groundwater, has been linked to cancer, and that a liability waiver to MTBE producers would undermine the clean water standards that are codified in the Clean Water Act. Second, Progressives objected to what they characterized as overly-generous subsidies to the oil and natural gas industry which was contained in the legislation. The estimated $14.1 billion in public subsides for oil and gas producers, Progressives argued, would be better spent on developing renewable and pollution-free energy sources such as solar and wind power. Conservatives voted in favor of the energy conference report. In their view, encouraging the domestic production of oil and natural gas was important to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Additionally, they argued, the bill would take important steps toward modernizing the nation's energy infrastructure. On a vote of 246-180, the energy conference report was adopted by the House. The energy conference report, however, did not pass the Senate by the end of the 2003 congressional session and the measure did not become law.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 629
Nov 18, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Policy/Vote on the Rules of Debate Governing House Consideration of the Energy Conference Report.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

A key domestic priority for the Bush Administration has been to overhaul the nation's energy policies. In early 2001, Vice President Cheney, in concert with a number of highly placed energy industry representatives, drafted a comprehensive energy policy to increase the domestic production of oil by, among other things, creating new tax breaks for oil producers, expanding drilling operations in the U.S. including a highly-contentious proposal to drill for oil in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and easing environmental regulations on the oil and gas industry. The original energy plan, however, was defeated in Congress in 2001 and 2002 in large part because the proposed oil drilling in ANWR galvanized opposition to the energy bill among environmentally-minded lawmakers. In 2003, the administration dropped the ANWR provisions from its energy plan and added ethanol subsidies to attract support from lawmakers representing corn-producing states (ethanol, a gasoline additive, is made from corn). The modified energy plan was then adopted by the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation in the form of a conference report (a conference report is the product of conference committee negotiations and is the final version of a piece of legislation when each house of Congress has passed a different initial version of a bill). On this vote, Republican leaders sought passage of the rules governing debate on the energy conference report (before legislation can be debated on the House floor, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which functions in essence as an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted). Progressives opposed the rules of debate based on their two main concerns with the underlying conference report. First, Progressives objected to a provision included in the conference report which would legally shield producers of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive, from any costs associated with cleaning up groundwater pollution caused by MTBE. Progressives pointed out that MTBE has been found to contaminate groundwater, has been linked to cancer, and that a liability waiver to MTBE producers would undermine the clean water standards that are codified in the Clean Water Act. Second, Progressives opposed what they characterized as overly-generous subsidies to the oil and natural gas industry contained in the legislation. The estimated $14.1 billion in public subsides for oil and gas producers, Progressives argued, would be better spent on developing renewable and pollution-free energy sources such as solar and wind power. Conservatives voted in favor of the motion to proceed based on their support for the energy conference report. In their view, increasing the domestic production of oil and natural gas was needed to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Additionally, they argued, the bill makes important steps toward modernizing the nation's energy infrastructure. On a vote of 248-167, the rules of debate were adopted and the energy conference report was allowed to proceed to a final vote.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 628
Nov 18, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Policy/Vote to Allow the Consideration of the Rules of Debate on the Energy Conference Report.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

A key domestic priority for the Bush Administration has been to overhaul the nation's energy policies. In early 2001, Vice President Cheney, in concert with a number of highly placed energy industry representatives, drafted a comprehensive energy policy to increase the domestic production of oil by, among other things, creating new tax breaks for oil producers, expanding drilling operations in the U.S.-including a highly-contentious proposal to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)-and easing environmental regulations on the oil and gas industry. The original energy plan, however, was defeated in Congress in 2001 and 2002 in large part because the proposed oil drilling in ANWR galvanized opposition among environmentally-minded lawmakers to the energy bill. In 2003, the administration dropped the ANWR provision from their energy plan and added ethanol subsidies to attract support from lawmakers representing corn-producing states (ethanol, a gasoline additive, is made from corn). The modified energy plan was then adopted by the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation in the form of a conference report (a conference report is the product of conference committee negotiations and is the final version of a piece of legislation). The subject of this vote was a motion to allow consideration of a rule governing debate on the energy conference report (before legislation can be debated on the House floor, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which functions in essence as an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted). Progressives opposed the motion to proceed based on their two main concerns with the underlying conference report. First, Progressives objected to a provision included in the conference report which would legally shield producers of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive, from any costs associated with cleaning up groundwater pollution caused by MTBE. Progressives pointed out that MTBE has been found to contaminate groundwater, has been linked to cancer, and that a liability waiver to MTBE producers would undermine the clean water standards that are codified in the Clean Water Act. Second, Progressives opposed what they characterized as overly-generous subsidies to the oil and natural gas industry contained in the legislation. The estimated $14.1 billion in public subsides for oil and gas producers, Progressives argued, would be better spent on developing renewable and pollution-free energy sources such as solar and wind power. Conservatives voted in support of the motion to proceed based on their support for the energy conference report. In their view, increasing the domestic production of oil and natural gas was needed to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Additionally, they argued, the bill makes important steps toward modernizing the nation's energy infrastructure. On a party line vote of 225-193, the motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate was adopted.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 624
Nov 18, 2003
H R 2673. Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Include Provisions in the Omnibus Conference Report Which Would Allow the Importation of Less-Expensive Canadian Prescription Drugs Into the United States.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Each year, Congress must pass and the president must sign thirteen appropriations bills to finance the operation of government for the upcoming year. If the thirteen spending bills cannot be completed on time, then the government-specifically those areas of government that Congress has failed to appropriate money for-shuts down. (A partial government shutdown occurred in 1995 when President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich failed to reach a compromise on spending issues.) In an effort to expedite passage of the required appropriations legislation and prevent a government shutdown, Republican leaders bundled five uncompleted spending bills into an "omnibus" appropriations bill. Republican leaders were then able to secure passage of the omnibus bill in both the House and Senate and the two versions of the omnibus bill were sent to a conference committee to reconcile differences between the two forms of the bill. In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Congressman Obey (D-WI) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers selected by the House leadership to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to include provisions in the House omnibus bill which would allow individuals and health providers in the U.S. to import prescription drugs from Canada. Progressives supported Obey's motion as a way to allow individuals in the U.S. to take advantage of cheaper prescription drug prices in Canada. Many if not most prescription drugs, Progressives noted, are sold in Canada at significantly reduced prices in comparison to the prices of identical drugs that are sold in the United States. Progressives argued that the differences in prices between U.S. and Canadian prescription drugs-which they characterized as price gouging on the part of U.S. pharmaceutical companies-can be attributed to the powerful influence of the pharmaceutical industry on Capitol Hill. Conservatives voted in opposition to Obey's motion as a way to protect citizens in the U.S. from the alleged potential hazards of prescription drugs from Canada. Canadian drugs, Conservatives argued, are not inspected for quality and purity as thoroughly as are U.S. drugs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Obey motion attracted strong support among Democrats and, with the help of seventy-four Republicans, the motion was adopted 237-176 and House conferees were instructed to include language in the omnibus conference report which would allow citizens and health providers in the U.S. to import and sell Canadian prescription drugs in the U.S.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Won
Roll Call 619
Nov 07, 2003
H R 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Fourth of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the Conference Report Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors have been unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. In an effort to contain prescription drug costs, legislation was adopted by the House and Senate earlier in the congressional session which would provide federal subsidies to HMO's and other private insurance companies to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors. Additionally, the House version of the legislation would, by 2010, allow private insurers to compete directly with the Medicare program to provide health benefits traditionally covered by Medicare (the Senate's version of the bill did not include this language). After the House and Senate completed action on their prescription drug bills, a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill. (Note: The House and Senate versions were not limited to prescription drug coverage. Both versions included provisions which would alter-and in the view of Progressives fundamentally undermine-the Medicare program.) In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Representative Cardoza (D-CA) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers selected by the House leadership to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to drop language in the House bill which would allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In contrast to private health insurance plans-plans which can drop an individual's coverage in certain situations where the cost of his or her healthcare becomes too expensive to the private insurer and limit a patient to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct for two main reasons. First, in the view of Conservatives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare will provide seniors with more choices regarding their health coverage. Second, Conservatives argued that economic competition between private health insurers and Medicare would result in lower prices for consumers. On a party line vote of 184-207, Cardoza's motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to delete the provisions from the conference report which would allow private insurers to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. (Note: Five other attempts were made by Democrats to prevent competition between Medicare and private insurance companies; see House votes 573, 599, 615, 637, and 650.) hey


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 618
Nov 07, 2003
HR 6. Energy Policy/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Any Provisions in the Energy Conference Report Which Would Weaken Clean Water Standards.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

A key domestic priority for the Bush Administration has been to overhaul the nation's energy policies. In early 2001, Vice President Cheney, in concert with a number of highly placed energy industry representatives, drafted a comprehensive energy policy to increase the domestic production of oil by, among other things, creating new tax breaks for oil producers, expanding drilling operations in the U.S. including a highly-contentious proposal to drill for oil in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and easing environmental regulations on the oil and gas industry. The original energy plan, however, was defeated in Congress in 2001 and 2002 in large part because the proposed oil drilling in ANWR galvanized opposition among environmentally-minded lawmakers. In 2003, the administration dropped the ANWR provisions from its energy plan and added ethanol subsidies to attract support from lawmakers representing corn-producing states. The modified energy plan was then adopted by the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation (the product of conference committee negotiations is a conference report, the final version of a piece of legislation when the two houses of Congress pass different versions). In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Representative Filner (D-CA) motioned to instruct House conferees to drop any provisions from the conference report that would weaken clean water standards. Progressives supported the motion to instruct based on their concerns about a provision debated in conference committee to legally shield producers of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive, from any costs associated with cleaning up groundwater pollution caused by MTBE. Progressives pointed out that MTBE has been found to contaminate groundwater and has been linked to cancer. A liability waiver for MTBE producers, Progressives argued, would undermine the clean water standards that are codified in the Clean Water Act. Conservatives did not specifically address the concerns raised by Progressives over the MTBE liability provision during debate on the motion to instruct but argued that the motion, if passed, would result in less domestic energy production, higher natural gas prices, and the loss of manufacturing jobs. On a vote of 188-210, the Filner motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to drop the MTBE liability provisions from the energy conference report.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 617
Nov 07, 2003
H R 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote on Final Passage of a $401.5 Billion Conference Report Which Would Authorize Federal Spending on Defense-Related Programs in 2004.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a $401.5 billion conference report on the 2004 defense authorization bill (a conference report, which is hashed out in a conference committee, is the final version of a piece of legislation). Progressives voted against final passage based on three concerns they had with the legislation. First, Progressives opposed provisions in the bill which failed to extend full retirement and disability benefits to all of the nation's veterans (as written, the conference report would extend those benefits to some, but not all, U.S. veterans who were wounded in battle while defending the United States). Second, Progressives objected to funding which was included in the conference report to develop new "low-yield" nuclear weapons systems (in contrast to "high-yield" nuclear weapons such as the hydrogen bomb, low-yield weapons would have limited explosive capabilities and could be used to eradicate concentrated targets). Progressives were worried that the development of low-yield nuclear weapons would undermine efforts to ban and dismantle all nuclear weapons. Third, based on their support for protecting endangered species, Progressives voiced opposition to provisions in the conference report which would exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Conservatives voted in support of the conference report and, in response to the charges levied by Progressives, argued that the conference report would expand retirement and disability benefits for veterans, would improve, through the development of low-yield nuclear weapons, the ability of the U.S. military to attack terrorists hiding underground (which was the stated purpose of low-yield nuclear weapons), and would allow the Defense Department to conduct weapons testing without the constraints of environmental laws and thereby improve the effectiveness of the military. On an overwhelming 362-40 vote, the conference report on the defense authorization bill was adopted and President Bush signed the measure into law on November 24, 2003.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
N N Lost
Roll Call 616
Nov 07, 2003
H R 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Conference Report Which Failed to Extend Full Retirement and Disability Benefits to U.S. Veterans Who Were Wounded in Battle.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Earlier in the congressional session, both the House and Senate adopted legislation to authorize federal spending on defense. Because differences existed between the House and Senate versions of the bill, a conference committee was convened to reconcile those differences in the form of a conference report (a conference report is the final version of a piece of legislation). The subject of this vote was a motion offered by Representative Marshall (D-GA) to recommit to committee the conference report on the defense authorization bill with instructions that it be amended to allow all U.S. veterans to immediately receive full disability and retirement benefits simultaneously. Progressives supported the motion to recommit because, in their view, the conference report version of the legislation short-changed disabled veterans. That conference report version, Progressives argued, failed to provide disabled veterans with both retirement and disability benefits simultaneously; instead, disabled veterans could only collect either retirement or disability benefits, but not both at the same time. Progressives also expressed dismay that the Bush Administration could provide tax relief to the wealthiest Americans but fail to provide full disability and retirement benefits to those individuals who were wounded in battle while defending the United States. Conservatives opposed the motion to recommit and argued that the conference report already went a long way toward expanding disability benefits to those wounded veterans who previously received no disability benefits whatsoever. On a vote of 188-217, the motion to recommit was defeated and the conference report on the defense authorization bill was allowed to proceed to a final vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 615
Nov 06, 2003
H.R.1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Third of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the House Bill Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors have been unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. Consequently, proposals to expand prescription drug coverage have been a fixture on the congressional agenda in recent years; Republicans have generally favored approaches that would subsidize private insurance companies to provide drug coverage, while Democrats have advocated for drug coverage through the Medicare program. Earlier in the congressional session, both the House and the Senate completed action on a proposal which would provide Medicare recipients with prescription drug coverage through private insurers (rather than through Medicare). Essentially, the plan would use HMO's and other private insurance companies as a third-party contractor to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors. Additionally, the House version of the legislation would, by 2010, allow private insurers to compete directly with the Medicare program to provide health benefits traditionally covered by Medicare (the Senate's version of the bill did not include this language). On this vote, Representative Capps (D-CA) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers selected by the House leadership to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to drop language in the House bill which would allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private health insurance plans-plans which can drop an individual's coverage in certain situations where the cost of his or her healthcare becomes too expensive to the private insurer and limit a patient to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct for two main reasons. First, in the view of Conservatives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare will provide seniors with more choices regarding their health coverage. Second, Conservatives argued that economic competition between private health insurers and Medicare would result in lower prices for consumers. On a party line vote of 197-209, the motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to drop the free-market provisions contained in the House bill when drafting the final version of the legislation in conference committee. (Note: Five other attempts were made by Democrats to prevent competition between Medicare and private insurance companies; see House votes 573, 599, 619, 637, and 650.)


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 614
Nov 06, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Tax Breaks for Soldiers/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households would have benefited from the proposed increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 493, 501, 509, 525, 529, 541, and 572.) After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Becerra (D-CA) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Becerra's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Becerra's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct because, in their view, the child tax credit should not be extended to low-income families because those families, by virtue of their modest incomes, do not pay income taxes. In the words of Representative Lewis (R-KY), "one has to pay income taxes to get tax credits." Conservatives also pointed out that the federal government already provides what they characterized as ample assistance to low-income individuals in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a federal tax credit which reduces the amount of federal taxes owed by low-income individuals. And, if the value of the EITC is greater than the amount of federal taxes owed, then the individual will receive a refund check from the IRS for the difference-a difference which Conservatives argued can amount to hundreds of dollars in federal assistance. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was defeated on a party-line vote of 197-207.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 611
Nov 06, 2003
H R 1829. Federal Prison Industry/Vote to Make Temporary the Preferential Treatment To Prison-Produced Goods.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Many federal inmates have the option of earning $1.50 an hour for their work in producing goods in prison factories which range from office furniture to military equipment. To maintain the demand for goods produced by federal inmates, government agencies are required by law to make concerted attempts to purchase prison-produced goods before shopping elsewhere. With the economic downturn, however, lawmakers have re-examined the so-called mandatory source requirement-a sixty-nine year old requirement which states that preference be given to prison-produced goods-in order to provide a greater share of government contracts to local merchants. During debate on a bill to eliminate the mandatory source requirement, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee (D-TX) proposed an amendment which would have added a sunset provision to the underlying legislation in order to make the bill expire after three years. Progressives supported Jackson-Lee's amendment because, in their view, the mandatory source requirement should not be permanently changed. Progressives contended that the production of goods by inmates in prison provides those individuals with valuable job skills that can be used to find employment once they are released. Conservatives opposed the amendment and argued that the government should purchase the goods it needs from law-abiding local merchants rather than from federal inmates. On a vote of 100-313, Jackson-Lee's amendment was struck down and a three-year sunset provision was not included in the underlying legislation.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD People in Jails and Prisons
N Y Lost
Roll Call 604
Nov 05, 2003

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2443
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 601
Oct 30, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote on Final Passage of a $87.5 Billion Conference Report for Supplemental Spending on Military and Reconstruction Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a conference report on the Bush Administration's $87.5 billion supplemental spending request to Congress-the largest supplemental request in U.S. history-for costs associated with military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The supplemental spending package included $18.6 billion in grants for Iraq's reconstruction, $1.2 billion in grants for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and $65.8 billion for military operations, weapons procurement, and military construction projects in those two countries. Conservatives voted in favor of final passage based on their support for U.S. military operations in Iraq and the need to provide funding for those operations as quickly as possible. Progressives opposed the legislation on a number of grounds. First, they argued, U.S. taxpayers were shouldering too heavy a burden for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. In their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who would have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. Second, Progressives argued that insufficient funding was included in the supplemental bill to protect the lives and health of U.S. troops. Only twenty percent of U.S. personnel had access to clean drinking water, they argued, and many front-line soldiers lacked basic combat necessities such as body armor. Third, Progressives were concerned that the Bush Administration lacked a clear policy for Iraq's post-war reconstruction and transition to democracy. Despite these objections by Progressives, the conference report on the supplemental spending bill was adopted on a vote of 298-121 and the measure was signed into law by President Bush on November 6, 2003.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 600
Oct 30, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Recommit to Committee a $87.5 Billion Conference Report for Supplemental Spending on Military and Reconstruction Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the few procedural prerogatives available to minority party members in the House is the motion to recommit. If successful, the motion recommits a bill to committee and is usually accompanied by instructions to amend the legislation in a particular fashion. On this vote, Congressman Obey (D-WI) motioned to recommit to committee the conference report on President Bush's $87 billion supplemental spending request to Congress for expenditures associated with military and reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. (If the House and Senate adopt legislation in different forms, a conference committee is convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill; a conference report is the product of those negotiations.) Obey's motion included committee instructions to transform half of Iraq's reconstruction budget from a grant to a loan (unlike a grant, the recipient of a loan must repay the money). Progressives voted in support of Obey's motion because, in their view, U.S. taxpayers were shouldering too heavy a burden for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. In their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who would have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. Conservatives opposed the motion to recommit and argued that with no Iraqi government in place, a loan would be meaningless because no institution could be held responsible for its repayment. On a vote of 198-221, Obey's motion was rejected and the conference report on the $87 supplemental spending bill was allowed to proceed to a final vote.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 599
Oct 30, 2003
H.R.1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Second of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the House Bill Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors have been unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. Consequently, proposals to expand prescription drug coverage have been a fixture on the congressional agenda in recent years; Republicans have generally favored approaches that would subsidize private insurance companies to provide drug coverage, while Democrats have advocated for drug coverage through the Medicare program. Earlier in the congressional session, both the House and the Senate completed action on a proposal which would provide Medicare recipients with prescription drug coverage through private insurers (rather than through Medicare). Essentially, the plan would use HMOs and other private insurance companies as a third-party contractor to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors. Additionally, the House version of the legislation would, by 2010, allow private insurers to compete directly with the Medicare program to provide health benefits traditionally covered by Medicare (the Senate's version of the bill did not include this language). On this vote, Representative Davis (D-FL) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers selected by the House leadership to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to drop language in the House bill which would allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private health insurance plans-plans which can drop an individual's coverage in certain situations where the cost of his or her healthcare becomes too expensive to the private insurer and limit a patient to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct for two main reasons. First, in the view of Conservatives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare will provide seniors with more choices regarding their health coverage. Second, Conservatives argued that economic competition between private health insurers and Medicare would result in lower prices for consumers. On a party line vote of 195-217, the motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to drop the free-market provisions contained in the House bill when drafting the final version of the legislation in conference committee. (Note: Five other attempts were made by Democrats to prevent competition between Medicare and private insurance companies; see House votes 573, 615, 619, 637, and 650.)


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 598
Oct 30, 2003
H.R 6. Energy Policy/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Any Provisions in the Energy Conference Report Which Would Weaken Clean Air Standards.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of President Bush's major domestic priorities has been to reform the nation's energy policies. In early 2001, Vice President Cheney, in concert with a number of highly placed energy industry representatives, drafted a comprehensive energy policy which would, among other things, encourage the domestic production of oil by creating new tax breaks for oil producers. The original energy plan, however, was defeated in Congress in 2001 and 2002 in large part because the policy included language, which Democrats opposed, to open Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), a pristine area of wilderness along Alaska's coast, to oil drilling operations. In 2003, the administration dropped the ANWR provisions from its energy plan and the House and Senate subsequently adopted the proposal, albeit in different forms, earlier in the congressional session. To reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation, a conference committee was convened to produce a final legislative product (a conference report). In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Congresswoman Johnson (D-TX) motioned to instruct House conferees to drop any provisions from the conference report that would weaken the Clean Air Act's anti-smog requirements. Progressives supported Johnson's motion because, in their view, the Clean Air Act should not be modified in order to grant oil producers more leeway in generating air pollution. In the view of Progressives, a more responsible approach to alleviate the nation's demand for oil was to promote the research and development of alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power. Conservatives voted against the motion to instruct because, in their view, expanding domestic oil operations was necessary to promote economic growth and reduce the dependence of the U.S. on Middle Eastern oil. On a vote of 182-232, the Johnson motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to drop provisions in the energy conference report which would weaken clean air regulations.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 597
Oct 30, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote on the Rules of Debate Governing Consideration on an $87.5 Billion Conference Report for Spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

After the House and Senate had completed action on the Bush Administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request for military and reconstruction costs in Iraq and Afghanistan-the single largest supplemental spending request ever presented to Congress-a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two versions of the legislation. But, before the conference report could be reintroduced in the House for final passage, Republican leaders needed to pass a rule governing debate on the measure (before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-a de facto arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted). Democrats (including Progressives) voted against the rules of debate, the subject of this vote, based on their several concerns with the underlying legislation. First, they argued, U.S. taxpayers were shouldering too heavy a burden for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. In their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who would have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. Second, Progressives argued that insufficient funding was included in the supplemental bill to protect the lives and health of U.S. troops. Only twenty percent of U.S. personnel had access to clean drinking water, they argued, and many front-line soldiers lacked basic combat necessities such as body armor. Third, Progressives were concerned that the Bush Administration lacked a clear policy for Iraq's post-war reconstruction and transition to democracy. But, despite the objections raised by Progressives, the rules of debate for the supplemental spending bill were adopted on a party-line vote of 217-197.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 595
Oct 30, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of a Conference Report to Provide Funding for the Interior Department and Related Agencies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a conference report on the Interior Department spending bill which would provide $19.7 billion for the Interior Department and $400 million to the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management for costs associated with fighting wildfires (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives voted against final passage for three reasons. Their first objection involved the inclusion of an administration-favored rule which would expand road building, logging, and mining operations in federal forestland, specifically (but not limited to) Alaska's Chugach and Tongass national forests. In the view of Progressives, expanding commercial operations in federal forestland would jeopardize the natural beauty of pristine wilderness areas. Progressives' second objection involved funding cuts for the National Endowments of the Arts (NEA) and Humanities (NEH). In the view of Progressives, federal funding for the arts and humanities is socially and economically beneficial. According to Representative Slaughter (D-NY), the $232 million invested by the federal government in the NEA and NEH in 2003 had an economic impact of $132 billion and produced billions of tax revenues on the federal, state, and local levels of government. Additionally, continued Slaughter, every dollar the NEA invests in local theater groups, orchestras, or exhibitions generates seven dollars for NEA by attracting other grants, private donations, and ticket sales. The third objection involved provisions in the conference report which failed to resolve a dispute between Native Americans and the Interior Department. Since 1885, the Interior Department has managed an account owned by Native Americans which contained money paid to tribes by the federal government for the commercial use of Native American land. According to Progressives, this account had been terribly mismanaged by Interior and legislative action was needed to compensate Native Americans for the federal government's mishandling of the account. Conservatives voted in favor of final passage based on what they characterized as the virtues of the legislation such as funding increases for the National Park Service, the National Wildlife Refuges, the Indian Health Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. On a vote of 216-205, the conference report which would expand logging and mining operations in federal forestland was adopted and President Bush signed the measure into law on November 10, 2003.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Forest and Paper Industry
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 594
Oct 30, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Conference Report to Fund the Interior Department and Related Agencies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the few procedural prerogatives available to minority party members in the House is the motion to recommit. If successful, the motion recommits the legislation to committee and is usually accompanied by instructions to amend the bill in a particular fashion (in this case, no instructions were included). The subject of this vote was a motion to recommit to committee the conference report on the Interior Department spending bill (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives voted in favor of the motion to recommit based on their several objections to the conference report. The first objection involved the inclusion of an administration-favored rule which would expand road building, logging, and mining operations in federal forestland, specifically (but not limited to) Alaska's Chugach and Tongass national forests. In the view of Progressives, expanding commercial operations in federal forestland would jeopardize the natural beauty of pristine wilderness areas. The second objection involved funding cuts for the National Endowments of the Arts (NEA) and Humanities (NEH). In the view of Progressives, federal funding for the arts and humanities is socially and economically beneficial. According to Representative Slaughter (D-NY), the $232 million invested by the federal government in the NEA and NEH in 2003 had an economic impact of $132 billion and produced billions of tax revenues on the federal, state, and local levels of government. Additionally, continued Slaughter, every dollar the NEA invests in local theater groups, orchestras, or exhibitions generates seven dollars for NEA by attracting other grants, private donations, and ticket sales. The third objection involved provisions in the conference report which failed to resolve a dispute between Native Americans and the Interior Department. Since 1885, the Interior Department has managed an account owned by Native Americans which contained money paid to tribes by the federal government for the commercial use of Native American land. According to Progressives, this account had been terribly mismanaged by Interior and legislative action was needed to compensate Native Americans for the federal government's mishandling of the account. Conservatives opposed the motion to recommit based on what they characterized as the virtues of the legislation such as funding increases for the National Park Service, the National Wildlife Refuges, the Indian Health Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. On a vote of 190-229, the motion to recommit was defeated and the Interior Department conference report-which would expand logging and mining operations in federal forestland-was allowed to proceed to a final vote.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Forest and Paper Industry
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 592
Oct 30, 2003
H.R. 2115. Fiscal 2004 FAA Reauthorization/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill to Reauthorize Funding for the Federal Aviation Administration

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of legislation which would reauthorize funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The major issue which shaped the debate on the FAA reauthorization bill involved the Bush Administration's effort to privatize air traffic control operations at the nation's airports. In June 2002, President Bush issued an executive order which reclassified air-traffic control operations at the nation's airports from an "inherently governmental" to a non-governmental function. The purpose of the reclassification was to privatize air traffic control operations (federal jobs which are classified as inherently governmental duties cannot be privatized). In an effort to codify Bush's executive order into permanent legislation, Republican leaders added the language of the executive order to a bill which would reauthorize federal spending for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). During House and Senate debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, Democrats (including Progressives) voiced strong opposition to privatizing air traffic control operations because, in their view, the privatization could undermine public safety. Progressives argued that private companies, which are primarily interested in maximizing profits, might utilize shortcuts or other cost-cutting devices that ultimately undermine the safety of airline passengers. Progressives also contended that the hiring practices and training programs conducted by private firms are inferior to those of the public sector. In the view of Progressives, public safety could be jeopardized if private firms hired poorly qualified and/or poorly trained air traffic controllers. In contrast to the potential lack of attention to public safety by private firms, Progressives noted that the federal government's hiring practices and training programs for potential air traffic controllers are widely perceived by those in the industry as incredibly rigorous. During debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, House and Senate Democrats were able to amend the original bill in such a way as to prevent the privatization of air traffic control duties. The two bills were then sent to a conference committee to finalize the bill by reconciling the House and Senate versions of the legislation. When the legislation emerged from conference, however, the ban on privatizing air traffic control operations-which was contained in both the House and Senate versions-was not included in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). By its silence on the privatization issue, the conference report would effectively allow the Bush administration to privatize air traffic control operations. Democrats complained mightily that Republican leaders had violated congressional rules by excluding the privatization ban from the conference report (according to the rules of conference committee negotiations, provisions which are included in both the House and Senate versions of a bill must be included in the conference report; conferees, in other words, do not have the power to delete provisions which have been approved by both houses of Congress). Conservatives voted in favor of final passage as a way to encourage job growth. In their view, provisions in the FAA reauthorization bill would help stimulate the U.S. economy by expanding air service operations-and the demand for jobs in the aviation industry-around the country. On a close vote of 211-207 the FAA reauthorization conference report was adopted, effectively allowing the privatization of air traffic control operations to proceed.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 591
Oct 30, 2003
H.R. 2115. Fiscal 2004 FAA Reauthorization/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Conference Report Which Would Reauthorize Funding for the Federal Aviation Administration.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In June 2002, President Bush issued an executive order which reclassified air-traffic control operations at the nation's airports from an "inherently governmental" to a non-governmental function. The purpose of the reclassification was to privatize air traffic control operations (federal jobs which are classified as inherently governmental duties cannot be privatized). In an effort to codify Bush's executive order into permanent legislation, Republican leaders added the language of the executive order to a bill which would reauthorize federal spending for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). During House and Senate debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, Democrats (including Progressives) voiced strong opposition to privatizing air traffic control operations because, in their view, the privatization could undermine public safety. Progressives argued that private companies, which are primarily interested in maximizing profits, might utilize shortcuts or other cost-cutting devices that ultimately undermine the safety of airline passengers. Progressives also contended that the hiring practices and training programs conducted by private firms are inferior to those of the public sector. In the view of Progressives, public safety could be jeopardized if private firms hired poorly qualified and/or poorly trained air traffic controllers. In contrast to the potential lack of attention to public safety by private firms, Progressives noted that the federal government's hiring practices and training programs for potential air traffic controllers are widely perceived by those in the industry as incredibly rigorous. During the House and Senate debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, Democrats were able to amend both pieces of legislation in such a way as to prevent the privatization of air traffic control duties. The two bills were then sent to a conference committee to finalize the bill by reconciling the House and Senate versions of the legislation. When the legislation emerged from conference, however, the ban on privatizing air traffic control operations-which was contained in both the House and Senate versions-was not included in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). By its silence on the privatization issue, the conference report would effectively allow the Bush administration to privatize air traffic control operations. Democrats complained mightily that Republican leaders had violated congressional rules by excluding the privatization ban from the conference report (according to the rules of conference committee negotiations, provisions which are included in both the House and Senate versions of a bill must be included in the conference report; conferees, in other words, do not have the power to delete provisions which have been approved by both houses of Congress). On this vote, Democrats sought to recommit the conference report to committee based on their opposition to privatizing air traffic control operations (if successful, the motion to recommit is usually a deathblow to a piece of legislation). Conservatives voted against the motion to recommit based on their support for the FAA reauthorization bill. In their view, provisions in the FAA reauthorization bill would help stimulate the U.S. economy by expanding air service operations-and the demand for jobs in the aviation industry-around the country. On a perfectly party-line vote of 196-219, the motion to recommit was defeated and the FAA reauthorization conference report was brought to a final vote.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 587
Oct 30, 2003
H.R. 2115. Fiscal 2004 FAA Reauthorization/Vote on Rules of Debate Governing House Consideration of the FAA Reauthorization Conference Report.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In June 2002, President Bush issued an executive order which reclassified air-traffic control operations at the nation's airports from an "inherently governmental" to a non-governmental function. The purpose of the reclassification was to privatize air traffic control operations (federal jobs which are classified as inherently governmental duties cannot be privatized). In an effort to codify Bush's executive order into permanent legislation, Republican leaders added the language of the executive order to a bill which would reauthorize federal spending for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). During House and Senate debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, Democrats (including Progressives) voiced strong opposition to privatizing air traffic control operations because, in their view, the privatization could undermine public safety. Progressives argued that private companies, which are primarily interested in maximizing profits, might utilize shortcuts or other cost-cutting devices that ultimately undermine the safety of airline passengers. Progressives also contended that the hiring practices and training programs conducted by private firms are inferior to those of the public sector. In the view of Progressives, public safety could be jeopardized if private firms hired poorly qualified and/or poorly trained air traffic controllers. In contrast to the potential lack of attention to public safety by private firms, Progressives noted that the federal government's hiring practices and training programs for potential air traffic controllers are widely perceived by those in the industry as incredibly rigorous. During the House and Senate debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, Democrats were able to amend both pieces of legislation in such a way as to prevent the privatization of air traffic control duties. The two bills were then sent to a conference committee to finalize the bill by reconciling the House and Senate versions of the legislation. When the legislation emerged from conference, however, the ban on privatizing air traffic control operations-which was contained in both the House and Senate versions-was not included in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). By its silence on the privatization issue, the final bill would effectively allow the Bush administration to privatize air traffic control operations. On this vote, Republican leaders sought passage of the rules of debate governing House consideration of the FAA reauthorization conference report. Democrats voted against the rules of debate based on their objections to privatizing air traffic operations. Democrats also complained mightily that Republican leaders had violated congressional rules by excluding the privatization ban from the conference report (according to the rules of conference committee negotiations, provisions which are included in both the House and Senate versions of a bill must be included in the conference report; conferees, in other words, do not have the power to delete provisions which have been approved by both houses of Congress). Based on their support for the underlying legislation, Conservatives voted in favor of the rules of debate as a way to encourage job growth. In their view, provisions in the FAA reauthorization bill would help stimulate the U.S. economy by expanding air service operations-and the demand for jobs in the aviation industry-around the country. On a party-line vote of 220-199, the rules of debate were adopted and the FAA conference report was provided House floor consideration.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 586
Oct 30, 2003
H.R. 2115. Fiscal 2004 FAA Reauthorization/Vote to Allow Consideration of the FAA Reauthorization Conference Report.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In June 2002, President Bush issued an executive order which reclassified air-traffic control operations at the nation's airports from an "inherently governmental" to a non-governmental function. The purpose of the reclassification was to privatize air traffic control operations (federal jobs which are classified as inherently governmental duties cannot be privatized). In an effort to codify Bush's executive order into permanent legislation, Republican leaders added the language of the executive order to a bill which would reauthorize federal spending for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). During House and Senate debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, Democrats (including Progressives) voiced strong opposition to privatizing air traffic control operations because, in their view, the privatization could undermine public safety. Progressives argued that private companies, which are primarily interested in maximizing profits, might utilize shortcuts or other cost-cutting devices that ultimately undermine the safety of airline passengers. Progressives also contended that the hiring practices and training programs conducted by private firms are inferior to those of the public sector. In the view of Progressives, public safety could be jeopardized if private firms hired poorly qualified and/or poorly trained air traffic controllers. In contrast to the potential lack of attention to public safety by private firms, Progressives noted that the federal government's hiring practices and training programs for potential air traffic controllers are widely perceived by those in the industry as incredibly rigorous. During the House and Senate debate on the FAA reauthorization bill, Democrats were able to amend both pieces of legislation in such a way as to prevent the privatization of air traffic control duties. The two bills were then sent to a conference committee to finalize the bill by reconciling the House and Senate versions of the legislation. When the legislation emerged from conference, however, the ban on privatizing air traffic control operations-which was contained in both the House and Senate versions-was not included in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). By its silence on the privatization issue, the final bill would effectively allow the Bush administration to privatize air traffic control operations. The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed to House consideration of the rules of debate on the FAA reauthorization conference report. Democrats voted against the motion to proceed based on their objections to privatizing air traffic operations. Democrats also complained mightily that Republican leaders had violated congressional rules by excluding the privatization ban from the conference report (according to the rules of conference committee negotiations, provisions which are included in both the House and Senate versions of a bill must be included in the conference report; conferees do not have the power to delete provisions which have been approved by both houses of Congress). Conservatives voted in favor of the motion to proceed based on their support for the underlying legislation. In their view, the FAA reauthorization bill would help stimulate the U.S. economy. On a perfectly party-line vote of 222-199, the motion to proceed was adopted and the FAA conference report allowing the privatization of air traffic control operations was allowed to proceed in the legislative process.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 580
Oct 30, 2003
Procedural Motion to Adjourn the Congressional Session In Response to What Democrats Characterized as Heavy Handed Tactics by the Republican Leadership.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

According to many Democrats in the House, Republican leaders have relied on heavy-handed and sometimes unethical tactics to ram their legislative agenda through Congress. To illustrate their claim, Democrats noted that Speaker Hastert (R-IL) had extended a fifteen minute roll call vote on final passage of a prescription drug bill to three hours in order to persuade Republican lawmakers who voted against the measure to change their vote (had the voting ended after fifteen minutes, which is the usual time allotted for House votes, the Republican-drafted prescription drug bill would have been defeated). Of even greater concern to Democrats were allegations of bribery involving Republican leaders and their rank-and-file. According to Representative Nick Smith (R-MI), Republican leaders offered to provide financial assistance to his son's House campaign if he would change his vote and support the prescription drug bill (Nick Smith's son, Brad Smith, had declared his candidacy for his father's seat after the elder Smith announced his plans to retire). Nick Smith declined the "offer" and, according to Smith, Republican leaders then threatened to withhold all support for Brad Smith's candidacy. More recently, Democrats charged Republican leaders with purposely circumventing congressional rules during conference committee negotiations on a bill to reauthorize funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). During House and Senate debate on the FAA bill, the major issue involved a proposal to privatize air traffic control operations at the nation's airports (see House vote 592 for a more detailed description of the debate on that issue). Democrats opposed privatization and, with the help of a handful of House and Senate Republicans, were able to secure passage of amendments to both the House and Senate versions of the bill to ban the privatization of air traffic control operations. The two versions of the bill were then sent to a conference committee where conferees were commissioned to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. However, when the final version of the legislation emerged from conference, the privatization ban on air traffic control operations-a ban contained in both the House and Senate versions of the bill-was not included in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). By its silence on the privatization issue, the final bill would effectively allow the privatization of air traffic control operations despite the fact that both the House and Senate versions of the bill had banned privatization (according to the rules of conference committee negotiations, provisions which are included in both the House and Senate versions of a bill must be included in the conference report; conferees, in other words, do not have the power to delete provisions which have been approved by both houses of Congress). Representative Mica (R-FL), a conservative member of the conference committee, defended the exclusion of the privatization ban from the conference report: "We know after months of conflict that the issue [of privatization] was tearing us apart. Now we've taken that out." Progressives, however, were angered over what they viewed as a circumvention of congressional rules and, in response, made six attempts on October 30 to adjourn the congressional session. The subject of this vote was the first attempt to adjourn the congressional session, a motion made by Representative McGovern (D-MA). On a vote of 86-317, the motion to adjourn was defeated and the House was not closed down in response to what Democrats characterized as heavy-handed tactics by the Republican leadership.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 575
Oct 29, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote on Rules of Debate for a Conference Report Which Would Set Spending Priorities for the Department of the Interior and Related Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before legislation can be considered on the House floor, a rule governing debate on the measure must be adopted. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, in effect an arm of the majority party leadership. The subject of this vote was a rule that would provide for consideration of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $19.7 billion for the Department of the Interior and related programs and $400 million in emergency fire-fighting funds (if legislation passes the House and Senate in difference forms, a conference committee is convened to reconcile differences between the two versions; a conference report is the product of conference committee negotiations). Progressives voted against the rule based on their several objections to the conference report itself. The first objection involved the inclusion of an administration-favored rule which would expand road building, logging, and mining operations in federal forestland, specifically (but not limited to) Alaska's Chugach and Tongass national forests. In the view of Progressives, expanding commercial operations in federal forestland would jeopardize the natural beauty of pristine wilderness areas. The second objection involved funding cuts for the National Endowments of the Arts (NEA) and Humanities (NEH). In the view of Progressives, federal funding for the arts and humanities is socially and economically beneficial. According to Representative Slaughter (D-NY), the $232 million invested by the federal government in the NEA and NEH in 2003 had an economic impact of $132 billion and produced billions of tax revenues on the federal, state, and local levels of government. Additionally, continued Slaughter, every dollar the NEA invests in local theater groups, orchestras, or exhibitions generates seven dollars for NEA by attracting other grants, private donations, and ticket sales. The third objection dealt with provisions in the conference report which failed to resolve a dispute between Native Americans and the Interior Department. Since 1885, the Interior Department has managed an account owned by Native Americans which contained money paid to tribes by the federal government for the commercial use of Native American land. According to Progressives, this account had been terribly mismanaged by Interior and legislative action was needed to compensate Native Americans for the federal government's mishandling of the account. Conservatives supported the rules of debate based on what they characterized as the virtues of the legislation such as funding increases for the National Park Service, the National Wildlife Refuges, the Indian Health Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. On a vote of 289-136, the rules of debate for the Interior Department conference report were adopted and the legislation was allowed to proceed to consideration on the House floor.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Forest and Paper Industry
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 574
Oct 29, 2003
H.J. Res. 75. Fiscal 2004 Continuing Appropriation/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Continuing Appropriation to Fund Government at 2003 Levels Through November 7, 2003.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Each congressional session, Congress must pass and the president must sign thirteen appropriations bills to finance the operation of government for the upcoming year. If Congress is unable to complete its work on time, a continuing appropriation (or CR, for continuing resolution) is needed to continuing financing government operations (CR's usually extend the previous years appropriation by one or more weeks). If a CR cannot be adopted before the fiscal year expires on October 1st, then the government-specifically those areas of government that Congress has failed to appropriate money for-shuts down. (A partial government shutdown occurred in 1995 when President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich failed to reach a compromise on spending issues.) The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on a continuing appropriation which would fund government operations into the 2004 fiscal year (which confusingly began on October 1, 2003) at the previous year's levels. Conservatives supported their party leadership on the CR as a way to "buy time" to complete all thirteen appropriations bills; more time was needed, they argued, to finalize appropriations legislation to fund the operation of government in 2004. Democrats, including Progressives, voted against the rule in an effort to force prompt action on the spending bills. Republican leaders, argued Progressives, were using the CR as a way to hide from public view their inability to find common ground with Democrats on spending issues. On a vote of 311-112, the rule governing debate on a continuing appropriation was approved and the CR was allowed to proceed in the legislative process.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 573
Oct 28, 2003
H.R.1. Prescription Drug Benefit/First of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the House Bill Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not an essential component of patient care. However, medical advancements in recent decades have enabled doctors to treat a wide range of diseases and ailments with prescription drugs. But the costs of prescription drugs have skyrocketed and many seniors have been unable to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy. Consequently, proposals to expand prescription drug coverage have been a fixture on the congressional agenda in recent years; Republicans have generally favored approaches that would subsidize private insurance companies to provide the coverage, while Democrats have advocated for drug coverage through the Medicare program. Earlier in the congressional session, both the House and the Senate completed action on a proposal which would provide Medicare recipients with prescription drug coverage through private insurers (rather than through Medicare). Essentially, the plan would use HMO's and other private insurance companies as a third-party contractor to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors. Additionally, the House version of the legislation would, by 2010, allow private insurers to compete directly with the Medicare program to provide health benefits traditionally covered by Medicare (the Senate's version of the bill did not include this language). On this vote, Representative Brown (D-OH) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers selected by the House leadership to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference committee negotiations with the Senate-to drop language in the House bill which would allow private health plans to compete directly with Medicare by 2010. In the view of Progressives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare would reduce the quality of health coverage for the nation's seniors. In contrast to private health insurance plans-plans which can drop an individual's coverage in certain situations where the cost of his or her healthcare becomes too expensive to the private insurer and limit a patient to only those doctors and hospitals that have been approved by the insurance company-the health coverage provided through Medicare applies equally to all seniors, is never reduced based on one's health needs, and allows seniors to choose their doctor and hospital. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct for two main reasons. First, in the view of Conservatives, allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare will provide seniors with more choices regarding their health coverage. Second, Conservatives argued that economic competition between private health insurers and Medicare would result in lower prices for consumers. On a party line vote of 194-209, Brown's motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to drop the free-market provisions contained in the House bill when drafting the final version of the legislation in conference committee. (Note: Five other attempts were made by Democrats to prevent competition between Medicare and private insurance companies; see House votes 599, 615, 619, 637, and 650.)


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 572
Oct 28, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Tax Breaks for Soldiers/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households would have benefited from the proposed increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 493, 501, 509, 525, 529, 541, and 614). After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for both military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Woolsey (D-CA) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Woolsey's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Woolsey's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct because, in their view, the child tax credit should not be extended to low-income families because those families, by virtue of their modest incomes, do not pay income taxes. In the words of Representative Lewis (R-KY), "one has to pay income taxes to get tax credits." Conservatives also pointed out that the federal government already provides what they characterized as ample assistance to low-income individuals in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a federal tax credit which reduces the amount of federal taxes owed by low-income individuals. And, if the value of the EITC is greater than the amount of federal taxes owed, then the individual will receive a refund check from the IRS for the difference-a difference which Conservatives argued can amount to hundreds of dollars in federal assistance. All Democrats present voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was defeated on a party-line vote of 197-208.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 570
Oct 28, 2003
H.R. 2359. Employment Verification Program/Vote to Extend and Expand a 1996 Employment Verification Pilot Program Through 2008.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In 1986, Congress passed and the president signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act which made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire or employ illegal aliens. Under the Act, employers are required to check the identity and work eligibility documents of all new employees. In the view of Conservatives, however, the document-based verification approach was not effective because some illegal aliens obtained counterfeit documents and were able to skirt the 1986 Act. To strengthen employers' ability to verify the identities of their employees, Congress created a six-state pilot program in 1996 which allowed employers in those six states to crosscheck the Social Security and alien identification numbers which were submitted by recently-hired employees with databases maintained by the Social Security Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization Services to verify an employee's eligibility for employment. Conservatives viewed the 1996 employment verification approach as a tremendous success and, on this vote, sought to extend and expand the pilot program to all states through 2008 (the program was due to expire in 2003). This vote was a motion to suspend House rules and adopt the employment verification extension and expansion. When the Speaker of the House calls up a measure under suspension of the rules, debate is shut off, no amendments to the measure are allowed, and a two-thirds majority vote is required to pass the legislation (given the two-thirds requirement for passage, House leaders often reserve the suspensions process for non-controversial items). Progressives opposed the measure based on privacy concerns. In their view, extending the pilot program to every state would effectively create a national identification program with few if any privacy protections and could be used by the federal government to track its citizens. Progressives also cited a U.S. Department of Justice study which concluded that flaws in the pilot program-such as inaccurate and/or outdated immigration databases-would seriously impede its successful implementation on a national level. On a vote of 231-170, the motion to suspend House rules failed to attract the necessary two-thirds majority vote for passage and the extension of the 1996 employment verification program was rejected.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Won
Roll Call 567
Oct 21, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote on Instruct House Conferees to Transform Half of Iraq's $20 Billion Reconstruction Budget from a Grant to a Loan.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Earlier in the congressional session, both the House and the Senate completed work on the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request for costs associated with military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the two versions of the legislation differed in certain respects and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two bills (if legislation passes the House and Senate in different forms, lawmakers from each legislative body are selected by the party leadership to hash out a conference report; Congress's final legislative product). One major area of difference involved the structure of reconstruction funding for Iraq. In the Senate's version, half of Iraq's reconstruction budget was in the form of a grant and the other half was a loan (in both versions, the total reconstruction budget was about $20 billion). In the House's version, all of Iraq's reconstruction budget was in the form of a grant (unlike a loan, the recipient of a grant does not need to repay the money). The subject of this vote was an Obey (D-WI) motion to instruct House conferees to transform half of Iraq's reconstruction budget into a loan when drafting the final version of the legislation. In other words, David Obey and other Democrats wanted the conference version of the supplemental bill to mirror the Senate's language regarding the structure of reconstruction financing for Iraq. Progressives voted in support of Obey's motion because, in their view, U.S. taxpayers were shouldering too heavy a burden for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. In their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who would have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. Conservatives opposed Obey's motion and argued that with no Iraqi government in place, a loan would be meaningless because no institution could be held responsible for its repayment. On a vote of 277-139, Obey's motion was adopted and House conferees were instructed to adopt the Senate's loan provisions when drafting the final version of the supplemental spending bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 566
Oct 21, 2003
H.J. Res. 73. Fiscal 2004 Continuing Appropriation/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Continuing Appropriation to Fund Government Operations at 2003 Levels Through October 31, 2003.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Each congressional session, Congress must pass (and the president must sign) thirteen appropriations bills to finance the operation of government for the upcoming year. If Congress is unable to complete its work on time, a continuing appropriation (or CR, for continuing resolution) is needed to continuing financing government operations (CR's usually extend the previous years appropriation by one or more weeks). If a CR cannot be adopted before the fiscal year expires on October 1st, then the government-specifically those areas of government that Congress has failed to appropriate money for-shuts down. (A partial government shutdown occurred in 1995 when President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich failed to reach a compromise on spending issues.) The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on a continuing appropriation which would fund government operations into the 2004 fiscal year (which confusingly began on October 1, 2003) at the previous year's levels. Conservatives supported their party leadership on the CR as a way to "buy time" to complete all thirteen appropriations bills; more time was needed, they argued, to finalize appropriations legislation to fund the operation of government in 2004. Democrats, including Progressives, voted against the rule in an effort to force prompt action on the spending bills. Republican leaders, argued Progressives, were using the CR as a way to hide from the public their inability to find common ground with Democrats on spending issues. On a party-line vote of 219-189, the rule governing debate on a continuing appropriation was approved and the CR was allowed to proceed in the legislative process.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 562
Oct 17, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote on Final Passage of a Supplemental Spending Bill for Costs Associated with Military and Reconstruction Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request to Congress for costs associated with military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The supplemental spending package included, among other things, $18.6 billion in grants for Iraq's reconstruction, $39.9 billion for military operations and equipment maintenance, $339 million for weapons procurement, and $412 million for military construction projects. The measure also contained provisions requiring the normal competitive bidding procedures for all government contracts involving work on Iraq's oil infrastructure (see House vote 557). Conservatives voted in favor of final passage based on their support for U.S. military operations in Iraq and the need to provide funding for those operations as quickly as possible. Progressives opposed the legislation on a number of grounds. First, they argued, U.S. taxpayers were shouldering too heavy a burden for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. In their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who would have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. Second, Progressives argued that insufficient funding was included in the supplemental bill to protect the lives and health of U.S. troops. Only twenty percent of U.S. personnel had access to clean drinking water, they argued, and many front-line soldiers lacked basic combat necessities such as body armor. Third, Progressives were concerned that the Bush Administration lacked a clear policy for Iraq's post-war reconstruction and transition to democracy. Despite these objections by Progressives, the supplemental spending bill attracted strong support and was adopted on a vote of 303-125.


WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 561
Oct 17, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Recommit to Committee the Supplemental Spending Bill for Iraq and Afghanistan with Instructions to Transform Half of Iraq's Reconstruction Budget from a Grant to a Loan.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the few procedural rights afforded to the minority party in the House is the motion to recommit. If successful, a motion to recommit sends legislation back to committee for further work and is usually accompanied by instructions to alter the legislation in a particular direction. On this vote, Congressman Kilpatrick (D-MI) offered the motion to recommit on behalf of the Democrats which included instructions to transform half of the $20 billion reconstruction budget for Iraq from a grant to a loan (unlike loans, the recipient of a grant does not need to repay the money). Progressives favored a loan for Iraq's reconstruction costs because, in their view, U.S. taxpayers should not be burdened with the entire cost of Iraq's reconstruction given that Iraq's oil reserves are estimated at over $1 trillion and that, in their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who would have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. Congressman Obey (D-WI) had previously proposed an amendment to convert $10 billion of the $20 billion Iraqi reconstruction budget from a grant to a loan, but Obey's amendment was defeated (see House vote 546). Conservatives opposed changing Iraq's reconstruction budget from a grant to a loan and argued that with no Iraqi government in place, a loan would be meaningless because no institution could be held responsible for its repayment. On a party-line vote of 191-235, the motion to recommit was defeated and the supplemental spending bill was allowed to proceed to a final vote. (Note: The Senate's version of the supplemental spending bill did include a loan provision (see Senate Vote 389). Thus, negotiators in conference committee needed to make the final determination on how the Iraq reconstruction budget will be structured.)


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 560
Oct 17, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote on a Second Rule of Debate Which Would End Debate and Amending Activity and Bring the Underlying Supplemental Bill to a Final Vote

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

After three days of House debate on the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan, the Republican leadership drafted a second rule governing debate on the supplemental bill (the rules of debate are determined by the House Rules Committee, in effect an arm of the majority party leadership). Democrats, including Progressives, cried foul and pointed out that the second rule would effectively end all debate on the supplemental bill and bring the measure to a final vote. Only half of the 120 amendments that were offered during consideration of the supplemental bill, Progressives argued, had been debated on the House floor. In their view, the Republican leadership was ending debate prematurely in order to shield their rank-and-file from tough votes on widely-supported but yet-to-be-considered amendments which were drafted by Democratic lawmakers. According to Congressman Martin Frost (D-TX), the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee, "The Republican Party's leadership has been nothing short of disingenuous about the debate on this supplemental." Frost also suggested that democracy must first be brought to the House of Representatives before it is introduced in Iraq. Conservatives voted in favor of the second rule because, in their view, the three days of debate on the supplemental bill gave lawmakers ample time to offer their amendments. It was time, they argued, for the House to move forward and pass the supplemental spending bill so that the money would be available for use as quickly as possible. On a party-line vote of 221-201, the second rule was adopted and further debate on amendments was not allowed on the supplemental spending bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 559
Oct 17, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Proceed to a Vote on a Second Rule of Debate Which Would End Debate and Amending Activity and Bring the Underlying Supplemental Bill to a Final Vote.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

After three days of House debate on the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan, the Republican leadership drafted a second rule governing debate on the supplemental bill (the rules of debate are determined by the House Rules Committee, in effect an arm of the majority party leadership). The subject of this vote was a motion to proceed to a vote on the second rule (like legislation, rules can be debated and amended until a motion to proceed is passed to end debate and amending activity). Democrats, including Progressives, cried foul and pointed out that the second rule would effectively end all debate on the supplemental bill and bring the measure to a final vote. Only half of the 120 amendments that were offered during consideration of the supplemental bill, Progressives argued, had been debated on the House floor. In their view, the Republican leadership was ending debate prematurely in order to shield their rank-and-file from tough votes on widely-supported but yet-to-be-considered amendments which were drafted by Democratic lawmakers. According to Congressman Martin Frost (D-TX), the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee, "The Republican Party's leadership has been nothing short of disingenuous about the debate on this supplemental." Frost also suggested that democracy must be brought to the House of Representatives before it is introduced in Iraq. Conservatives voted in favor of the motion to proceed because, in their view, the three days of debate on the supplemental bill gave lawmakers ample time to offer their amendments and discuss the issues. It was time, they argued, for the House to move forward and pass the supplemental spending bill so that the money would be available for use as quickly as possible. On a perfectly party-line vote of 221-199, the motion to proceed was adopted and a vote was scheduled for the second rule of debate on the supplemental spending bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 558
Oct 17, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Bar Saudi Arabia from Receiving U.S. Financial Assistance.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on the $87 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, Congressman Weiner (D-NY) proposed an amendment which would have prohibited any funding included in the supplemental bill from being used for loans to Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government, Weiner argued, played an important role in financing the 9/11 hijackers, has funded suicide bombers in Israel, and, consequently, should be excluded from any U.S. financial assistance. Progressives voted in favor of Weiner's proposal as a way to punish Saudi Arabia for its close affiliation with terrorism against the United States and Israel. Conservatives opposed Weiner's measure and argued that while some members of Saudi's royal family no doubt support terrorist acts against the United States and Israel, many more support U.S. efforts against terrorism. Revoking U.S. assistance to Saudi Arabia, Conservatives argued, would undermine the U.S.-Saudi relationship in fighting terrorism. On a vote of 193-233, the Weiner amendment was rejected and the Saudi Arabia loan prohibition language was not added to the underlying supplemental spending bill to bar the kingdom from receiving U.S. loans.


WAR & PEACE Relations with Saudi Arabia
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 557
Oct 17, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Require Competitive Bidding on Oil Contracts in Iraq.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In January 2003, the Bush Administration awarded a no-bid, $50 million contract to Halliburton to restore damages to Iraq's oil fields. By October 1, 2003, the value of Halliburton's contract had grown to $1.4 billion. In response to the tripling of Halliburton's contract, Representative Waxman (D-CA) initiated several inquiries to determine how exactly the additional monies were being spent. After a round of fact-finding, it became clear to Waxman and others that Halliburton was overcharging the federal government to import and sell gasoline in Iraq. According to an analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service-a federal agency that provides lawmakers with policy research upon request-the average price of gasoline in the Middle East was approximately seventy-one cents. However, according to Waxman, Halliburton was charging the U.S. government $1.70 per gallon of gasoline. Waxman and other Progressives characterized Halliburton's actions as price-gouging and presented evidence that the oil company had overcharged the U.S. government by $250 million. Equally troubling to Progressives, however, was the financial stake of Vice President Cheney-Halliburton's former CEO-in the company. According to Cheney's financial disclosures to the IRS, the Vice President received $205,000 in 2001 and $165,000 in 2002 from the company. According to the IRS, the Vice President expects similar amounts of "deferred" compensation in 2003, 2004, and 2005 as well. In an effort to eliminate any conflicts-of-interest over the awarding of contracts in Iraq among members of the Bush Administration, Congressman Sherman (D-CA) offered an amendment to the $87 billion supplemental spending request which would have required normal competitive bidding procedures for all government contracts involving work on Iraq's oil infrastructure. Progressives endorsed Sherman's proposal as a way to insure that the most qualified-and not the most well-connected-companies are awarded taxpayer-funded contracts for rebuilding Iraq. Conservatives opposed the measure and argued that unanticipated contingencies in Iraq-such as a broken oil pipeline-require immediate action. A drawn-out competitive bidding procedure, Conservatives argued, could undermine the effectiveness of the U.S. reconstruction effort. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of Sherman's amendment and, on a 248-173 vote, the measure was adopted and requirements for competitive bidding on oil contracts were included in the underlying supplemental spending bill.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Won
Roll Call 556
Oct 17, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Increase Funding for Human Rights Protections for Women and Girls in Afghanistan.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the best ways to stem the tide of anti-Americanism in Iraq and Afghanistan, argued Congresswoman Jackson-Lee (D-TX), was to demonstrate the United States's commitment to protecting human rights. During debate on the $87 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, Jackson-Lee proposed an amendment which would have appropriated $300 million for women's programs in Afghanistan, including $10 million for the Afghan Human Rights Commission and $24 billion for the Ministry of Women's Affairs. Progressives supported Jackson-Lee's proposal based on their view that the U.S. had a duty to protect the human rights of disadvantaged groups-in this case women and girls in the male-dominated Afghan society-from abuse and exploitation. Conservatives voted against the measure and argued that the underlying supplemental spending bill already contained $400 million for humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan. On a vote of 156-271, the Jackson-Lee amendment was defeated and the additional assistance to Afghan women and girls was not included in the underlying supplemental spending bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 555
Oct 17, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Provide Additional Resources for Language and Cultural Education Programs for U.S. Intelligence Officers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In an effort to improve the effectiveness of the U.S. intelligence community, Congressman Reyes (D-TX) proposed an amendment to the $87 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan which would have added $5 million to already-existing scholarships and programs designed to increase language proficiency and workforce diversity in intelligence agencies. Progressives supported Reyes's proposal because, in their view, preventing future acts of terrorism requires a cultural and linguistic understanding of intelligence targets. Too few U.S. intelligence officers, Progressives argued, thoroughly understand the language and culture of Middle Eastern terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. Even fewer are of Middle Eastern descent and have some capacity to infiltrate the enemy on their own soil. Conservatives generally supported Reyes's proposal but voted against the measure on the grounds that the supplemental spending bill was the wrong forum to address problems in the intelligence community. On a party-line vote of 206-221, the Reyes amendment was defeated and the additional money for language and cultural programs for U.S. intelligence officers was not included in the underlying supplemental spending bill.


WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 554
Oct 17, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Provide All U.S. Service Personnel with a Pay Raise of $1500.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request to Congress for costs associated with military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congressman Stupak (D-MI) proposed an amendment which would have increased the pay for all U.S. service personnel by $1500. Progressives supported Stupak's amendment because, in their view, U.S. troops-and especially National Guard soldiers-were being short-changed by the Bush Administration. Progressives pointed out that eighty percent of U.S. troops had no access to clean drinking water and many had contracted dysentery and other water-borne diseases as a result. Additionally, the administration had extended the tours of duty for National Guard soldiers in Iraq from six months to, in some cases, well over a year. Unlike full-time soldiers, National Guard soldiers often leave behind better-paying, full-time jobs in the U.S. in order to fulfill their military duty. Family finances often suffer as a result. The cost of Stupak's amendment was $256 million which would have been paid for by a reduction in funding for oil importation into Iraq. While Conservatives expressed strong support for U.S. troops abroad, they voted in opposition to the Stupak proposal because the funding mechanism would transfer money away from Iraq's reconstruction budget. The reconstruction of Iraq, Conservatives argued, was just as important as providing additional assistance to U.S. troops. On a tie vote of 213-213, the Stupak measure was defeated and military pay raises were not included in the underlying supplemental spending bill (legislation which results in a tie vote is defeated).


WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 553
Oct 17, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Reduce the Reconstruction Budget for Iraq by Fifty Percent Until the Administration Presents a Clear Plan of Action to Congress Regarding Iraq's Reconstruction.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The reconstruction budget for Iraq accounts for approximately $20 billion of the $87 billion included in the administration's supplemental spending request to Congress for military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. While lawmakers generally support the administration's proposed military expenditures, there is less consensus regarding the amount and purpose of funds in the Iraq reconstruction budget. Prior to this vote, several unsuccessful efforts were made by Progressives to strip funding in the reconstruction budget for the oil company Halliburton. Evidence suggests that Halliburton, Vice President Cheney's former employer, had overcharged the federal government for the importation and sale of gasoline in Iraq by $250 million (see House votes 548 and 551). A Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown, and Root, had also allegedly fleeced the U.S. taxpayer by overcharging the military for meals provided to U.S. troops. Progressive lawmakers were also concerned about the enormous costs of the Iraqi reconstruction effort. In their view, the U.S. taxpayer should not bear the entire burden of reconstructing Iraq. Instead, they argued, the Bush Administration had a responsibility to attract international support and funding; that support, they pointed out, required a serious effort by administration officials because of what they characterized as President Bush's "go it alone" strategy in Iraq. And, finally, Progressives (and lawmakers generally) charged the Bush Administration with failing to adequately plan for post-war Iraq. In a move intended to hold the administration accountable for the reconstruction effort, Congressman Kind (D-WI) proposed a measure which would have reduced the reconstruction budget for Iraq by fifty percent, or $10 billion, until the administration presented a detailed plan to Congress regarding the specific nature of expenditures for Iraq's reconstruction. Progressives supported Kind's amendment because, in their view, the Bush Administration lacked a coherent policy for Iraq's reconstruction; spending money without a clear purpose, they argued, was wasteful. Conservatives opposed the measure. In their view, the best way to insure that U.S. troops arrive home quickly and safely is to proceed with Iraq's reconstruction as quickly as possible. Eliminating money from the underlying supplemental spending bill for reconstruction, they argued, would delay progress in Iraq. On a vote of 156-267, the Kind amendment was defeated and the $20 billion reconstruction budget for Iraq remained in the underlying supplemental spending bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 552
Oct 16, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Strike Provisions Which Would Grant the Administration with Broad Discretion Over Future Military Construction Projects.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that Congress shall be the sole branch of government that can spend money from the U.S. Treasury (the so-called "power of the purse"). At the same time, however, the Constitution vests military decision-making in the executive branch; one of the roles of the president is commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. In times of war, inter-branch conflicts often arise because, especially on war powers issues, the legislative and executive branches can be characterized as separated institutions sharing powers. During debate on the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request to Congress, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) proposed a measure which would have revoked funding for future, unspecified military construction projects. As originally drafted, the supplemental bill provided the Bush Administration with broad discretion over expenditures on military construction projects. In the view of Sanchez and other Progressives, those future projects would require congressional approval because Congress, and not the president, is constitutionally empowered to make the final determination regarding how U.S. taxpayer money should be spent. Conservatives opposed Sanchez's measure because, in their view, the president is better equipped than Congress to respond quickly to changing circumstances on the ground in Iraq. Congressional tardiness on issues of funding, Conservatives argued, might undermine U.S. military operations. On a vote of 128-295, the Sanchez amendment was struck down and provisions to grant the administration with broad discretion over future military construction projects remained in the underlying supplemental spending bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 551
Oct 16, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Prevent the Importation of Oil into Iraq.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In January 2003, the Bush Administration awarded a no-bid, $500 million contract to Halliburton to extinguish fires in Iraq's oil fields, restore Iraq's damaged oil pipelines, and, until Iraq's oil infrastructure is functioning properly, import oil into the country. By October 1, 2003, the value of Halliburton's contract had grown to $1.4 billion. In response to the tripling of Halliburton's contract, Representative Waxman (D-CA) initiated several inquiries to determine how exactly the additional monies were being spent. After a round of fact-finding, it became clear to Waxman and others that Halliburton was overcharging the federal government to import and sell gasoline in Iraq. According to an analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service-a federal agency that provides lawmakers with policy research upon request-the average price of gasoline in the Middle East was approximately seventy-one cents. However, according to Waxman, Halliburton was charging the U.S. government $1.70 per gallon of gasoline. Waxman and other Progressives characterized Halliburton's actions as price-gouging and presented evidence that the oil company had overcharged the U.S. government by $250 million. In an effort to penalize Halliburton for gasoline overcharges, Representative Holt (D-NJ) introduced an amendment to the 2004 supplemental spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan which would have eliminated all expenditures on the importation of oil into Iraq. Conservatives argued that importing oil into Iraq was necessary because Iraq's oil infrastructure had been severely neglected by Saddam Hussein's regime and was not operational. On a vote of 169-256, the Holt amendment was rejected and expenditures for oil importation into Iraq remained in the underlying supplemental spending bill.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 550
Oct 16, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Eliminate Provisions in the Bill Which Would Provide the Administration with Broad Discretion Over the Use of U.S. Taxpayer Funds in Iraq.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that Congress shall be the sole branch of government that can spend money from the U.S. Treasury (the so-called "power of the purse"). At the same time, however, the Constitution vests military decision-making in the executive branch in which one of the several roles of the president is commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. In times of war, inter-branch conflicts often arise because, especially on the issue of war powers, the legislative and executive branches can be characterized as separated institutions that share powers. During debate on the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request to Congress, issues surfaced involving the constitutional separation of powers. Specifically, Progressives were concerned with language in the supplemental request which would grant the Bush administration broad authority to transfer funding from one area of the budget into another area of the budget without congressional approval. Progressives noted that $53 billion of the $87 billion included in the supplemental could be transferred by administration officials into areas which they, but not necessarily Congress, saw fit; in the view of Progressives, granting the president broad discretion over expenditures was unconstitutional. In an effort to protect Congress's power of the purse, Congressman Markey (D-MA) proposed an amendment which would have eliminated many of the provisions in the supplemental bill which allowed the president and the Defense Secretary to transfer congressionally-allocated funding between accounts at their discretion. Conservatives opposed Markey's measure and argued that in order to fight the war in Iraq effectively, the president and members of his administration needed the authority to rearrange spending priorities as events on the ground unfolded. Congress, they argued, is often slow to respond to changing circumstances and, in the rapidly changing combat situation in Iraq, congressional tardiness on issues of funding might undermine military operations. On a vote 146-279, the Markey amendment was defeated and the provisions which provided the Bush Administration with broad discretion over funding issues remained in the underlying supplemental spending bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 548
Oct 16, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Reduce Money Available to Halliburton for Oil Purchases In Response to Alleged Price-Gouging by the Oil Company.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In January 2003, the Bush Administration awarded a no-bid, $500 million contract to Halliburton to restore damages to Iraq's oil fields (Vice President Cheney was formerly Halliburton's CEO and, though no longer employed by the company, he continues to receive financial compensation from Halliburton). By October 1, 2003, the value of Halliburton's contract had nearly tripled to $1.4 billion. In response to the tripling of Halliburton's contract, Representative Waxman (D-CA) initiated several inquiries to determine how exactly the additional money was being spent. After a round of fact-finding, it became clear to Waxman and others that Halliburton was overcharging the federal government to import gasoline into Iraq. According to an analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service-a federal agency that provides lawmakers with policy research upon request-the average price of gasoline in the Middle East was approximately seventy-one cents. However, according to Waxman, Halliburton was charging the U.S. government $1.70 per gallon of gasoline. Waxman and other Progressives characterized Halliburton's actions as price-gouging and presented evidence that the oil company had fleeced U.S. taxpayers out of $250 million. In an effort to penalize Halliburton for gasoline overcharges, Waxman introduced an amendment to the 2004 supplemental spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan which would have stripped $250 million from the bill which Halliburton intended to use for future imports and sales of oil and gasoline. Conservatives defended Halliburton and argued that the increased value of Halliburton's contract resulted from unanticipated costs in repairing the worse-than-expected condition of Iraq's oil infrastructure. On a vote of 197-224, the Waxman amendment was defeated and Halliburton was not punished for its charges to the U.S. government in providing gasoline in Iraq.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 547
Oct 16, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Provide Additional Funding for Quality of Life Enhancements for U.S. Troops.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on an $87 billion supplemental spending request for military actions and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Representative Obey (D-WI) proposed an amendment which would have transferred $3.6 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds into quality of life enhancements for U.S. military personnel. During debate on his measure, Obey pointed out that only twenty percent of U.S. soldiers have access to clean drinking water. Consequently, a large number of U.S. soldiers have contacted dysentery and other water-borne diseases. Obey's amendment would have also provided additional health benefits to reservists and full-time soldiers by extending coverage under the military health care plan from sixty days to one-hundred and eighty days upon return from combat duty. Progressives voted in favor of Obey's amendment because, in their view, the administration's supplemental spending request provided an insufficient amount of funding to protect the health of U.S. troops ($15 million was included in the supplemental request to improve access to clean and safe drinking water). Conservatives opposed the measure and argued that transferring reconstruction money into other areas would undermine the reconstruction effort. On a vote of 209-216, the Obey amendment was rejected and the additional funding for quality of life enhancements for U.S. troops was not included in the underlying supplemental spending bill.


WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 546
Oct 16, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Convert $10 Billion of the $20 Billion Iraq Reconstruction Budget from a Grant to a Loan.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One major issue which arose during House debate on the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request for costs associated with military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan involved the financing of reconstruction aid to Iraq. As originally drafted, the supplemental spending bill would provide $20 billion in Iraq reconstruction funding in the form of a grant (a grant, unlike a loan, does not require a recipient to repay the money). Progressives favored a loan for Iraq's reconstruction costs because, in their view, U.S. taxpayers should not be burdened with the entire cost of Iraq's reconstruction, especially given that Iraq's oil reserves are estimated at over $1 trillion and that, in their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who might have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. In a move intended to lighten the fiscal burden on U.S. taxpayers, Congressman Obey (D-WI) proposed an amendment which would have converted $10 billion of the $20 billion Iraqi reconstruction budget from a grant to a loan. Conservatives opposed Obey's amendment and argued that with no Iraqi government in place, a loan would be meaningless because no institution could be held responsible for its repayment. Obey's proposal was defeated on a vote of 200-226 and the $20 billion reconstruction budget for Iraq remained constituted in the form of a grant. (Note: An identical proposal to Obey's was narrowly adopted in the Senate (see Senate Vote 389) which required negotiators in conference committee to make the final determination of how the Iraq reconstruction budget will be structured.)


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 544
Oct 16, 2003
H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote to Allow Consideration of the Rules of Debate for the Bush Administration's $87 Billion Supplemental Spending Request for Costs Associated with Military Actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In its 2004 budget request to Congress, the Bush Administration failed to include funding for military actions and reconstruction efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In response to this omission, Democrats chastised the White House for submitting a budget which, in their view, failed to accurately reflect the true costs of military involvement in those two countries. Some lawmakers-most notably Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Representative David Obey (D-WI)-even accused the Bush Administration of purposely misleading the American public about the cost of war in order to maintain support among the electorate. After the president's budget had been approved by Congress, the White House drafted an $87 billion supplemental spending request to pay for military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The subject of this vote was a motion to order the previous question-a procedural motion which ends debate and the possibility of amendment-on the rules of debate for the $87 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. Progressives voted in opposition to the motion based on their objections to the underlying supplemental spending request. In their view, the supplemental request would create a financial burden for future U.S. taxpayers because, by failing to include revenue-generating mechanisms to pay for military involvement, the U.S. government would be forced to borrow huge sums of money to pay for military actions. That borrowed money, Progressives noted, would have to be repaid by future generations. Conservatives voted in favor of the motion to proceed based on their support for President Bush's supplemental spending request. On a vote of 221-202, the motion to proceed to a vote on the rules of debate for the supplemental spending request was adopted.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 542
Oct 15, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Strike Health Savings Accounts From the Conference Committee Version of the Prescription Drug Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private insurance companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two bills. In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Representative Schakowsky (D-IL) motioned to instruct House conferees to reject provisions in the House-passed bill which would create tax-favored health savings accounts. Progressives supported Schakowsky's motion because, in their view, health savings accounts would mainly benefit middle and high income earners rather than those individuals who are least able to afford prescription drugs. The estimated $174 billion cost of implementing health savings accounts, Progressives argued, could be better spent closing the gaps in prescription drug coverage which are contained in both the House and Senate versions of the legislation. In the House-passed bill, for instance, patients would be required to pay full price-i.e. get no insurance coverage-for all expenditures on prescription drugs between $2000 and $4900 per year. Progressives noted that half of all seniors have yearly expenditures on prescription drugs which fall within this gap in coverage. Conservatives voted against the motion to instruct; in their view, health savings accounts would provide individuals with a safe, reliable, and tax-favored method of saving for future health expenses. Republicans voted unanimously in opposition to Schakowsky's motion to instruct and, on a 190-218 vote, the motion was struck down and the House conferees were not instructed to strike health savings accounts from the conference committee version of the prescription drug bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 541
Oct 15, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Tax Breaks for Soldiers/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households would have benefited from the proposed increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 493, 501, 509, 525, 529, 572, and 614.) After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Crowley (D-NY) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Crowley's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Crowley's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct because, in their view, the child tax credit should not be extended to low-income families because those families, by virtue of their modest incomes, do not pay income taxes. In the words of Representative Lewis (R-KY), "one has to pay income taxes to get tax credits." Conservatives also pointed out that the federal government already provides what they characterized as ample assistance to low-income individuals in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a federal tax credit which reduces the amount of federal taxes owed by low-income individuals. And, if the value of the EITC is greater than the amount of federal taxes owed, then the individual will receive a refund check from the IRS for the difference-a difference which Conservatives argued can amount to hundreds of dollars in federal assistance. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was narrowly defeated on a party-line vote of 203-204.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 540
Oct 15, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Policy/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Include a Moratorium on Offshore Oil Drilling Operations in the Conference Committee Version of the Legislation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Earlier in the congressional session, both the House and the Senate adopted legislation to overhaul the nation's energy policies. To reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation, a conference committee was convened to produce a final legislative product. In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Congresswoman Capps (D-CA) motioned to instruct House conferees to maintain language in the House version of the bill which would place a moratorium on new offshore oil drilling operations. Progressives supported Capps's motion because, in their view, U.S. energy policies should address the demand for energy-and not just energy supplies-through proposals such as improved fuel economy in automobiles and the development of sustainable energy sources such as solar and wind power. In other words, Progressives argued that the U.S. should not try to "drill out" of its dependence on oil because domestic oil production, even with expanded oil drilling operations, can only satisfy a small fraction of total U.S. oil consumption. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct. In their view, an expansion in domestic oil production would reduce U.S. dependence on Middle-Eastern oil. On a vote of 229-182, the Capps motion was successful and House conferees were instructed to include the moratorium on offshore oil drilling operations in the conference committee version of the energy legislation.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 534
Oct 07, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Create Income Thresholds Which Would Dictate the Amount of Health Coverage Individuals' Receive.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In 2003, federal expenditures on Medicare exceeded $244 billion. And, barring permanent changes to the program, Medicare costs will continue to increase as baby-boomers retire and begin receiving Medicare benefits. To address the rising costs of Medicare, the GOP-controlled Congress adopted a prescription drug bill to provide drug coverage through private insurance companies rather than through Medicare. However, the legislation which emerged from the House and Senate differed in certain areas and a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill. In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Congressman Flake (R-AZ) motioned to instruct House conferees to include income thresholds on health coverage (income thresholds in public policy lingo are called "means-tests"). Conservatives viewed Flake's motion as a common-sense method of cost containment. Why, Conservatives asked, should the federal government provide health benefits to the wealthiest members of society who can already afford medical care? Progressives opposed Flake's motion for several reasons. First, they argued, adopting income thresholds on health coverage would transform Medicare from an entitlement program-which all qualified seniors, regardless of income, can benefit from-into a welfare program. Progressives contended that transforming Medicare into a welfare program that was only available to low-income individuals would undermine popular support for the federal health insurance program-a program which was initially created to insure that equal health benefits are available to every senior citizen regardless of their income. Second, wealthy individuals, like everyone else, pay into the Medicare system through payroll taxes. Progressives argued that denying Medicare benefits to wealthy individuals would be unfair because those individuals pay an even greater amount in Medicare taxes per year than lower income individuals. On a vote of 161-234, the Flake motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to add income thresholds to the conference committee version of the prescription drug legislation.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
N N Won
Roll Call 533
Oct 07, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Strike Health Savings Accounts From the Conference Committee Version of the Prescription Drug Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private insurance companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two bills. In an effort to influence the policy debate within the conference committee, Congressman Bishop (D-NY) motioned to instruct House conferees to reject provisions in the House-passed bill which would create tax-favored health savings accounts. Progressives supported Bishop's motion because, in their view, health savings accounts would mainly benefit middle and high income earners rather than those individuals who are least able to afford prescription drugs. The estimated $174 billion cost of implementing health savings accounts, Progressives argued, could be better spent closing the gaps in prescription drug coverage which are contained in both the House and Senate versions of the legislation. In the House-passed bill, for instance, patients would be required to pay full price-i.e. get no insurance coverage-for all expenditures on prescription drugs between $2000 and $4900 per year. Yearly expenditures on prescription drugs for half of all seniors, Progressives noted, fall within this gap in coverage. Conservatives voted against the motion to instruct; in their view, health savings accounts would provide individuals with a safe, reliable, and tax-favored method of saving for future health expenses. Republicans voted unanimously in opposition to Bishop's motion to instruct and, on a 181-214 vote, the motion was struck down and the House conferees were not instructed to strike health savings accounts from the conference committee version of the prescription drug bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 531
Oct 02, 2003
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Strike Administration-Drafted Rules Which Would Deny Overtime Pay to Certain Classes of Workers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the most controversial provisions in the 2004 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill was an administration-sponsored effort to exempt certain classes of workers from overtime pay. Specifically, the provision would exempt white-collar workers, such as executive assistants, administrators, and professionals, from overtime pay even if those employees worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. In the view of Progressives, the proposed rules changes would violate both workers' rights and fair labor practices. Progressives also pointed out that many workers depend on overtime pay to provide for their families and that denying overtime pay would cause them financial hardship. Conservatives had a different position on the overtime pay issue. In their view, the laws governing overtime pay, which were first enacted by Congress over fifty years ago, required revisiting in light of current economic conditions. According to Congressman Regula (R-OH), "it has been over 50 years since the present [overtime] rules were promulgated and the [Labor] department thinks it is important to take a look [at overtime rules] in relationship to today's world, today's communications, today's structures of our labor programs that would be realistic." (Note: During debate on the issue, Conservatives never explicitly identified the current economic conditions which required modifying the rules governing overtime pay.) The administration's proposed modifications to overtime pay rules, Conservatives added, would extend overtime benefits to 1.3 million workers who currently do not qualify for overtime pay. Conservatives also argued that failing to include the administration's proposed limitations on overtime pay in the underlying appropriations bill would trigger a veto from President Bush. The subject of this vote was a motion offered by Congressman Obey (D-WI) to instruct House conferees to prevent the enactment of the administration's overtime pay rules during conference committee negotiations with the Senate (when legislation passes the House and Senate in different forms, a conference committee is convened to iron out differences between the two versions of the legislation). Twenty-one Republicans voted alongside an overwhelming majority of Democrats in support of Obey's motion, the motion to instruct was agreed to on a vote of 221-203, and House conferees were instructed to prevent the passage of any rules which would deny overtime pay to workers.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Won
Roll Call 530
Oct 02, 2003
S 3. Partial-Birth Abortion Ban/Final Passage of a Conference Report Which Would Ban "Intact Dilation and Extraction" Abortions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

A top priority for social Conservatives in 2003 was passage of a ban on "intact dilation and extraction" abortions, or what opponents call "partial birth" abortions. While similar bans on the medial procedure were adopted by Congress in 1996 and 1997, then-President Clinton vetoed both measures. President Bush, however, has promised to sign the measure if it reaches his desk. The subject of this vote was final passage of a conference report which would ban "intact dilation and extraction" abortions unless the procedure was necessary to save the life of the mother. (When legislation passed the House and Senate in different forms, a conference committee is convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation, and a conference report represents Congress's final legislative product.) Abortion opponents-and even some who supported a woman's right to choose-called the medical procedure murder. Pro-choice lawmakers, including Progressives, responded that the rarely-used procedure was designed to protect the health of the mother, and that the majority of cases involved an infant that was not viable outside the womb. Furthermore, Progressives argued that the ban was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion. On a vote of 281-142, the House adopted the conference report and the measure was sent to the Senate. (The Senate adopted the conference report on October 21 and the measure was signed into law by President Bush on November 5.)


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
N N Lost
Roll Call 529
Oct 01, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Tax Breaks for Soldiers/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households would have benefited from the proposed increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 493, 501, 509, 525, 541, 572, and 614.) After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Davis (D-AL) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Davis's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (when the House and Senate have passed different versions of a piece of legislation, a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Davis's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct because, in their view, the child tax credit should not be extended to low-income families because those families, by virtue of their modest incomes, do not pay income taxes. In the words of Representative Lewis (R-KY), "one has to pay income taxes to get tax credits." Conservatives also pointed out that the federal government already provides what they characterized as ample assistance to low-income individuals in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a federal tax credit which reduces the amount of federal taxes owed by low-income individuals. And, if the value of the EITC is greater than the amount of federal taxes owed, then the individual will receive a refund check from the IRS for the difference-a difference which Conservatives argued can amount to hundreds of dollars in federal assistance. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 199-214.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 528
Oct 01, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private insurance companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two bills. One area of policy disagreement involved the inclusion of a "fallback" option if two or more private insurers were not providing drug coverage to a particular area (without adequate competition among private insurance companies in a particular locality, the cost of health coverage in that area would likely increase because consumers would have few alternative health insurance options available to them and, as a result, private insurers could charge higher rates). A fallback option would have provided seniors in under-served regions of the country-regions which are usually poor and are avoided by private companies based on the lack of profit-making opportunities-with a government-backed health plan to insure that seniors in under-served areas are able to afford prescription drug coverage. In the Senate bill, Medicare would provide a federally-funded option of drug coverage to seniors in under-served regions. The House bill contained no fallback option. In a fifth attempt to require that House conferees adopt a Medicare fallback option for seniors in under-served areas, Representative Case (D-HI) motioned to instruct House conferees to adopt the Senate's fallback language during conference committee negotiations with the Senate (see also House votes 359, 502, 522, and 524). Progressives voted in favor of the motion to instruct based on their support for the fallback option. In their view, the fallback option was necessary to insure that seniors in under-served areas-which are usually poor areas that private companies avoid based on the lack of profit-making opportunities-still receive prescription drug coverage. Conservatives voted against Case's motion because, in their view, the original House version of the legislation already contained language to insure that all seniors are provided access to prescription drug coverage. Free-market competition among private insurance companies, which Conservatives argued would be created in the House bill, would in their view insure that all seniors had access to affordable prescription drug coverage. On a party line vote of 208-215, the motion to instruct was defeated and House conferees were not compelled to adopt the Senate's language which would have created a Medicare prescription drug fallback option for seniors in under-served areas.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 527
Oct 01, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Fully Compensate the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management for Costs Associated With Fire Suppression Activities Incurred During 2002.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In 2002, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) together spent $1.2 billion fighting forest fires (an unusually high amount in comparison to expenditures on fire suppression activities in previous years). However, unlike most other federal agencies, the Forest Service and the BLM are not automatically compensated by the federal government for their disaster relief efforts and expenditures. While the Bush Administration repaid $825 million of the $1.2 billion spent on fighting wildfires, the Forest Service and the BLM would still be required to make cuts in other areas of their budgets in order to pay off the remaining $400 million which was spent on fighting wildfires. On this vote, Representative Dicks (D-WA) motioned to instruct House conferees-those lawmakers who participated in a conference committee to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of legislation to fund the Interior Department, Forest Service, BLM, and related agencies during 2004-to include an additional $400 million for fire suppression activities conducted by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, the budgets of the Forest Service and the BLM should not be cut on account of greater-than-expected costs in fighting wildfires. Progressives argued that without full reimbursement for costs associated with wildfire suppression activities-which they pointed out can vary enormously from year-to-year-the Forest Service and the BLM would be forced to cancel construction and land acquisition projects, reforestation programs in national forests, endangered species protection efforts, and other important activities. Conservatives voted in opposition to Dicks's proposal but did not present arguments in favor of their position on the House floor. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of Dicks's proposal and, with the support of fifty-eight Republicans, the motion to instruct was adopted and the House conferees were compelled to fully compensate the Forest Service and the BLM for costs associated with fire suppression activities.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Forest and Paper Industry
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
Y Y Won
Roll Call 525
Sep 30, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Tax Breaks for Soldiers/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households would have benefited from the proposed increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 493, 501, 509, 529, 541, 572, and 614.) After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the bill. On this vote, Representative Pallone (D-NJ) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would have extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Pallone's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Pallone's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Conservatives opposed the motion to instruct because, in their view, the child tax credit should not be extended to low-income families because those families, by virtue of their modest incomes, do not pay income taxes. In the words of Representative Lewis (R-KY), "one has to pay income taxes to get tax credits." Conservatives also pointed out that the federal government already provides what they characterized as ample assistance to low-income individuals in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a federal tax credit which reduces the amount of federal taxes owed by low-income individuals. And, if the value of the EITC is greater than the amount of federal taxes owed, then the individual will receive a refund check from the IRS for the difference-a difference which Conservatives argued can amount to hundreds of dollars in federal assistance. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 202-207.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 524
Sep 30, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private insurance companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two bills (when legislation passes the House and Senate in different forms, a conference committee is convened to reconcile differences between the two versions of the legislation). One area of policy disagreement involved the inclusion of a "fallback" option if two or more private insurers were not providing drug coverage to a particular area (without adequate competition among private insurance companies in a particular locality, the cost of health coverage in that area would likely increase because consumers would have few alternative health insurance options available to them and, as a result, private insurers could charge higher rates). A fallback option would have provided seniors in under-served regions of the country-regions which are usually poor and are avoided by private companies based on the lack of profit-making opportunities-with a government-backed health plan to insure that seniors in under-served areas are able to afford prescription drug coverage. In the Senate bill, Medicare would provide a federally-funded option of drug coverage to seniors in under-served regions. The House bill contained no fallback option. In a fourth attempt to require that House conferees adopt a Medicare fallback option for seniors in under-served areas, Representative Sandlin (D-TX) motioned to instruct House conferees to adopt the Senate's fallback language during conference committee negotiations with the Senate (see also House votes 359, 502, 522, and 528). Progressives voted in favor of the motion to instruct based on their support for the fallback option. Conservatives voted against Sandlin's motion because, in their view, the original House version of the legislation already contained language to insure that all seniors are provided access to prescription drug coverage. Free-market competition among private insurance companies, which Conservatives argued would be created in the House bill, would in their view insure that all seniors had access to affordable prescription drug coverage. On a party line vote of 202-205, the motion to instruct was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to adopt the Senate's language to create a Medicare prescription drug fallback option for seniors in under-served areas.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 522
Sep 25, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private insurance companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee between the two chambers of Congress was convened to iron out the differences between the two bills. One area of difference involved the existence of a "fallback" option if two or more private insurers were not providing drug coverage to a particular area. In the Senate bill, Medicare would provide a federally-funded option of drug coverage to seniors in under-served regions. The House bill contained no fallback option. In a third attempt to require that House conferees adopt a Medicare fallback option for seniors in under-served areas, Representative Kind (D-WI) motioned to instruct House conferees to adopt the Senate's fallback language during conference committee negotiations with the Senate (see also roll call votes 359 and 502). Progressives voted in favor of the motion to instruct based on their support for the fallback option. In their view, the fallback option was necessary to insure that seniors in under-served areas-which are usually poor areas that private companies avoid based on the lack of profit-making opportunities-still receive prescription drug coverage. Conservatives voted against Kind's motion based on their support for the current form of the House-passed Medicare prescription drug bill. In their view, the House-passed legislation already contained language to insure that all seniors are provided access to prescription drug coverage; free-market competition among private insurance companies, which they argued was provided in the underlying bill, would in their view insure that all seniors had access to affordable prescription drug coverage. On a party line vote of 199-220, the motion to instruct was defeated and House conferees were not compelled to adopt the Senate's language which provided a prescription drug fallback option for seniors living in under-served areas of the country. hey


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 516
Sep 24, 2003
H.R. 2657. Legislative Branch Appropriations/Recommit the Conference Report with Instructions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The 2004 Legislative Branch appropriations bill-a spending bill which funds the legislative branch of government (the House, Senate, legislative staff, and related agencies)-was the second spending measure considered by Congress in 2003. The subject of this vote was a motion to recommit to committee the conference report of the legislative branch spending bill (if legislation passes the House and Senate in different forms, a conference committee is convened to reconcile differences between the two versions; a conference report is the final product of conference committee negotiations). The motion to recommit, which was offered by Congressman Moran (D-VA), included instructions to increase funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to $1.55 billion (the level of funding included in the Senate's original version of the bill). Progressives supported the additional funding for FEMA based on their view that FEMA plays a vital role in disaster relief efforts around the U.S. Progressives noted that FEMA agents provided invaluable assistance to state and local police and fire departments in the wake of 9/11 and was currently involved in assisting the victims of Hurricane Isabel. In the view of Conservatives, the amount of funding for FEMA included in the underlying conference report was sufficient and they voted against the motion to recommit. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to recommit but, on a party line vote of 202-225, the motion was rejected and the conference report was allowed to proceed to a final vote without the extra funding for FEMA that Democrats had hoped for.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 514
Sep 24, 2003
H R 2555. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Spending Bill for the Department of Homeland Security with Instructions to Require the Screening of All Cargo Shipped By Passenger Aircraft.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In perhaps the largest reorganization of government conducted in the last fifty years, Congress in 2002 merged numerous federal agencies involved in fighting terrorism into a new Department of Homeland Security. In June 2003, the House adopted the first appropriations bill to fund the new Department and the Senate followed suit in July 2003. To iron out differences between the two versions of the legislation, a conference committee was convened and a conference report was finalized in September. To become law, however, a conference report (the final version of a piece of legislation) must be adopted by each legislative body and signed by the president (or passed by a two-thirds supermajority by Congress after a presidential veto). Prior to final passage in the House, Congressman Sabo (D-MN) motioned to recommit the conference report to committee with instructions to add language to the bill which would prevent the transport of unscreened cargo on passenger flights. Progressives supported Sabo's motion because, in their view, the transport of unscreened cargo-a common practice in the airline industry in which extra space in a plane's cargo hold is used for the transport of commercial goods-represented a loophole in the bill which terrorists could exploit (unlike passenger luggage, commercial cargo does not pass through a security screening). Conservatives opposed the motion because, in their view, current technology is not sufficiently advanced to enable the screening of all cargo shipped by passenger airplanes. On a party line vote of 198-226, the motion to recommit was defeated, the screening requirement for cargo holds on passenger flights was excluded from the conference report, and the measure was allowed to proceed to a final vote. (The conference report subsequently passed both houses of Congress and was signed by the president.)


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 512
Sep 23, 2003
H R 1409. Indians Land Exchange Act/Vote to Suspend House Rules and Adopt a Land Exchange Proposal Between the Federal Government and Cherokee Indians in North Carolina.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In the House, the suspensions calendar is reserved for legislation which enjoys broad, bipartisan support. By "suspending the rules"-a procedure which allows the consideration of items on the suspensions calendar, prevents amending activity on the House floor, and requires a two-thirds majority for passage-House leaders are often able to secure swift passage of widely-supported legislation. The subject of this vote was a motion to suspend the rules of the House and hold a vote on legislation which would finalize a land exchange between the federal government and the Cherokee Indian tribe in the Great Smoky Mountains of North Carolina. The purpose of the land exchange was to construct a new school for Cherokee students to replace what proponents of the measure characterized as the overcrowded, outdated, and unsafe school that Cherokee students presently attend. Progressives supported the land exchange as a way to improve the educational opportunities available to Cherokee students. Conservatives opposed the measure for two main reasons. First, the Great Smoky Mountains are one of the most visited National Parks in the United States; the land exchange, they argued, would occur in the middle of the park and would disrupt the flow of visitors to one of the nation's most pristine wildlife areas. Second, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had failed to complete an environmental impact study of the proposed land exchange. Proceeding without the EPA's recommendations, Conservatives argued, would be premature. On a vote of 288-127, the land exchange proposal attracted the necessary two-thirds majority and was adopted by the House.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
N N Lost
Roll Call 511
Sep 23, 2003
H R 1588. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004/Motion to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Language Included in the Senate's Version of the Bill Which Would Expedite the Naturalization of Immigrant Soldiers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In June 2003, the House adopted authorizing legislation which outlined defense expenditures for 2004. After House passage, a conference committee was convened to reconcile policy differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation. To date, however, a finalized version of the authorizing legislation has failed to emerge from the conference committee. In an effort to dislodge one particular policy item from the stagnant debate on the defense authorization bill, Congressman Rodriguez (D-TX) motioned to instruct House conferees (those involved in conference committee negotiations with the Senate) to adopt language contained in the Senate's version of the legislation which would extend immigration benefits to the families of immigrant soldiers who died in the line of duty and expedite the naturalization of immigrant soldiers who are currently serving in the U.S. armed forces. While similar language was not included in the House version, on June 4 the House did pass the Armed Forces Naturalization Act on an overwhelming 414-5 vote to accomplish many of the same purposes of the aforementioned Senate language. Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, immigrants who serve in the United States military should be rewarded for their sacrifices. (Legal U.S. residents who are non-citizens comprise about three percent of the U.S. military or, more specifically, 37,000 soldiers.) Conservatives voted against the motion to instruct for procedural reasons. While Conservatives supported the effort to expedite the naturalization of immigrant soldiers, they opposed the introduction of immigrant issues into conference committee negotiations on the defense authorization bill. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of Rodriguez's motion and, with Republicans divided on the issue, the motion was adopted 298-118 and the House conferees were instructed to adopt the Senate's language on immigrant issues during conference committee negotiations.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
Y Y Won
Roll Call 510
Sep 23, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee was convened to iron out the differences between the two bills. One area of difference involved the existence of a "fallback" option if two or more private insurers were not providing drug coverage to a particular area. In the Senate bill, Medicare would provide a federally-funded option of drug coverage to seniors in under-served regions. The House bill contained no fallback option. On this vote, Representative Stenholm (D-TX) motioned to instruct House conferees to adopt the fallback option included in the Senate bill during conference committee negotiations. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to instruct based on their support for the fallback option. In their view, the fallback option was necessary to insure that seniors in under-served areas-which are usually poor areas that private companies avoid based on the lack of profit-making opportunities-still receive prescription drug coverage. Conservatives voted against Stenholm's motion based on their support for the current version of the House-passed Medicare prescription drug bill. In their view, the House-passed legislation currently in conference committee already contained language to insure that all seniors are provided access to prescription drug coverage. Free-market competition among private insurance companies, which they argued was provided in the underlying bill, would in their view insure that all seniors had access to affordable prescription drug coverage. On a party line vote of 202-213, the motion to instruct was defeated and House conferees were not compelled to adopt the Senate language regarding a Medicare prescription drug fallback option.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 509
Sep 23, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Ryan (D-OH) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Ryan's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Ryan's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 199-214. (Note: In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 493, 501, 525, 529, 541, 572, and 614.)


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 507
Sep 17, 2003
H.R. 7. Charitable Giving Act/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Which Would Create Tax Incentives for Charitable Giving.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the few procedural prerogatives available to minority party members in the House is the motion to recommit. If successful, the motion to recommit sends a measure back to committee and is usually accompanied by instructions to alter the language of the bill. The subject of this vote was a motion to recommit to committee the so-called Charitable Giving Act with instructions to extend the child tax credit to low-income families. While the previously-enacted $350 billion tax cut included a provision to increase the child tax credit from $600 to $1000, the final version of the tax legislation that passed the House did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats have made numerous attempts to force the child tax credit issue onto Congress's agenda. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to recommit based on their support for extending the child tax credit to low-income families. Conservatives opposed the motion because, in their view, Congress should handle the child tax credit issue in a separate piece of legislation and not debate the child tax credit issue during consideration of the Charitable Giving Act. On a party-line vote of 201-221, the motion to recommit was defeated and the Charitable Giving Act was allowed to proceed in the legislative process without including the child tax credit for low-income families.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 506
Sep 17, 2003
H.R. 7. Charitable Giving Act/Vote on the Democratic Substitute Bill Which, Unlike the Republican Version, Includes Offsetting Revenue Increases to Pay for the Proposed Tax Breaks for Charitable Giving.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During his presidential election campaign in 2000, then-Governor Bush proposed a wide range of "faith-based" initiatives to, among other things, enhance the role of charitable organizations in society and encourage contributions to charities. While many of Bush's "faith-based" initiatives have failed to pass Congress, agreement was reached among lawmakers on the merits of a proposal to provide tax incentives for charitable contributions. However, one major sticking point remained: how should Congress pay for the new tax breaks on charitable giving? During debate on the charitable giving legislation, Congressman Cardin (D-MD) offered a substitute measure on behalf of all Democrats which would have offset the revenue losses caused by the new tax deductions by reducing to amount of corporate tax breaks provided in President Bush's 2002 tax cut (tax deductions reduce the amount of money available for government programs and services). With the exception of the offsetting revenue provision, Cardin's substitute bill was identical to the Republican version of the bill. Progressives viewed Cardin's bill as the fiscally-responsible alternative to the Republican measure and voted in favor of the proposal. The creation of additional tax breaks without corresponding offsets, Progressives argued, would further deplete the amount of funding available for domestic priorities such as education, health care, and Social Security. Conservatives rejected Cardin's measure based on what they viewed as a retroactive tax increase on corporations. Retroactive tax law changes, Conservatives argued, were unfair because businesses base their investment decisions in part on the current body of tax laws. Retroactive tax increases, then, can be likened to moving the goal posts midway through the game. On a party-line vote of 203-220, the Cardin substitute bill was defeated.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 502
Sep 10, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee was convened to iron out the differences between the two bills. One area of difference involved the existence of a "fallback" option if two or more private insurers were not providing drug coverage to a particular area. In the Senate bill, Medicare would provide a federally-funded option of drug coverage to seniors in under-served regions. The House bill contained no fallback option. On this vote, Representative Michaud (D-ME) motioned to instruct House conferees to adopt the fallback option included in the Senate bill during conference committee negotiations. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to instruct based on their support for the fallback option. In their view, the fallback option was necessary to insure that seniors in under-served areas-which are usually poor areas that private companies avoid based on the lack of profit-making opportunities-still receive prescription drug coverage. Conservatives voted against Michaud's motion based on their support for the current form of the House-passed Medicare prescription drug bill. In their view, the House-passed legislation currently in conference committee already contains language to insure that all seniors are provided access to prescription drug coverage. Free-market competition among private insurance companies, which they argued was provided in the underlying bill, would in their view insure that all seniors had access to affordable prescription drug coverage. On a party line vote of 189-220, the motion to instruct was defeated and House conferees were therefore not compelled to adopt the Senate language which provided a prescription drug fallback option for seniors living in under-served areas of the country.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 501
Sep 10, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, five other attempts were made by Democrats to force the child tax credit issue onto the legislative agenda; see roll call votes 396, 398, 446, 447, and 449). After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Davis (D-TN) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Davis's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Davis's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 195-214. (Note: In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 493, 509, 525, 529, 541, 572, and 614.)


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 498
Sep 10, 2003
H.R. 2622. Credit Reporting/Vote to Preempt State Laws Governing Consumer Access to Credit Reports.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One important issue raised during debate on legislation to extend the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1996 involved the preemption of states laws involving credit reporting. That issue was raised in the form of an amendment offered by Congressman Ney (R-OH) which would prevent states from enacting new laws governing consumer access to their credit reports. Progressives opposed Ney's amendment because, in their view, state legislatures and governors should be able to enact more consumer-friendly credit laws on behalf of citizens of their state even if those laws are more generous to consumers than the federal standards. Georgia and Colorado, Progressives noted, already provide consumers with greater access to their credit reports. Those laws and all future pro-consumer credit laws, Progressives argued, would be preempted by federal laws if the Ney amendment was enacted. Conservatives countered that existing federal standards governing access to credit reports already provide consumers with free credit reports from the three major credit reporting firms. The introduction of non-uniform state laws, Conservatives continued, would complicate matters for credit reporting agencies and would increase the cost of generating a credit report. The Ney amendment was adopted on a 233-189 vote and the overriding of state laws by the federal one was added to the underlying credit reporting bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
N N Lost
Roll Call 497
Sep 10, 2003
H.R. 2622. Credit Reporting/Vote to Expand Consumer Access to Free Credit Reports.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Consumers who need to secure credit for whatever reason can turn to a number of sources, including national, regional, or even local credit agencies. As currently drafted, however, the credit reporting legislation under consideration here only provides consumers with free access to those credit reports which were generated by one of three national credit agencies. To expand consumer access to their credit reports, Congressman Frank (D-MA) proposed an amendment to the underlying credit reporting bill which would provide consumers with free access to any credit reports generated by regional credit agencies. Progressives supported Frank's proposal as a way to increase the amount of information available to consumers about their credit history in order to protect them against errors, inconsistencies, or purposeful manipulation of their credit reports by creditors. Conservatives opposed Frank's proposal and pointed out that the three national credit agencies generate 95% of all credit reports in the U.S. Providing free access to credit reports from regional agencies, they argued, would only minimally improve consumers' access to their credit reports. On a 235-186 vote, the Frank amendment was adopted and language was included in the underlying legislation to provide consumers with free access to credit reports generated by regional credit agencies.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
Y Y Won
Roll Call 496
Sep 10, 2003
H.R. 2622. Credit Reporting/Vote to Include Sunset Language in the Underlying Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on legislation to extend the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1996, Congressman Kanjorski (D-PA) proposed an amendment to add "sunset" language to the underlying credit reporting bill which would have required Congress to revisit the laws governing the credit reporting industry after those laws had been in effect for nine years. Progressives supported Kanjorski's proposal because, in their view, the rapid pace of technological advancements-and the increased incidences of identity theft and other credit-related scams-requires flexible policies governing the credit reporting industry. When the 1996 law was enacted, Progressives pointed out, identity theft was nearly non-existent and, as such, that law included few safeguards to protect consumers' identity. If Congress enacts new credit laws without sunset provisions, Progressives continued, then the national legislature would be poorly-equipped to respond to new contingencies in the credit reporting industry. (If legislation is enacted without a sunset provision, then it can retain legal force indefinitely. Sunset provisions effectively force the previously-enacted legislation back onto the congressional agenda for reconsideration). Conservatives responded that the sunset provision was not needed because Congress, even without sunset language, can revisit issues of credit reporting as contingencies arise. (Doing so requires the consent of the majority party leadership unless a majority of representatives sign a discharge petition to force the issue onto the House floor. Discharge petitions, however, rarely succeed.) On a vote of 112-310, the Kanjorski amendment was struck down and the proposed sunset language was not included in the underlying credit reporting legislation.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 495
Sep 10, 2003
H.R. 2622. Credit Reporting/Vote to Prevent Credit Card Companies from Raising Interest Rates on Cardholders Who Pay Their Bills on Time.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In 1996, Congress passed legislation known as the Fair Credit Reporting Act which, among other things, imposed federal regulations on the credit reporting industry and mandated uniform credit reporting standards across states. States, then, were preempted by the 1996 law from enacting either more or less stringent credit reporting measures than those required by the federal government. Provisions in the 1996 law, and specifically those mandating uniform credit reporting standards for states, were due to expire on January 1, 2004. In an effort to extend the 1996 law into the future, Republican leaders brought credit reporting legislation to the House floor for debate. During House consideration of the measure, Congressman Sanders (I-VT) offered an amendment which would have prevented credit card companies from raising the interest rates of those cardholders who pay their bills on time. Currently, credit card companies are allowed to increase interest rates on an individual's credit card if any of the following conditions obtain: 1) the cardholder makes a late payment on another credit card or a student loan; 2) the cardholder's credit score is lowered; 3) or the cardholder obtains a new mortgage or loan to pay for a house, car, or medical emergency. This list, it should be noted, is not exclusive; credit card companies can increase their rates for just about any reason so long as consumers are provided a 30 day notice of the change in their policy. Progressives voted in favor of Sander's amendment because, in their view, consumers should not be subjected to credit card rate hikes unless they fail to pay their credit card bill on time. Credit activity not directly related to an individual's payments on their credit card, Progressives argued, should not be used by credit card companies-the big three being Chase Manhattan, Citigroup, and Bank One-to increase interest rates. Conservatives opposed Sanders's amendment because, in their view, the additional credit information collected from consumers and used by credit card companies helps those companies determine the proper amount of risk they face from each cardholder (interest rates can be viewed as a calculation of risk). During debate on the Sanders's amendment, Conservatives relied on testimony by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to make their case. In Greenspan's words: "The information gathered by credit reporting companies on the borrowing and payment experiences of consumers is a cornerstone of the consumer credit system in this country. Experience indicates that access to the information assembled by these companies and credit evaluation systems based on that information have improved the overall quality and reduced the cost of credit decisions while expanding the availability of credit." On a vote of 142-272, the Sanders amendment was struck down and the proposed restrictions on interest rate increases based on credit activity not directly related to an individual's payments on his or her credit card were not included in the underlying credit reporting legislation.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 493
Sep 10, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Ruppersberger (D-MD) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. Unlike the House bill, the Senate's version would extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Ruppersberger's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Ruppersberger's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 206-213. (Note: In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 477, 501, 509, 525, 529, 541, 572, and 614.)


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 491
Sep 09, 2003
H.R. 2765. Fiscal 2004 District of Columbia Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of a Spending Bill Which Would Fund Public Services in Washington, D.C. and Create a $10 Million Private School Voucher Program for DC Students.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of the $7.9 billion District of Columbia appropriation bill, a spending bill which would fund public services, programs, and government agencies benefiting the residents of Washington, D.C during 2004. Progressives voted against final passage based on their objections to provisions in the underlying bill which would create a $10 million private school voucher program in Washington, D.C. In the view of Progressives, private school vouchers are not a long-term fix to problems in the nation's public education system. In fact, they argued, vouchers would drain money that would otherwise be available to improve public schools. Additionally, Progressives argued, private school vouchers would benefit only a small minority of public school students and, furthermore, the $7500 voucher per eligible student would cover only a fraction of private school tuition costs for that student (private school tuition often exceeds $20,000 per year). Thus, the families of low-income students, even if they qualified for the voucher, would still be burdened with private school tuition costs. Progressives contended that students from middle and high-income families-and not students from lower-income families whom vouchers ostensibly target-would be the main beneficiaries of private school vouchers. Conservatives supported the private school voucher plan and voted in favor of final passage. In the view of Conservatives, private school vouchers can improve educational opportunities for those students who are stuck in poor public schools but who would be able to attend private schools if a voucher program were enacted. DC schools, Conservatives pointed out, rank among the worst in the nation in terms of test scores, funding per pupil, and class size. On a close vote of 210-206, the 2004 DC appropriations bill, which included the contested private school voucher program, was adopted. hey


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for Private & Religious Schools
N N Lost
Roll Call 490
Sep 09, 2003
H.R. 2765. Fiscal 2004 District of Columbia Appropriations/Second Vote to Create a $10 Million Private School Voucher Program in DC.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on the 2004 District of Columbia appropriation bill, the main issue of contention involved the creation of a private school voucher program in DC. On a previous vote (roll call vote 478), the House adopted an amendment offered by Congressman Davis (R-VA) to create a $10 million school voucher program in the District whereby eligible elementary or secondary school students would receive $7500 to transfer from public to private schools. After House Republican leaders extended the vote on Davis's amendment beyond the customary fifteen minutes in order to whip up additional support for the measure, the Davis amendment was narrowly passed by a 205-203 margin. In response to what they viewed as excessive strong-arm tactics by the Republican leadership, Democrats invoked a seldom-used parliamentary procedure to hold a second vote on the Davis amendment. Progressives opposed the Davis amendment (and private school vouchers generally) on two main grounds. First, Progressives argued that private school vouchers are not a long-term fix to problems in the nation's public education system. In fact, they argued, vouchers would drain money that would otherwise be available to improve public schools. Second, Davis's amendment would benefit only a small minority of public school students and, furthermore, the $7500 voucher would cover only a fraction of private school tuition costs (which often exceed $20,000 per year). Thus, the families of low-income students, even if they qualified for the voucher, would still be burdened with private school tuition costs. Progressives contended that students from middle and high-income families-and not students from lower-income families whom vouchers ostensibly target-would benefit most from private school vouchers. Conversely, in the view of Conservatives, private school vouchers can improve educational opportunities for those students who are stuck in a poor public school but would, with a voucher, be able to attend a private school. DC schools, Conservatives pointed out, rank among the worst in the nation in terms of test scores, funding per pupil, and class size. By another narrow margin, the Davis amendment was adopted 208-207 and the DC school voucher program remained in the underlying DC appropriations bill.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for Private & Religious Schools
N N Lost
Roll Call 488
Sep 09, 2003
H.R. 2989. Fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations/Vote to Restrict Travel to Cuba for Educational Purposes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In March of 2003, the Treasury Department issued a new rule which would halt certain educational trips to Cuba known as "people-to-people" exchanges. For years, educational institutions, churches, and not-for-profit organizations have engaged in people-to-people exchanges with Cuba to promote learning, the free exercise of religion, and democratic ideals among the Cuban populace; if adopted, the Treasury Department rule would end those exchanges. During debate on the 2004 Treasury and Transportation appropriations bill, Congressman Davis (D-FL) offered an amendment which would effectively prevent the Treasury Department from enforcing its restrictions on people-to-people exchanges. Progressives supported Davis's effort; in their view, democratizing Cuba is best accomplished by exposing the communist country and its citizens to the democratic ideals of the U.S. through interactions with U.S. citizens and groups. Conservatives favor a more hard-line approach to Cuba; in their view, an economic and travel embargo on Cuba offers the best hope to topple the Castro regime. Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) articulated this view clearly during debate on the Davis amendment. In her words: "[educational] travel is subject to manipulation and control by the Castro dictatorship and its tourism industries in order to meet the regime's political and economic agenda." Despite opposition from Conservatives, the Davis amendment was adopted on a 246-173 vote and funding to enforce the additional restrictions on educational travel to Cuba was eliminated from the underlying appropriations bill.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
WAR & PEACE Relations with Cuba
Y Y Won
Roll Call 487
Sep 09, 2003
H.R. 2989. Fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Implementation of Administration Plans to Privatize Fifteen Percent of the Federal Workforce.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In May 2003, the Office of Management and Budget issued a directive to federal agencies which would require all federal agencies to make fifteen percent of their jobs available for private-sector competition by the end of September. Conservatives supported the Bush Administration's efforts to privatize the federal workforce; in their view, many of the responsibilities of government could be better-performed by private firms. During debate on the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill, Congressman Van Hollen (D-MD) proposed a measure which would effectively prevent the implementation of OMB's May 2003 privatization rule. Progressives voted in favor of Van Hollen's proposal. In their view, privatizing federal jobs could undermine the performance of government. Private firms, they argued, must turn a profit to survive and therefore have incentives to institute shortcuts at the expense of U.S. citizens. Many federal jobs, Progressives pointed out, were created in large part because the private sector was unable to adequately perform those duties (such as road-building, protecting consumers, and regulating environmental polluters). On a vote of 220-198, Van Hollen's amendment was adopted and all funding was removed from the underlying appropriations bill to implement OMB's May 2003 privatization rule. (It is important to note that roll call vote 487 differs slightly from roll call vote 486. In vote 486, Democrats attempted to prevent federal agencies from identifying federal jobs that could be privatized. In vote 487, Democrats succeeded in preventing the actual implementation of privatization plans.)


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Won
Roll Call 486
Sep 09, 2003
H.R. 2989. Fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations/Vote to Eliminate Funding for Studies into Privatizing 425,000 Federal Jobs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In 2001, shortly after the Bush Administration assumed office, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed all federal agencies to identify 425,000 federal jobs that could be privatized. In the view of Conservatives, many jobs in the federal government can be conducted by the private sector. The impetus behind OMB's directive was to reduce the size of government and improve its efficiency. During debate on the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill, Representative Hastings (D-FL) offered an amendment which would have prevented any funds in the underlying appropriations bill from being used to require federal agencies to make inventories of federal jobs that could be conducted by private companies. Progressives supported the Hastings amendment. In their view, privatizing federal jobs could undermine the performance of government. Private firms, they argued, must turn a profit to survive and therefore have incentives to institute shortcuts in the performance of governmental duties at the expense of U.S. citizens. Many federal jobs, Progressives pointed out, were created in large part because the private sector was unable to adequately perform those duties (such as road-building, protecting consumers, and regulating environmental polluters). On a close vote of 205-211, the Hastings amendment was struck down and the funding for agencies to identify federal jobs that could be privatized remained in the underlying appropriations bill.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 485
Sep 09, 2003
H.R. 2989. Fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Treasury Department from Finalizing Rules Which Would Encourage Companies to Transition from Defined-Benefit to Cash Balance Pension Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In July of 2003, a federal judge ruled in Cooper v. IBM that so-called cash balance pension plans were age-discriminatory because those plans favored younger workers over their older colleagues. While defined-benefit retirement plans offer employees a guaranteed and fixed benefit upon retirement based on length of service and compensation, cash balance plans take a percentage from employees' paychecks for investment in a company-managed retirement account. In light of Enron's collapse and the thousands of Enron employees whose cash retirement accounts were wiped out, many lawmakers on Capitol Hill have advocated for stronger regulations on employee pension accounts. During debate on the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill, Representative Sanders (I-VT) offered an amendment which would prevent the Treasury Department from finalizing new rules encouraging companies to adopt cash balance pension plans. Progressives supported the Sanders amendment. In their view, cash balance pension plans are risky and can be manipulated by companies. In the IBM case cited above, IBM employees brought a lawsuit against the company after their cash balance pension accounts were cut by fifty percent for no apparent reason. In another case of pension manipulation, Enron prevented its employees from selling their Enron stock, which comprised most of the value of their pension accounts, even as the failed energy company headed toward bankruptcy. Employee pensions, Progressives argued, should be protected from manipulations and volatile market conditions which may erode or eliminate their retirement accounts (and especially the retirement accounts of older workers who may need their pensions in the short term). Conservatives generally favor cash balance plans and voted in opposition to the Sanders amendment. In their view, cash balance plans can earn employees a higher rate a return and offer greater financial protection than can defined benefit plans. On a vote of 258-160, the Sanders amendment was adopted and language was added to the House version of the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill to prohibit the Treasury Department from finalizing rules which would encourage company's to shift to cash balance pension plans. (A similar provision was not included in the Senate version of the legislation; to become law, then, the Sanders amendment must survive conference committee negotiations between the House and the Senate, must be included in the conference report, and must be signed by the president.)


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
Y Y Won
Roll Call 484
Sep 09, 2003
H.R. 2989. Fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations/Vote to Remove Caps on Remittances to Cuba.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Current U.S. law restricts Americans from sending money to any family members who live in Cuba. For instance, if a U.S. citizen gives more than the legal limit of $1,200 per year to his/her family member(s) in Cuba, then that individual can be fined up to $55,000 and face 10 years in federal prison. During debate on the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill, Representative Delahunt (D-MA) offered an amendment to revoke funding for any enforcement activities of the U.S. government aimed at prosecuting Americans for sending financial assistance to their family members in Cuba. Progressives endorsed Delahunt's amendment. In their view, the current law needlessly punishes those Cuban families who rely on financial assistance from relatives in the U.S. and has also failed to undermine the Castro regime (the restriction on remittances to Cuba was enacted with the goal of weakening Castro's regime). Conservatives opposed Delahunt's amendment and argued that removing the caps on remittances would, in effect, allow the Castro regime to pocket more U.S. money and strengthen the dictator's hold on power. On a vote of 222-196, the Delahunt amendment was adopted and the cap on remittances to Cuba was eliminated from the underlying appropriations bill.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
WAR & PEACE Relations with Cuba
Y Y Won
Roll Call 483
Sep 09, 2003
H.R. 2989. Fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Enforcement of a Travel Ban to Cuba.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

For the past 43 years, U.S. law has forbidden Americans from traveling to Cuba. In recent years, however, support for the travel ban has waned. During debate on the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill, Congressman Flake (R-AZ) proposed an amendment to revoke funding for any enforcement activities of the U.S. government aimed at preventing or prosecuting Americans for traveling to Cuba. (In effect, then, Flake's amendment would open Cuba to American tourists.) Progressives voted in support of Flake's measure because, in their view, the travel ban was a needless restriction on personal liberty and an ineffective means of undermining the Castro regime. The travel ban and economic embargo on Cuba, they pointed out, have failed to topple Castro's regime. A better way to democratize the communist country, Progressives argued, was to allow Americans to travel to Cuba, converse with Cubans, and thereby spread democratic ideals within Cuba. Conservatives objected to Flake's proposal; in their view, the best way to undermine the Castro regime is to maintain an economic and travel embargo on that country. On a vote of 227-188, the Flake amendment was adopted and enforcement of the travel ban to Cuba was eliminated from the House version of the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill. (While Flake's amendment has passed the House several times in recent years, each time it has been dropped in conference committee on account of a threatened veto by President Bush, a supporter of the travel ban.)


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
WAR & PEACE Relations with Cuba
Y Y Won
Roll Call 482
Sep 09, 2003
H.R. 2989. Fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations/Vote to Require that Amtrak Routes Recoup at Least Fifty Percent of Expenses to Remain Operational.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

A major source of contention during debate on the 2004 Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill involved funding for Amtrak, a federally-funded and operated railway. In the view of Progressives, Amtrak provides an important means of transportation for lower-income individuals who cannot afford to fly or who do not own automobiles. Conservatives, conversely, generally view Amtrak as an inefficient use of taxpayer money and favor privatizing the railway. During debate on the appropriations measure, Congressman Sessions (R-TX) offered an amendment which would have eliminated all Amtrak routes that do not recoup at least fifty cents of every dollar spent to operate the route. Conservatives supported the Sessions amendment as a way to reduce the most inefficient routes operated by Amtrak. Progressives opposed the amendment and pointed out that the Sessions proposal, if adopted, would effectively eliminate all of Amtrak's long-distance routes (while many of Amtrak's short distance routes are profitable-such as rail service between Washington, D.C., New York City, and Boston, MA-its long distance routes tend to lose money and thus require taxpayer subsidies to remain operational). Democrats voted overwhelmingly in opposition to the Sessions amendment, the measure was defeated 130-282, and the requirement that Amtrak routes recoup at least fifty percent of expenses to remain operational was not included in the underlying appropriations bill.


ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
N N Won
Roll Call 480
Sep 05, 2003
H.R. 2765. Fiscal 2004 District of Columbia Appropriations/Vote to Reduce Spending in the Underlying Appropriation Bill by One Percent.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on the 2004 appropriations bill for the District of Columbia, Representative Hefley (R-CO) proposed an amendment which would have reduced the total amount of spending contained in the bill ($7.9 billion) by one percent. Hefley, who proposed making similar across-the-board reductions on other spending bills, argued that a one percent cut in federal spending would reduce the projected 2004 deficit by twenty-five percent. Progressives (and a great many Republicans) voted against Hefley's amendment and pointed out that the 2004 DC spending bill is already 8.4 percent less then the amount received by the District in 2003. Further cuts, Progressives argued, would seriously undermine important federal programs that benefit DC residents (such as health, housing, and education-related programs). On a vote of 116-284, Hefley's amendment was defeated and the one percent spending cut was not applied to the 2004 DC spending bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 479
Sep 05, 2003
H.R. 2765. Fiscal 2004 District of Columbia Appropriations/Vote to Strike a Private School Voucher Program from the Underlying Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

On roll call vote 478, the vote immediately preceding this vote, an amendment offered by Congressman Davis (R-VA) to create a $10 million private school voucher program in the District of Columbia was narrowly adopted by a 205-203 margin. The subject of this vote was an amendment drafted by Congresswoman Norton (D-DC) which would have stripped the Davis amendment from the underlying 2004 District of Columbia appropriation bill. In the view of Progressives, private school vouchers are not a long-term fix to problems in the nation's public education system. In fact, they argued, vouchers would drain money that would otherwise be available to improve public schools. The Davis amendment, they argued, would benefit only a small minority of public school students and, furthermore, the $7500 voucher provided in Davis's amendment would cover only a fraction of private school tuition costs (which often exceed $20,000 per year). Thus, the families of low-income students, even if they qualified for the voucher, would still be burdened with private school tuition costs. Progressives contended that students from middle and high-income families-and not students from lower-income families whom vouchers ostensibly target-would be the likely beneficiaries of private school vouchers. Conversely, in the view of Conservatives, private school vouchers can improve educational opportunities for those students who are stuck in a poor public school but would, with a voucher, be able to attend a private school. DC schools, Conservatives pointed out, rank among the worst in the nation in terms of test scores, funding per pupil, and class size. On a vote of 203-203, the Norton amendment was defeated (legislation is defeated when a tie vote occurs) and the DC private school voucher program remained in the underlying appropriations bill.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for Private & Religious Schools
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 478
Sep 05, 2003
H.R. 2765. Fiscal 2004 District of Columbia Appropriations/Vote to Create a $10 Million Private School Voucher Program in DC.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Debate on the 2004 District of Columbia appropriations bill-a $7.9 billion spending bill which funds public services, programs, and government agencies in the District of Columbia-was generally consensual except for one policy initiative: school vouchers. The subject of this vote was an amendment offered by Congressman Davis (R-VA) which would create a $10 million school voucher program in the District whereby eligible elementary or secondary school students would receive $7500 to transfer from public to private schools. In the view of Progressives, private school vouchers are not a long-term fix to problems in the nation's public education system. In fact, they argued, vouchers would drain money that would otherwise be available to improve public schools. Additionally, Progressives argued, the Davis amendment would benefit only a small minority of public school students and, furthermore, the $7500 voucher would cover only a fraction of private school tuition costs (which often exceed $20,000 per year). Thus, the families of low-income students, even if they qualified for the voucher, would still be burdened with private school tuition costs. Progressives contended that students from middle and high-income families-and not students from lower-income families whom vouchers ostensibly target-would be the main beneficiaries of private school vouchers. Conversely, in the view of Conservatives, private school vouchers can improve educational opportunities for those students who are stuck in a poor public school but who would, with a voucher, be able to attend a private school. DC schools, Conservatives pointed out, rank among the worst in the nation in terms of test scores, funding per pupil, and class size. By a narrow margin of 205-203, the Davis amendment was adopted and the DC school voucher program was included in the underlying District of Columbia appropriations bill.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for Vouchers for Private Schools
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for Private & Religious Schools
N N Lost
Roll Call 477
Sep 05, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Congressman Cooper (D-TN) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment instead of making them wait. Additionally, Cooper's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Cooper's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 186-210. (Note: In addition to this vote, thirteen other attempts were made by Democrats to force action on the child tax credit issue. See also House votes 396, 398, 446, 447, 449, 493, 501, 509, 525, 529, 541, 572, and 614.)


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 476
Sep 05, 2003
H R 6. Energy Plan/Motion to Instruct House Conferees to Expand Regulatory Powers of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Early in 2003, the House Energy Committee crafted legislation outlining a national energy plan. In many respects, the 2003 energy plan was similar to legislation drafted by Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001. The 2001 legislation was defeated in conference committee because the House and Senate could not resolve their differences on issues such as oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); similar challenges to passage confront the 2003 energy plan as it heads to a conference committee (conference negotiations to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the energy bill were scheduled to begin on September 5, 2003). Progressives opposed key aspects of the 2003 energy plan, including: 1) provisions which would allowing oil-drilling in ANWR; 2) the absence of investment in renewable energy sources; and 3) the inclusion of tax breaks for fossil-fuel energy producers. Conservatives supported the 2003 energy plan based on their view that a greater emphasis on domestic oil production was needed to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Drilling in ANWR and providing tax breaks to U.S. oil producers, Conservatives argued, were necessary steps to spur domestic oil production. On this vote, Congressman Dingell (D-MI) motioned to instruct the House of Representatives' conferees to resolve differences in the House and Senate versions of the legislation pertaining to electricity reliability by September 12, 2003. Specifically, in light of the widespread power outages in the Northeast and Midwest in August 2003, Dingell (and Progressives) wanted to speed the creation and implementation of so-called regional transmission organizations (RTO's) across the nation to regulate utility companies and enforce electricity reliability rules (RTO's would be managed my the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC). Progressives voted for Dingell's motion to instruct as a way to help solidify passage of RTO's as a free-standing bill; even if other aspects of the House and Senate energy plans could not be reconciled in conference committee negotiations, Progressives hoped that agreement could be reached on the creation of RTO's (the two versions of the energy plan contained similar (reconcilable) provisions regarding RTO's). Conservatives voted against the motion to instruct based on their view that less regulation, and not more regulation, was the best solution to insure that energy markets generally, and electricity generation specifically, functioned properly and reliably. On a party-line vote of 176-211, Dingell's motion was defeated and House conferees were not instructed to adopt regional transmission organizations during conference committee negotiations with the Senate.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 475
Sep 04, 2003

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2989
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 474
Sep 04, 2003

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2989
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 472
Sep 04, 2003

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2989
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 471
Sep 04, 2003

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2989
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 468
Sep 04, 2003

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2989 Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 467
Sep 04, 2003

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2989 Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 466
Sep 04, 2003

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2989
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 465
Sep 04, 2003

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H RES 351 Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2989, Departments of Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Act, 2004
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 464
Sep 04, 2003

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 351 Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2989, Departments of Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Act, 2004
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 455
Jul 25, 2003
H.R. 2861. Fiscal 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations/Vote to Fully-Fund a Program Which Provides Shelter and Transitional Housing Arrangements to the Homeless.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One function of the Department of Housing and Urban Development is to provide shelter and transitional housing arrangements to homeless individuals. The 2004 VA-HUD appropriations bill-a measure to fund veterans' affairs (VA) programs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-included $83 million less than the amount requested by President Bush for homelessness assistance programs. During debate on the appropriations bill, Congresswoman Lee (D-CA) introduced an amendment which would have increased funding for homelessness programs by $83 million in accordance with the President's original budget request. Progressives voted in favor of Lee's amendment because, in their view, Congress has a duty to insure that homeless individuals are protected from the elements and are provided options to help them find permanent living arrangements. A solid majority of Democrats voted in favor of Lee's amendment but the measure encountered stiff opposition from Republicans and was rejected 192-232.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 454
Jul 25, 2003
H.R. 2861. Fiscal 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations/Vote to Increase Funding for Environmental Cleanup Activities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Environmental cleanup is coordinated on the federal level by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) using money generated from Superfund (a public trust fund that generates revenue based on the "polluter pays" principle in addition to its congressional funding allocations). Since President Bush took office in January 2001, however, the number of Superfund cleanup efforts has steadily declined. In an effort to spur a more concerted effort by the EPA to advance environmental cleanup activities, Congressman Markey (D-MA) proposed an amendment to the 2004 VA-HUD appropriations bill-a spending bill which includes funding for the EPA-which would have increased the Superfund budget by $115 million. Progressives voted in favor of Markey's amendment because, in their view, the EPA under the Bush Administration has abdicated its responsibility to restore the nation's most environmentally-damaged areas to their original form; the additional money in Markey's proposal, they argued, would allow the EPA to initiate environmental cleanup efforts at more Superfund sites. The additional funding for Superfund included in Markey's amendment, however, would have been paid for by an equal reduction in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) budget. Democrats were split almost evenly on the Markey amendment because many Democratic lawmakers did not want to reduce NASA's budget; doing so, they argued, would seriously hamper NASA's operations. Republicans voted overwhelmingly against Markey's proposal and, with Democrats almost equally divided on the issue, the measure was defeated on a 114-309 vote.


ENVIRONMENT Cleaning Up Contaminated "Brownfield" Sites
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 453
Jul 25, 2003
H.R. 2861. Fiscal 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations/Vote to Increase Funding for Low-Income Housing Vouchers; Vouchers Which Are Made Available to the Poor to Secure Housing.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the many duties of the Department of Housing and Urban Development is to foster affordable housing in the nation's urban areas. During debate on the 2004 VA-HUD appropriations bill-a measure to provide funding for veterans' programs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), NASA, the EPA, and other federal programs and independent agencies-Congressman Nadler (D-NY) offered an amendment to increase the amount of funding in HUD's budget for low-income housing vouchers by $150 million (bringing the total allocation for the voucher program to $12.3 billion). Progressives endorsed Nadler's proposal as a way to help low-income families afford a home and also to prevent families from being forced out of their community due to rising rent prices. Twenty-four Republicans joined a solid majority of Democrats in supporting Nadler's amendment and the measure was adopted on a 217-208 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HOUSING Funding for Housing Programs
Y Y Won
Roll Call 452
Jul 25, 2003
H.R. 2861. Fiscal 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations/Vote to Cut Funding for AmeriCorps and Use a Portion of that Money for Veterans' Medical Research.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on the 2004 VA-HUD appropriations bill-a measure to provide funding for veterans' programs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, NASA, the EPA, and other federal programs and independent agencies-Congressman Stearns (R-FL) proposed an amendment which would have cut $12 million in the bill for AmeriCorps and increased funding for veterans' medical and prosthetic research by $5 million. Progressives voted against the amendment despite their support for the additional funding for veterans' medical research as a way to protect the AmeriCorps program from budget cuts. In the view of Progressives, AmeriCorps volunteers play an invaluable role in providing important services and support for the least-advantaged citizens in the U.S. as well as impoverished individuals living abroad. With Republicans divided on the amendment and strong opposition from Democrats, the Stearns proposal was rejected 154-264.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
N N Won
Roll Call 450
Jul 25, 2003
H.R. 2861. Fiscal 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Provide Funding for Veterans' Programs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Prior to House floor consideration, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which is, in essence, an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate. On this vote, Republican Leaders sought passage of the rules for debate on the 2004 Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) appropriations bill. The VA-HUD appropriations bill also funds NASA, the EPA, and other federal programs and independent agencies. Progressives voted against the rule based on their opposition to the underlying bill. Despite its overall price tag of $122.7 billion, Progressives pointed out that the money included in the bill for veterans was $2 billion less than the amount set by Congress in its 2004 budget resolution (a budget resolution is legislation which sets forth congressional spending priorities for the upcoming Congress). In their view, veterans' programs should receive the full amount of funding which Congress had already approved as necessary. In fact, the perceived lack of funding in the bill for veterans prompted a confrontation between Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Smith (R-NJ) and the Republican Leadership prior to the bill's consideration on the House floor; Republican leaders even threatened to revoke Smith's Chairmanship if he failed to support the bill in accord with the Republican leadership. In the end, Republican leaders where able to hold their caucus together and the rule was adopted 229-196.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 449
Jul 25, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/ Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, four other attempts were made by Democrats to force the child tax credit issue onto the legislative agenda; see roll call votes 396, 398, 446, and 447). After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Congressman Bishop (D-NY) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Bishop's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Bishop's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 202-221.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 448
Jul 25, 2003

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 339 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2859, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY 2003
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 447
Jul 25, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, four other attempts were made by Democrats to force the child tax credit issue onto the legislative agenda; see roll call votes 396, 398, 446, and 449). After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Congresswoman Solis (D-CA) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Solis's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Solis's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 206-216.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 446
Jul 24, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. (In addition to this vote, four other attempts were made by Democrats to force the child tax credit issue onto the legislative agenda; see roll call votes 396, 398, 447, and 449). After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Ross (D-AR) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Ross's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of a bill). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Ross's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 202-214.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 445
Jul 24, 2003
H.R. 2427. Importation of Prescription Drugs/Vote to Allow the Importation of Less-Expensive Prescription Drugs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Many prescription drugs that are sold in Canada and other countries are less expensive than identical drugs sold in the U.S. Domestic trade laws, however, forbid U.S. companies and citizens from purchasing imported drugs and, as a result, Americans often pay more for their prescription drugs than individuals in other countries. To take advantage of cheaper drugs sold outside of the U.S., many Americans in recent years have crossed the border into Canada to purchase less-expensive prescription drugs; those who require costly prescription drugs on a daily basis have saved thousands of dollars though these Canadian drug excursions. On several occasions, Senator Dorgan (D-ND) has even chartered buses for the sole purpose of transporting senior citizens into Canada to allow those seniors to take advantage of Canada's cheaper prescription drugs. On June 20, 2003, the Senate adopted an amendment during a broader debate on prescription drug coverage to allow the importation of prescription drugs from abroad (see Senate Vote #232). The subject of this vote was final passage in the House of a similar bill to grant Americans access to cheaper prescription drugs from other countries. Progressives supported the measure for two main reasons: 1) as a way to help Americans afford the prescription drugs they need to stay healthy; and 2) to guard against alleged price-gouging by U.S. drug manufacturers. On a vote of 243-186, the House bill was adopted. The next step in the legislative process will be to convene a conference committee to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation. Then, upon House and Senate approval of the conference version, the final version of the legislation would be sent to President Bush for his signature or veto.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 444
Jul 24, 2003
H.R. 2210. Head Start Reauthorization/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill Which Would Reauthorize Head Start Funding, Allow Religious Groups That Participate in the Head Start Program to Use Religion as a Factor When Hiring New Teachers, and Devolve Federal Power to Eight States in Making Determinations of How Federal Head Start Money Should Be Spent.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of legislation to reauthorize Head Start-a federal program which provides early childhood education to over 900,000 low-income children. Progressives voted against final passage based on their objections to the bill. Specifically, Progressives opposed a provision in the bill allowing religious organizations that participate in the Head Start program to use religion as a factor when assessing the job qualifications of new teachers; in their view, judging applicants' qualifications based in part on their religion was discriminatory and illegal. Progressives also opposed a section in the Republican bill which would create an eight-state pilot program in which those eight states would receive federal Head Start money with no strings attached; those states, in other words, could use the money however they saw fit. Progressives viewed the pilot program as a de facto block grant which intended to devolve federal power over the Head Start program to the states. Devolving programmatic and expenditure decisions over the Head Start program to the states, Progressives argued, would enable states to use federal Head Start money for purposes other than Head Start at the expense of the education of low-income children. Democrats voted unanimously in opposition to the Head Start reauthorization but, by a razor-thin margin, the measure was adopted 217-216. The deciding vote was cast by Representative Sullivan (R-OK) who, at the urging of Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), was brought to the House floor against doctor's orders. Before DeLay's call, Sullivan had been recuperating in bed from injuries he sustained in a car accident on July 23. The Oklahoma Representative, clad in a tee-shirt, shorts, and sandals, was pushed by an aide to the House floor in a wheelchair where he cast the deciding vote in favor of the Head Start reauthorization bill after Republican Leaders had prolonged the vote by ten minutes to accommodate Sullivan.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Lost
Roll Call 443
Jul 24, 2003
H.R. 2210. Head Start Reauthorization/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Which Would Allow Religious Groups That Participate in the Head Start Program to Use Religion as a Factor When Hiring New Teachers And Would Allow States, And Not the Federal Government, to Determine How Federal Head Start Money Should Be Spent.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the few procedural prerogatives available to opponents of a piece of legislation is the motion to recommit. If successful, the motion recommits a bill to committee and is usually a deathblow to the legislation. During debate on Republican-drafted legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program-a federal program which provides early childhood education to over 900.000 low-income children-Representative Grijalva (D-AZ) motioned to recommit the bill to committee based on objections raised by Democrats during the course of debate. Democrats, including Progressives, opposed a provision in the Republican bill which would allow religious organizations that participate in the Head Start program to use religion as a factor when assessing the job qualifications of new teachers. In their view, judging applicants' qualifications based in part on their religion was discriminatory, illegal, and should not be tolerated. Progressives also opposed a section in the Republican bill which would create an eight-state pilot program in which those eight states would receive federal funds and be allowed to use those funds as they saw fit. Progressives viewed the pilot program as a de facto block grant which intended to devolve federal power over the Head Start program to the states. Devolving programmatic and expenditure decisions over the Head Start program to the states, Progressives argued, would enable states to use the federal Head Start money for purposes other than Head Start at the expense of the education of low-income children. Based on these two objections, Progressives voted to recommit the Head Start reauthorization to committee but, on a nearly party-line vote of 203-227, the motion was defeated and the Head Start bill was allowed to proceed in the legislative process.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 442
Jul 24, 2003
H.R. 2210. Head Start Reauthorization/Vote on Democratic Version of Head Start Legislation Which, In Contrast to the Republican Bill, Would Not Allow Religious Groups That Participate in the Head Start Program from Using Religion as a Factor When Hiring New Teachers And Would Maintain the Federal Government's Power in Determining How Federal Head Start Money Should Be Spent.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on legislation to reauthorize spending on Head Start-a federal program which provides early childhood education to over 900.000 low-income children-Congressman Miller (D-CA) offered a substitute bill on behalf of the minority party which addressed two major concerns voiced by Democrats over the Republican-drafted Head Start reauthorization bill. Democrats, including Progressives, opposed language in the Republican bill which would allow religious organizations that participate in the Head Start program to use religion as a factor when assessing the job qualifications of new teachers. In the view of Progressives, judging applicants' qualifications based in part on their religion was discriminatory. Progressives also opposed another provision in the Republican bill which would create an eight-state pilot program in which those eight states would receive federal funds and be allowed to use those funds as they saw fit. Progressives viewed the pilot program as a de facto block grant which intended to devolve federal power to the states and thereby reduce the role of the federal government in determining how Head Start money should be spent. Progressives voted in favor of the Democratic version of the reauthorization bill because it did not include the two provisions described above which they opposed. On a vote of 200-229, the Democratic substitute bill was defeated.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 441
Jul 24, 2003
H.R. 2210. Head Start Reauthorization/Vote to Prevent Religious Groups That Participate in the Head Start Program from Using Religion as a Factor When Hiring New Teachers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The federally-funded Head Start program provides early childhood education for more than 900,000 low-income children. Like many other federal spending initiatives (such as elementary and secondary education), the Head Start program requires that Congress periodically reauthorize how Head Start money should be spent. During debate on a Head Start reauthorization bill, Congresswoman Woolsey (D-CA) introduced an amendment which would have deleted a provision contained in the Republican-drafted measure which allowed religious organizations that participate in the Head Start program to consider religion as a factor when hiring new teachers. The same provision was included in President Bush's "faith-based" initiative which, to date, has stalled in Congress. In the view of Progressives, judging applicants' qualifications based in part on their religion was discriminatory and they voted in favor of Woolsey's amendment to strike the faith-based provision from the reauthorization bill. Four Republicans voted with an overwhelming majority of Democrats in support of Woolsey's amendment but the measure was defeated 199-231 and the faith-based provision remained in the reauthorization bill.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 436
Jul 24, 2003
H.R. 2738. U.S.-Chile Trade/Vote on Final Passage of a Free Trade Bill Between the U.S. and Chile

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a free trade bill between the U.S. and Chile. Progressives opposed the trade bill for two main reasons. First, in their view, the trade bill would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States and thereby cause Americans to lose their jobs (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Progressives pointed out that similar free-trade agreements (such as NAFTA) have enabled U.S. firms to export jobs to other countries at the expense of U.S. workers. Second, Progressives argued that free-trade agreements encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities that sometimes come from previously pristine natural environments under-protected by nations' environmental laws. Despite opposition from Progressives, the U.S.-Chile free trade measure was adopted by the House on a 270-156 vote.


ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
N N Lost
Roll Call 435
Jul 24, 2003
H.R. 2738. U.S.-Chile Trade/Procedural Vote to Prevent Passage of a Free Trade Bill Between the U.S. and Chile.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In an effort to prevent final passage of the U.S.-Chile free trade bill, Congressman McDermott (D-WA) motioned to reconsider the previous vote (Roll Call Vote #434) and thereby allow opponents of the legislation a second opportunity to defeat the measure. The previous vote involved the third and final reading of the U.S.-Chile free trade bill. According to House rules, legislation needs to be read three times before passage; the first reading occurs when the legislation is first introduced, the second reading occurs before House debate on the floor, and the third reading occurs at the conclusion of floor debate but before final passage of the legislation. Progressives supported McDermott's motion based on their objections to the underlying legislation. In the view of Progressives, the free trade bill would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States and thereby cause Americans to lose their jobs (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Second, Progressives argued that free-trade agreements (such as the proposal at issue here) encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities that sometimes come from previously pristine natural environments under-protected by nations' environmental laws. On this vote, Representative Crane (R-IL) motioned to table (strike down) McDermott's motion to prevent the third reading of the bill and thereby defeat the legislation. Progressives voted against Crane's motion to table based on their opposition to the trade bill (and their support for McDermott's motion) but the motion to table was upheld 276-152 and the trade bill was allowed to proceed to a final vote.


ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
N N Lost
Roll Call 434
Jul 24, 2003
H.R. 2738. U.S.-Chile Trade/Procedural Vote to Proceed to a Final Vote on a Free Trade Bill Between the U.S. and Chile.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

House rules require that legislation be read three times before passage; the first reading occurs when the legislation is first introduced, the second reading occurs before House debate on the floor, and the third (and final) reading occurs at the conclusion of floor debate but before final passage of the legislation (usually the title of the bill, and not entire document, is read by the clerk of the House). The subject of this vote was the third reading of legislation to encourage free trade between the U.S. and Chile. Progressives voted against the pro-forma third reading (in an effort to prevent final passage of the bill) based on their objections to the underlying legislation (arguments against the U.S.-Chile free trade bill mirror those presented in opposition to the U.S.-Singapore free trade bill (see Roll Call Vote #432); in fact, both pieces of legislation were called up for debate at the same time). In the view of Progressives, the U.S.-Chile trade bill would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States and thereby cause Americans to lose their jobs (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Progressives also contended that free-trade agreements encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities that sometimes come from previously pristine natural environments under-protected by nations' environmental laws. Despite their objections to the free trade bill, the third reading was allowed on a 299-129 vote and the legislation was allowed to proceed in the legislative process.


ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
N N Lost
Roll Call 432
Jul 24, 2003
H.R. 2739. U.S.-Singapore Trade/Vote on Final Passage of a Free Trade Bill Between the U.S. and Singapore.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a free trade bill between the U.S. and Singapore. Progressives voted to defeat the trade bill for two main reasons. First, in their view, the trade bill would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States and thereby cause Americans to lose their jobs (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Progressives contended that similar free-trade agreements (such as NAFTA) have enabled U.S. firms to export jobs to other countries at the expense of U.S. workers. Second, Progressives argued that free-trade agreements (such as the proposal at issue here) encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities that sometimes come from previously pristine natural environments under-protected by nations' environmental laws. Despite opposition from Progressives, the trade measure was adopted by the House on a 272-155 vote.


ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
N N Lost
Roll Call 431
Jul 24, 2003
H.R. 2739. U.S.-Singapore Trade/Procedural Vote to Prevent Passage of a Free Trade Bill Between the U.S. and Singapore.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In a second effort to prevent final passage of a free trade bill between the U.S. and Singapore, Congressman Levin (D-MI) motioned to reconsider the previous vote (Roll Call Vote #430) and thereby allow opponents of the legislation another opportunity to defeat the measure. The previous vote involved the third and final reading of the free trade bill. According to House rules, legislation needs to be read three times before passage; the first reading occurs when the legislation is first introduced, the second reading occurs before House debate on the floor, and the third reading occurs at the conclusion of floor debate but before final passage of the legislation. Progressives opposed the U.S.-Singapore free trade bill for two main reasons. First, in their view, the trade bill would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States and thereby cause Americans to lose their jobs (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Second, Progressives argued that free-trade agreements (such as the proposal at issue here) encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities that sometimes come from previously pristine natural environments under-protected by nations' environmental laws. On this vote, Representative Crane (R-IL) motioned to table (strike down) Levin's motion to prevent the third reading of the bill and thereby defeat the measure. Progressives voted against Crane's motion to table based on their opposition to the trade bill (and their support for Levin's motion) but the motion to table was upheld 269-153 and the trade bill was allowed to proceed to a final vote.


ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
N N Lost
Roll Call 430
Jul 24, 2003
H.R. 2739. U.S.-Singapore Trade/Procedural Vote to Proceed to a Final Vote on a Free Trade Bill Between the U.S. and Singapore.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

According to House rules, legislation needs to be read three times before passage; the first reading occurs when the legislation is first introduced, the second reading occurs before House debate on the floor, and the third (and final) reading occurs at the conclusion of floor debate but before final passage of the legislation. The subject of this vote was the third reading of legislation to encourage free trade between the U.S. and Singapore. Progressives voted against the pro-forma third reading (in an effort to prevent final passage of the bill) based on their objections to the underlying legislation. In the view of Progressives, the U.S.-Singapore trade bill would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States and thereby cause Americans to lose their jobs (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Additionally, Progressives contended that free-trade agreements (like the proposal under consideration here) encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities that sometimes come from previously pristine natural environments under-protected by nations' environmental laws. Despite their objections to the bill, the third reading was allowed on a 309-114 vote and the legislation was allowed to proceed in the legislative process.


ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
N N Lost
Roll Call 428
Jul 23, 2003
H.R. 2800. Fiscal 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations/Vote to Cut All Financial Assistance to Saudi Arabia; A Country Which, Progressives Argued, Contributed to the September 11th Attacks.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

On this vote, Representative Weiner (D-NY) proposed to strike from the 2004 foreign operations appropriations bill all financial assistance to Saudi Arabia. During debate on his proposal, Weiner argued that the Saudi government did not deserve U.S. funds because of its role in the September 11th attacks. To support his claim, Weiner cited intelligence information which demonstrated that the Saudi government had harbored two of the 9/11 hijackers, provided cash grants to two other hijackers, and failed to freeze Osama bin Laden's accounts until a month after the 9/11 attacks occurred. Progressives voted in favor of Weiner's amendment because, in their view, the Saudi government could not be trusted to crack down on terrorism and should therefore not receive U.S. aid. The 191-231 vote on the Weiner amendment significantly divided each of the two parties but the measure was nonetheless rejected and U.S. aid to Saudi Arabia remained in the underlying spending bill.


WAR & PEACE Relations with Saudi Arabia
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 426
Jul 23, 2003
H.R. 2800. Fiscal 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations/Vote to Transfer $75 Million in the Spending Bill from Counter-Narcotics Missions in Colombia to Programs to Combat the Global Spread of AIDS.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The major source of contention during debate on the 2004 foreign operations appropriations bill involved the specific amount of money the U.S. should provide to combat the global spread of AIDS and treat those infected with the virus. The subject of this vote was an amendment by Congressman McGovern (D-MA) which would have transferred $75 million contained in the spending bill for counterdrug activities in Colombia into programs to combat the AIDS virus and provide treatments for AIDS victims. Progressives voted in support of McGovern's measure because, in their view, efforts to halt the spread of AIDS and alleviate the pain and suffering of those already infected with the virus are more important than counter-narcotics missions in Colombia. During the debate on his amendment, McGovern pointed out that U.S. aid to Colombia had failed to curtail the production of cocaine in that country; in fact, McGovern noted, cocaine production continued to increase despite the multi-billion dollar U.S. drug war against Colombian cocaine. On a vote of 195-226, the McGovern amendment was struck down and the transfer of money from counterdrug missions to AIDS programs contained in the bill did not occur.


HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, International
WAR & PEACE Military Aid to Colombia
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 425
Jul 23, 2003
H.R. 2800. Fiscal 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations/Vote to Add $300 Million in the Spending Bill for AIDS Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on the 2004 foreign operations appropriations bills-a spending bill to provide $17.2 billion in funding for purposes such as foreign military financing and programs to combat the global spread of AIDS-Representative Kilpatrick (D-MI) offered an amendment which would have increased the amount in the bill for HIV/AIDS programs by $300 million. Progressives voted in support of Kilpatrick's measure because, in their view, the U.S. should be playing a more active role in combating the AIDS pandemic. Republicans contended that enough money was already contained in the spending bill for AIDS programs and voted against Kilpatrick's amendment. By a vote of 192-228, the Kilpatrick amendment was rejected and the additional $300 million for AIDS programs was not included in the spending package.


HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, International
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 424
Jul 23, 2003
H.R. 2800. Fiscal 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations/Vote to Grant the Minority Party More Leeway in Offering Amendments and Debating Provisions in the Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Under the rules of debate drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-the 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill was to be considered by the "Committee of the Whole" (the Committee of the Whole includes at least 100 House members who debate legislation on the House floor according to more restrictive rules of debate in committee than is the case normally). As a general rule, the procedural powers granted to minority party members in the Committee of the Whole-their ability to offer amendments, debate a measure at length, or send the legislation back to committee-are severely restricted relative to their power during debate when they are constituted in their capacity as the full House rather than in their capacity as the Committee on the Whole. This vote was a second attempt to rise from the Committee of the Whole during debate on the 2004 Foreign Operations appropriations bill; this time the motion was offered by Representative Jackson (D-IL). Progressives voted in favor of the motion to rise as a way to liberalize floor debate on the underlying appropriations bill. Specifically, Progressives wanted the opportunity to debate an amendment drafted by Congresswoman Lowey (D-NY) which, if passed, would have fully funded President Bush's Global AIDS Initiative (under the current rules of debate, Lowey's amendment was not allowed to be considered on the House floor). In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush pledged to contribute $3 billion in each of the next five years to combat the AIDS pandemic. The underlying spending bill, however, included only $2 billion of the president's $3 billion commitment to fight AIDS, a funding deficiency which Progressives hoped to correct though passage of Lowey's amendment. Despite support from Progressives, the motion to rise was defeated 63-342 and the restrictive rules of debate on the 2004 Foreign Operations appropriations bill remained intact.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, International
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N Y Lost
Roll Call 423
Jul 23, 2003
H.R. 2800. Fiscal 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations/Vote to Grant the Minority Party More Leeway in Offering Amendments and Debating Provisions in the Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

High levels of partisanship have been a major feature of legislative politics in the 107th Congress. Both House and Senate Democrats (both in the minority party) have argued that Republican leaders in Congress have prevented meaningful debate on a host of issues ranging from the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security to extending the child tax credit to low income families. At issue here is another piece of legislation in which debate on the floor of the House was excessively restricted. Under the rules of debate drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-the 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill was to be considered by the "Committee of the Whole" (the Committee of the Whole includes at least 100 House members who debate legislation on the House floor according to more restrictive rules of debate in committee). As a general rule, the procedural powers granted to minority party members in the Committee of the Whole-their ability to offer amendments, debate a measure at length, or send the legislation back to committee-are severely restricted relative to their power during debate when they are constituted in their capacity as the full House rather than in their capacity as the Committee on the Whole. On this vote, Congresswoman DeLauro (D-CT) motioned to rise from the Committee on the Whole. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to rise as a way to liberalize floor debate on the underlying appropriations bill. Specifically, Progressives wanted the opportunity to debate an amendment drafted by Congresswoman Lowey (D-NY) which, if passed, would have fully funded President Bush's Global AIDS Initiative (under the current rules of debate, Lowey's amendment was not allowed to be considered on the House floor). In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush pledged to contribute $3 billion in each of the next five years to combat the AIDS pandemic. The underlying spending bill, however, included only $2 billion of the president's $3 billion commitment to fight AIDS, a funding deficiency which Progressives hoped to correct though passage of Lowey's amendment. Despite support from Progressives, the motion to rise was defeated 84-318 and the restrictive rules of debate on the 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill remained intact.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, International
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N Y Lost
Roll Call 421
Jul 23, 2003
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Restrict the Number of Death Penalty Convictions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Representative Rush (D-IL), during consideration of an appropriations bill to fund the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, introduced an amendment which would have barred the use of federal funds to carry out the sentencing phase of any trial in which federal prosecutors sought the death penalty. Rush was quick to point out that his amendment would not overturn the legality of the death penalty. Instead, Rush intended to cut back on the number of death penalty convictions in a round-about way by withholding federal funds during the sentencing phase of a trial in which the death penalty was sought. Progressives voted in support of Rush's amendment based on their opposition to the death penalty. In their view, a government should not have the power to sentence its citizens to death. Moreover, Progressives argued, many death penalty convictions are fraught with injustices; minorities, for instance, are far more likely to receive the ultimate punishment than are whites. In addition, many convicts who had been put to death were later found to be innocent based on DNA evidence (by then, of course, it was too late). Despite support from Progressives, both a majority of Democrats and an overwhelming number of Republicans voted against the Rush amendment and the measure to restrict the number of death penalty convictions was defeated 85-339.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 420
Jul 23, 2003
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Federal Government from Interfering With State Laws that have Decriminalized the Use of Medical Marijuana.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Ten states in recent years have enacted laws-either through their state legislatures or through ballot propositions to voters-to decriminalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes (those states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). The federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), however, has rejected the legality of state medical marijuana laws and has filed criminal charges against numerous individuals and business establishments in those ten states for the possession or distribution of medicinal marijuana. In the view of Progressives, marijuana should be tolerated for medicinal purposes because, according to a study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the drug has been found to be effective in treating the symptoms of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma. During debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, Representative Hinchey (D-NY) offered an amendment which would have prevented the federal government from interfering with the implementation of state laws that authorize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Progressives voted in favor of Hinchey's amendment but the measure was rejected 152-273.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 419
Jul 23, 2003
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Justice Department From Enforcing the Separation of Powers Between the Church and State in the Alabama Case Involving the Placement of a Monument of the Ten Commandments in the State's Supreme Court Building.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In a clash between religious principles and constitutional law, Roy Moore, Chief Justice of Alabama's Supreme Court, refused a court order issued by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson in 2002 to hide from public view a monument of the Ten Commandments which had been prominently displayed in Alabama's state supreme court building since 2001 (Moore has since been removed from his judicial duties). In the view of Progressives, the monument violated the Constitution's ban on the government's endorsement of a particular religious doctrine. During debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, Congressman Hostettler (R-IN) proposed an amendment to block the Justice Department from enforcing the ruling which required the removal of the 5,280-pound monument from Alabama's supreme court building. Progressives voted against the Hostettler amendment because, in their view, the monument of the Ten Commandments violated the constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. Despite their objections, the Hostettler amendment was adopted by the House on a 260-161 vote. The Senate, however, failed to adopt similar language and the Hostettler amendment therefore failed to become law.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
N N Lost
Roll Call 416
Jul 23, 2003
H.R. 2738, H.R. 2739. U.S.-Chile Trade and U.S. Singapore Trade/Vote to Defeat a Motion to Reconsider (Hold Another Vote On) the Rules of Debate on Two Free Trade Agreements (Between the U.S. and Chile and the U.S. and Singapore) Which, Progressives Argued, Failed to Allocate Sufficient Time for House Floor Consideration.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In a previous vote (Roll Call Vote #415), rules governing debate on two free trade agreements-one between the U.S. and Chile and the other between the U.S. and Singapore-were adopted. In the view of Progressives, the two hours provided in the rules for debate on both measures was an insufficient amount of time for them to detail their objections to the two trade agreements. Progressives opposed the trade agreements on several grounds. First, they argued, the trade agreements would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Second, Progressives contended that similar free-trade agreements (such as NAFTA) have enabled U.S. firms to export jobs to other countries at the expense of U.S. workers. Third, Progressives argued that free-trade agreements (like the proposals under consideration here) weaken labor protections for U.S. workers and encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to harvest commodities in pristine natural environments. In an effort to allow more time to debate those issues, Representative Hastings (D-FL) motioned reconsider the previous vote on the rules governing debate on the two trade bills. On this vote, Congressman Dreier (R-CA) motioned to table (strike down) the Hastings motion to reconsider (hold another vote on) the rules of debate. Progressives voted in opposition to the tabling motion in an effort to uphold the Hastings motion and impel Republicans to provide additional time for debate on the trade agreements. On a nearly party-line vote of 228-197, Dreier's tabling motion was adopted, the Hastings motion was therefore defeated, and the previous vote on the rules of debate (Roll Call Vote #413) were sustained.


ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 415
Jul 23, 2003
H.R. 2738, H.R. 2739. U.S.-Chile Trade and U.S. Singapore Trade/Vote on Rules of Debate on Two Free Trade Agreements (Between the U.S. and Chile and the U.S. and Singapore) Which, Progressives Argued, Failed to Allocate Sufficient Time for House Floor Consideration.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before legislation can be considered on the House floor, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee (which acts, in essence, as an arm of the majority party leadership) must be adopted to set parameters on debate. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on two free trade agreements; one agreement intended to promote trade between the U.S. and Chile and the other agreement involved free trade between the U.S. and Singapore. Progressives opposed the rule based on their objections to the trade agreements. In the view of Progressives, the trade agreements would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Secondly, Progressives argued that similar free-trade agreements (such as NAFTA) have enabled U.S. firms to export jobs to other countries at the expense of U.S. workers. Additionally, Progressives contended that free-trade agreements (like the proposals under consideration here) weaken labor protections for U.S. workers and encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities in pristine natural environments. Progressives also voiced objections specific to the rule; in their view, the two-hour allotment of time provided in the rule for debate on both trade measures was insufficient to allow a vibrant discussion of the issues surrounding free trade agreements (see Roll Call Vote #416). Despite their objections to the rule, it was adopted 281-144 and the two trade agreements were scheduled for debate on the House floor.


ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 414
Jul 23, 2003
H.R. 2738, H.R. 2739. U.S.-Chile Trade and U.S. Singapore Trade/Vote to Defeat a Motion to Prevent the Consideration of Two Free Trade Agreements (Between the U.S. and Chile and the U.S. and Singapore).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In a previous vote (Roll Call Vote #413), two free trade agreements-one between the U.S. and Chile and the other between the U.S. and Singapore-cleared a procedural hurdle and were allowed to proceed in the legislative process. Before those bills could be debated upon on the House floor, however, rules for debate needed to be adopted to set guidelines for floor consideration. Progressives objected to the rules of debate on those two trade measures because, in their view, the two-hours allotted in the rule for the consideration of both bills on the House floor (the bills were to be considered simultaneously) provided insufficient time to adequately debate issues of free trade such as labor and environmental protections and the potential loss of U.S. jobs those trade agreements may cause. Based on their concern for the limited amount of time available for debate, Representative Hastings (D-FL) motioned reconsider (hold another vote on) the previous vote to proceed to the trade bills. The subject of this vote was a motion offered by Congressman Dreier (R-CA) to table (strike down) the Hastings motion to reconsider the previous vote to proceed. Progressives voted in opposition to the tabling motion in an effort to uphold the Hastings motion and impel Republicans to provide additional time for debate on the trade agreements. On a nearly party-line vote of 223-201, Dreier's tabling motion was adopted, the Hastings motion was therefore defeated, and the motion to proceed to the trade bills (Roll Call Vote #413) was sustained.


ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 413
Jul 23, 2003
H.R. 2738, H.R. 2739. U.S.-Chile Trade and U.S. Singapore Trade/Vote to Allow Consideration of Two Free Trade Agreements (Between the U.S. and Chile and the U.S. and Singapore).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

On July 31, 2003, the Senate adopted two separate bills intended to promote free trade between the U.S. and Chile and the U.S. and Singapore. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question to allow consideration of those two trade bills in the House. Progressives voted in opposition to both trade agreements on three grounds. First, they argued, the trade agreements would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Second, Progressives noted that similar free-trade agreements (such as NAFTA) have enabled U.S. firms to export jobs to other countries at the expense of U.S. workers. Third, Progressives contended that free-trade agreements (like the proposals under consideration here) weaken labor protections for U.S. workers and encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to commodities in pristine natural environments. For these reasons, Progressives voted against the motion to proceed to the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore trade bills. On a nearly party-line vote of 226-200, the motion to move the previous question was adopted and the two trade bills were allowed to proceed in the legislative process.


ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
N N Lost
Roll Call 411
Jul 23, 2003
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Amendment Designed to Protect U.S. Farmers, Workers, and Businesses from the Adverse Effects of Free Trade Agreements with Central American Countries.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, Congressman Levin (D-MI) proposed an amendment which would have prevented the U.S. from entering into any free trade agreement with a Central American country that failed to: 1) protect U.S. copyrights from patent infringements; 2) ensure open markets for U.S. agricultural goods; and 3) uphold fair labor standards. Progressives voted in favor of Levin's proposal because, in their view, free trade should be a two-way street; allowing foreign countries to circumvent U.S. copyright laws, block the sale of U.S. agricultural products in their country, or fail to uphold labor agreements, Progressives argued, unfairly penalized American businesses, farmers, and laborers. Representative Kolbe (R-AZ) raised a point of order against the Levin amendment on the grounds that the measure constituted legislation in an appropriations bill (appropriations bills are considered privileged matters in the House and Senate; amendments to spending bills which are not deemed germane (relevant) to the pending legislation can be subject to a point of order). The subject of this vote was a motion to sustain Kolbe's point of order against the Levin amendment. Although Progressives voted against the point of order based on their support for Levin's amendment, Kolbe's objection was sustained 231-198, Levin's amendment was defeated, and the trade protections for U.S. workers and businesses were not included in the underlying spending bill.


ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
N N Lost
Roll Call 410
Jul 23, 2003
H. Res. 330. Disapproval of Conduct/Vote to Reprimand Chairman Thomas (R-CA) for Ordering Capitol Police to Remove Committee Democrats from a Markup Session in the Committee on Ways and Means.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During a particularly acrimonious markup session on pension savings legislation (H.R. 1776), Representative Thomas (R-CA), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, ordered the Capitol Police to remove Ways and Means Democrats from a library adjoining the committee room after verbal sparring broke out between him and Representative Pete Stark (D-CA). Democrats had retreated to the library from the committee room to plot strategy on the bill in response to what they characterized as bully-tactics by Chairman Thomas. After Democrats had left the Capitol Building under duress-and therefore were unable to amend the committee version of the pension bill-the Republican committee members passed the pension savings legislation and reported the measure to the House for a floor vote. Democrats, including Progressives, voiced outrage that Chairman Thomas would call upon the Capitol Police to remove Ways and Means Democrats from the markup session and then vote the legislation out of committee without Democrats present (a markup session refers to committee negotiations over the contents of legislation). In response to the brouhaha, Democrats drafted a resolution to admonish the Chairman for his strong-arm tactics and to protest that the pension legislation was not reported to the House floor in a valid manner. On this vote, Majority Leader DeLay (R-TX) motioned to table (strike down) the Democrats' resolution of disapproval. Progressives voted against the tabling motion because, in their view, the actions of Chairman Thomas illegitimately prevented Democrats from participating in the markup session and the chairman should therefore be reprimanded. On a straight party-line vote, the tabling motion was carried 223-193 and Chairman Thomas's actions were not punished.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 409
Jul 22, 2003
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Cut Federal Funding to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies if Those Agencies Fail to Provide Citizenship or Immigration Information to the Department of Homeland Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, Congressman Tancredo (R-CO) offered an amendment which would have denied federal law enforcement funding to any state or local government that failed to transmit information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status to or from the Department of Homeland Security. Progressives opposed Tancredo's amendment and pointed out that laws were already on the books-such as the Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996-which required information-sharing among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Moreover, Progressives argued, Tancredo's attempt to revoke federal funding for local or state law enforcement was irresponsible and harsh. In their view, Congress should promote cooperation, and not conflict, among the levels of the law enforcement bureaucracy. An overwhelming number of Democrats voted against the Tancredo amendment and, with Republicans divided on the vote, the Tancredo amendment was torpedoed 122-305.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 408
Jul 22, 2003
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Uphold the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by Preventing Law Enforcement From Conducting Searches Without a Warrant.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One provision in the 2001 U.S. PATRIOT Act allows law enforcement the power to conduct searches without first obtaining a warrant. These "sneak-and-peak" searches, proponents argue, are needed to protect the country from terrorist activities. In the view of Progressives, conducting searches without a warrant violates individual protections from illegal search and seizure as codified in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. During consideration of the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, Representative Otter (R-ID) introduced a measure which would have prevented the government from conducting "sneak-and-peak" searches. Progressives voted in favor of Otter's amendment as a way to protect the constitutional rights of suspected criminals (obtaining a warrant requires law enforcement officials to demonstrate "probable cause" that a suspect is involved in criminal activities). Democrats voted overwhelmingly in favor of Otter's measure and, with Republicans divided on the issue, the amendment to prevent "sneak-and-peak" was adopted on a 309-118 vote.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
Y Y Won
Roll Call 407
Jul 22, 2003
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Insure a Diversity of Viewpoints in the Media by Preventing the Concentration of Media Ownership.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

On June 2, 2003, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a rule intended to enhance competition in media markets. One of the rules implemented by the FCC was to raise the percentage of the national television audience that could be reached by any one media conglomerate from 35 percent to 45 percent. Progressives condemned the FCC's ruling and argued that the new rule would further concentrate media ownership in the hands of a select few firms such as Disney, Viacom, and AOL-Time Warner. In the view of Progressives, the concentration of media ownership undermines the democratic process because the public receives information from fewer independent media outlets on a narrower range of topics. During debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, Representative Hinchey (D-NY) proposed an amendment which would have prohibited a company that owns a daily newspaper in a particular media market from receiving a television or radio license in that same region. Progressives supported Hinchey's amendment as a way to prevent the concentration of media ownership and thereby insure that a diversity of viewpoints are disseminated in print, electronic, or televised form. Sixty Democrats joined a majority of Republicans in defeating the Hinchey amendment on a 174-254 vote and the FCC's rules to concentrate media ownership remained intact.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Broadcast Media
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Speech and Press
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 406
Jul 22, 2003
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Justice Department From Enforcing the Separation of Powers Between the Church and State in Cases Where Schoolchildren are Forced to Recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In June of 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (California) ruled in Newdow v. U.S. Congress that requiring schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because the phrase "one nation, under God" violated the constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. During consideration of the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, Congressman Hostettler (R-IN) offered an amendment which would have prevented the Justice Department from using funds to enforce the circuit court's ruling. Progressives voted against the Hostettler amendment because, in their view, the separation of church and state plays a vital role in protecting individuals from the creation of a state-endorsed religion. Despite opposition from Progressives, Democrats were split on the issue and the Hostettler amendment to prevent the Justice Department from enforcing the ruling against recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was adopted 307-119.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
N N Lost
Roll Call 405
Jul 22, 2003
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the U.S. from Re-Entering the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Since its creation in 1945, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) had worked to educate students across the globe on issues of diversity and cultural awareness. In 1984, then-President Ronald Reagan removed the U.S. from the international coalition of countries that support UNESCO and, from 1984 to 2003, the U.S. failed to rejoin the organization. The 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, however, included a provision to enable the U.S. to re-enter UNESCO. During debate on the appropriations bill, Congressman Paul (R-TX) proposed an amendment which would have eliminated the $71 million contained in the appropriations measure to allow the U.S. to re-enter UNESCO. Progressives voted against Paul's amendment because, in their view, UNESCO plays an important international role in advocating principles of human rights, democracy, diversity, tolerance, and cultural awareness and should therefore benefit from U.S. participation and financial assistance. Democrats voted overwhelmingly against Paul's amendment and the measure was defeated 145-279, thereby insuring that the U.S. would re-enter and contribute funding to UNESCO upon passage of the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill.


WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Won
Roll Call 404
Jul 22, 2003
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Grant the Minority Party More Leeway in Offering Amendments and Debating Provisions in the Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Under the rules of debate drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill was to be considered by the "Committee of the Whole" (the Committee of the Whole includes at least 100 House members who debate legislation on the House floor according to more restrictive rules of debate in committee). As a general rule, the procedural powers granted to minority party members in the Committee of the Whole-their ability to offer amendments, debate a measure at length, or send the legislation back to committee-are severely restricted relative to their power during debate when they are constituted in their capacity as the full House rather than in their capacity as the Committee on the Whole. This vote was a third attempt-this time offered by Representative Kucinich (D-OH)-to rise from the Committee of the Whole during debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill. Had the motion passed, the rules of debate on the appropriations bill would have been liberalized. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to rise as a way to liberalize floor debate on the underlying appropriations bill. Specifically, Progressives hoped to strike a provision in the spending bill which, in their view, seriously restricts the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) to prosecute firearms dealers who knowingly sell guns to convicted felons or other individuals who, by virtue of their criminal records or mental handicaps, are not legally permitted to own a firearm. Despite support from Progressives, the motion to rise was defeated 75-307 and the restrictive rules of debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill remained intact.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Firearms Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Assisting Crime Impacted Communities
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL War on Drugs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 403
Jul 22, 2003
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Grant the Minority Party More Leeway in Offering Amendments and Debating Provisions in the Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Under the rules of debate drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill was to be considered by the "Committee of the Whole" (the Committee of the Whole includes at least 100 House members who debate legislation on the House floor according to more restrictive rules of debate in committee). This vote was a second attempt by Representative Sanders (I-VT) to rise from the Committee of the Whole during debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill. As a general rule, the procedural powers granted to minority party members in the Committee of the Whole-their ability to offer amendments, debate a measure at length, or send the legislation back to committee-are severely restricted relative to their power during debate when they are constituted in their capacity as the full House rather than in their capacity as the Committee on the Whole. Had the motion passed, the rules of debate on the appropriations bill would have been liberalized. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to rise as a way to liberalize floor debate on the underlying appropriations bill. Specifically, Progressives hoped to strike a provision in the spending bill which, in their view, seriously restricts the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) to prosecute firearms dealers who knowingly sell guns to convicted felons or other individuals who, by virtue of their criminal records or mental handicaps, are not legally permitted to own a firearm. Despite support from Progressives, the motion to rise was defeated 84-319 and the restrictive rules of debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill remained intact.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Firearms Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Assisting Crime Impacted Communities
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL War on Drugs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N Y Lost
Roll Call 402
Jul 22, 2003
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Grant the Minority Party More Leeway in Offering Amendments and Debating Provisions in the Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

High levels of partisanship have been a major feature of legislative politics in the 107th Congress. Both House and Senate Democrats (both in the minority party) have argued that Republican Leaders have prevented meaningful debate on a host of issues ranging from the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security to extending the child tax credit to low income families. At issue here is another piece of legislation in which debate on the floor of the House, in the view of Democrats, was excessively restricted by Republican leaders. Under the rules of debate drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill was to be considered by the "Committee of the Whole" (the Committee of the Whole includes at least 100 House members who debate legislation on the House floor according to more restrictive rules of debate in committee). As a general rule, the procedural powers granted to minority party members in the Committee of the Whole-their ability to offer amendments, debate a measure at length, or send the legislation back to committee-are severely restricted relative to their power during debate when they are constituted in their capacity as the full House rather than in their capacity as the Committee on the Whole. On this vote, Representative Sanders (I-VT) motioned to rise from the Committee on the Whole. Had the motion passed, the rules of debate on the appropriations bill would have been liberalized. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to rise as a way to liberalize floor debate on the underlying appropriations bill. Specifically, Progressives hoped to strike a provision in the spending bill which, in their view, seriously restricts the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) to prosecute firearms dealers who knowingly sell guns to convicted felons or other individuals who, by virtue of their criminal records or mental handicaps, are not legally permitted to own a firearm. Despite support from Progressives, the motion to rise was defeated 77-335 and the restrictive rules of debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill remained intact.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Firearms Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Assisting Crime Impacted Communities
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL War on Drugs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N Y Lost
Roll Call 401
Jul 22, 2003
H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Spending Bill Which, In the View of Progressives, Underfunds Domestic Security Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Each year, Congress is required to allocate money through the appropriations process to fund federal departments and related agencies. The subject of this vote was a procedural motion to allow consideration of a rule governing debate on the 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill (prior to House consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate). The 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill provided $38.6 billion in federal funding for, among other things, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State. Progressives voted against the procedural motion to proceed based on their opposition to the funding levels for law enforcement, counter-terrorism activities, and other domestic security protections which were contained in the appropriations bill. In the view of Progressives, inadequacies in funding contained in the appropriations bill for domestic security reflected the recent waves of tax cuts benefiting wealthy individuals; those tax cuts, Progressives argued, have starved the government of funding for important domestic programs such as education, healthcare, and domestic security. On a nearly party-line vote of 221-199, the motion to allow consideration of the rule was adopted and the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill was allowed to proceed in the legislative process.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 398
Jul 21, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate in different forms and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Van Hollen (D-MD) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Van Hollen's motion to instruct had two additional provisions which were intended to: 1) prevent House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference; and 2) require completion of the conference report in a timely manner. Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Van Hollen's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks in the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). An overwhelming majority of Democrats voted in favor of Van Hollen's motion to instruct but the motion failed on a party-line vote of 193-212, thereby failing to obligate House conferees to adopt the Senate's language on the child tax credit legislation during conference committee negotiations.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 397
Jul 18, 2003
H. Res. 324. Disapproval of Conduct/Vote to Reprimand Chairman Thomas (R-CA) for Ordering Capitol Police to Remove Committee Democrats from a Markup Session in the Committee on Ways and Means.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During a particularly heated markup session on pension savings legislation (H.R. 1776), Representative Thomas (R-CA), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, ordered the Capitol Police to remove Ways and Means Democrats from a library adjoining the committee room after verbal sparring broke out between him and Representative Pete Stark (D-CA). Democrats had retreated to the library from the committee room to plot strategy on the bill in response to what they characterized as bully-tactics by Chairman Thomas. After Democrats had left the Capitol Building under duress-and therefore were unable to amend the committee version of the pension bill-the Republican committee members passed the pension savings legislation and reported the measure to the House for a floor vote. Democrats, including Progressives, voiced outrage that Chairman Thomas would call upon the Capitol Police to remove Ways and Means Democrats from the markup session and then vote the legislation out of committee without Democrats present (a markup session refers to committee negotiations over the contents of legislation). In response to the brouhaha, Democrats drafted a resolution to admonish the Chairman for his strong-arm tactics and to protest that the pension legislation was not reported to the House floor in a valid manner. On this vote, Representative McCrery (R-LA) motioned to table (strike down) the Democrats' resolution of disapproval. Progressives voted against the tabling motion because, in their view, the actions of Chairman Thomas illegitimately prevented Democrats from participating in the markup session and the chairman should therefore be reprimanded. On a straight party-line vote, the tabling motion was carried 170-143 and Chairman Thomas's actions were not punished.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 396
Jul 18, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate in different forms and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two child tax credit bills. On this vote, Representative Bell (D-TX) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Bell's motion to instruct had two additional provisions which were intended to: 1) prevent House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report; and 2) require completion of the conference report in a timely manner. Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Bell's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). An overwhelming majority of Democrats voted in favor of Bell's motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 188-201, thereby failing to obligate House conferees to adopt the Senate's language on the child tax credit legislation during conference committee negotiations.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 394
Jul 18, 2003
H.R. 2754. Fiscal 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Which, In the View of Progressives, Failed to Include Adequate Funding for Renewable Energy Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the few procedural prerogatives available to opponents of a piece of legislation in the House is the motion to recommit. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee and is usually a deathblow to the bill. During debate on the energy and water appropriations bill-a measure to provide federal funding to the Energy Department and related agencies responsible for energy and water projects-Congressman Hoyer (D-MD) motioned to recommit the bill to committee. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to recommit because, in their view, the bill provided inadequate funding for renewable energy sources. For years, Progressives have advocated for a more dedicated effort on the part of the federal government to develop renewable sources of energy such as solar power, biomass energy, and wind power. The funding which was contained in the appropriations bill, Progressives argued, focused too heavily on nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources and gave short shrift to renewable energy sources. While Progressives voted in favor of Hoyer's motion, Democrats were almost equally divided on the issue and, with opposition from an overwhelming majority of Republicans, the motion to recommit was rejected 99-310.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 392
Jul 18, 2003
H.R. 2754. Fiscal 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations/Vote to Provide Additional Funding for Renewable Energy Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The energy and water appropriations bill at issue here provided $27.1 billion in federal funding for the Energy Department, the Army Corp of Engineers, water projects, and a wide range of independent agencies which handle issues related to energy and water. In the view of Progressives, inadequate funding was included in the bill for renewable energy programs; too much funding, they argued, was directed toward nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources. During debate on the appropriations measure, Congressman Udall (D-CO) offered an amendment which would have provided an additional $30 million for renewable energy programs. For years, Progressives have advocated for a more dedicated effort on the part of the federal government to develop renewable sources of energy such as solar power, biomass energy, and wind power. Although Progressives voted in favor of Udall's amendment, the measure was struck down on a 153-251 vote and the additional money for renewable energy programs was not provided.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 391
Jul 18, 2003
H.R. 2754. Fiscal 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations/Vote to Reduce Funding for an Environmentally-Damaging Dredging Project in Delaware.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During committee negotiations on the 2004 energy and water appropriations bill, committee-members agreed to increase the level of funding in the bill for the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening project from $300,000 to $8 million. Dredging the Delaware River, proponents argued, would provide shipping vessels with easier access to Delaware's ports. When the energy and water appropriations bill reached the House floor, Congressman Andrews (D-NJ) proposed an amendment which would have reduced the amount of funding for the Delaware dredging project to its original $300,000 level. Progressives opposed the Delaware dredging project and supported Andrew's amendment to cut funding for the project. In the view of Progressives, the removal of large amounts of silt through dredging would have caused serious harm to ecosystems in the Delaware river. Despite their support, the Andrews amendment was defeated on a 194-213 vote and the $8 million funding level for the Delaware River dredging project prevailed.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 390
Jul 17, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Earlier in the congressional session, a $350 billion tax cut package was enacted which included a provision to increase the child tax credit from $600 to $1000 (the child tax credit is essentially a tax cut for families with children). The final version of the $350 billion tax cut, however, exempted low income families from the child tax credit increase which was contained in the bill. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue and pursued delaying tactics until Republican leaders agreed to extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families. Republicans leaders eventually agreed to extend the child tax credit to low-income households, but only if additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals were included in any child tax credit legislation. Legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income families and provide additional tax breaks for military families and high-income earners passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the legislation. On this vote, Representative Michaud (D-ME) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, Michaud's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (the final version of the legislation). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, extending the increase in the child tax credit to low-income families as quickly as possible was needed to provide assistance to some of the most impoverished members of society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored Michaud's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was defeated on a party-line vote of 202-214, thereby failing to obligate House conferees to adopt the Senate's language on the child tax credit legislation during conference committee negotiations.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 389
Jul 17, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of an Interior Department Spending Bill Which Allowed Commercial Interests Such as Logging and Mining Greater Access to Federal Lands.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a $19.6 billion appropriations bill to fund the Interior Department and related agencies in 2004. Progressives voted against the measure based on several objections they had with the bill. First, the amount of funding contained in the bill was less then the Interior Department's appropriation in 2003. Given the importance of the Interior Department in protecting and managing public lands, Progressives argued, the Interior appropriation should be augmented, not reduced, from the previous year's level. Second, Progressives voiced opposition to administration-supported language in the bill which would increase the access of recreational snowmobiles to national parks (see Roll Call Vote #385). Recreational snowmobiles, Progressives noted, have been a leading cause of environmental damage in national parks. Third, Progressives objected to provisions in the legislation which would grant commercial interests such as logging and mining companies greater access to federally-managed lands (see Roll Call Votes 386 and 388). In the view of Progressives, commercial activities threaten to corrupt the natural beauty of wilderness areas. Despite opposition from Progressives, the Interior appropriations bill was adopted on a 268-152 vote.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Coal Industry
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Forest and Paper Industry
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Mining Industry
ENVIRONMENT Noise Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Mining Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 388
Jul 17, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Restrict the Federal Government's Ability to Regulate the Access of Private and Commercial Interests, Such as Logging and Mining Operations, to Public Lands.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In a move intended to reduce the power of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-the federal agency responsible for protecting and preserving public lands for future generations-Representative Taylor (R-NC) proposed an amendment to the 2004 Interior appropriations bill to restrict the BLM's so-called "rights-of-way" powers. Rights-of-way powers allow the Bureau to regulate access to public lands and deny entrance to individuals or groups who may exploit the land for their own material gain (hunters, loggers, miners, etc.). Progressives viewed Taylor's amendment as an attempt to open federally-managed wilderness areas to logging, mining, and other commercial interests and voted against the amendment as a way to preserve the natural beauty of wilderness areas. The Taylor amendment was adopted on a 226-194 vote and the power of the Bureau of Land Management to regulate commercial access to public lands was summarily restricted.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Coal Industry
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Forest and Paper Industry
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Mining Industry
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Mining Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 386
Jul 17, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Prevent Road Building, Logging, and Mining Operations in Alaska's Chugach and Tongass National Forests.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Shortly before President Clinton left office, the departing president implemented a rule-the so-called Roadless Area Conservation Rule-to prevent road building, logging, and mining in 58.5 million undeveloped acres of national forests. The Bush Administration's support for "forest-thinning" projects in densely-wooded, fire-prone areas, however, placed them in opposition to the road building and logging ban (road building and logging are interrelated; without forest roads, extracted timber cannot be transported). On June 9, 2003, the administration announced that it would exempt Alaska's Chugach and Tongass national forests from the Clinton-era ban on road building, logging, and mining in those areas. During debate on the 2004 Interior appropriations bill, Congressman Inslee (D-WA) proposed an amendment which would have prevented the administration from changing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in such a way as to allow road building, logging, and mining in federal forestland. Progressives voted in favor of Inslee's amendment as a way to preserve the natural beauty of pristine wilderness areas and protect national forests from timber extraction and mining activities. The Inslee measure was defeated on a 185-234 vote which allowed the administration's proposed road building and logging activities in previously-protected forests to move forward.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Forest and Paper Industry
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 385
Jul 17, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Defeat an Administration-Backed Provision Designed to Reverse the Scheduled Phase-Out of Recreational Snowmobiles in National Parks.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

After ten years of study, the National Park Service issued an environmental impact statement in 2000 which recommended the phase-out of recreational snowmobilies in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. The Park Service's report identified recreational snowmobiles as a major cause of environmental degradation in the National Parks. The Bush Administration, unhappy with the report's conclusions, required the Park Service to conduct a second study into the impact of recreational snowmobiles in the two National Parks. The second report by the Park Service reached the same conclusion; that snowmobiles had caused environmental damage in the two National Parks. In response, the administration and Republican lawmakers inserted a provision into the 2004 Interior appropriations bill which would ignore the reports by the National Park Service and allow snowmobiles continued access to the National Parks. During debate on the Interior appropriation bill, Representative Holt (D-NJ) introduced an amendment which would have deleted the administration's snowmobile provision and thereby maintained the scheduled phase-out of snowmobiles. Progressives endorsed Holt's proposal as a way to safeguard the National Parks from air pollution, noise pollution, and other environmentally-damaging consequences of snowmobile traffic on pristine federal lands. On a tie vote of 210-210, the Holt amendment was defeated and, despite recommendations by the National Park Service to the contrary, continued snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks was allowed (legislation which results in a tie vote is defeated).


ENVIRONMENT Noise Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 384
Jul 17, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Retain Regulations Which Require the Forest Service to Seek Public Input and Conduct Environmental and Scientific Reviews When Drafting Forest Management Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

At the request of the Bush Administration, the 2004 Interior appropriations bill contained a provision which would ease regulations requiring the Forest Service to seek public input and conduct environmental and scientific reviews when drafting forest management plans. During debate on the appropriations bill, Congressman Udall (D-NM) offered an amendment which would have blocked the implementation of any forest management plan that failed to incorporate public views or scientific and environmental studies in the final version of the plan. In the view of Progressives, any forest management plan should be subjected to environmental analysis and public scrutiny. The administration's proposal to prevent public and scientific review of forest management plans, Progressives argued, was motivated by a desire to ramp up logging activities without environmental scrutiny in federal forestland. Progressives voted in favor of Udall's amendment but the measure was struck down 198-222 and the administration-supported provision remained in the appropriations bill, allowing the logging to proceed.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Forest and Paper Industry
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 383
Jul 17, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Interior Department From Participating in the Slaughter of Bison.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Yellowstone National Park is the last area in the U.S. which features free-roaming bison. Each year, however, an average of 250 Yellowstone Bison are slaughtered by the Interior Department when those animals cross an invisible line into the plains in search of food during the winter. In an effort to protect the Yellowstone bison, Congressman Rahall (D-WV) offered an amendment to the 2004 Interior appropriations bill which would have barred the Interior Department from killing bison (ironically, the mascot of the Interior Department's is a bison). Progressives argued that a major goal of the Interior department is the protection of species, not their destruction, and they voted in support of Rahall's amendment to prevent the further slaughter of bison. Despite support from Progressives, the Rahall amendment was defeated 199-220.


ENVIRONMENT Humane Treatment of Animals
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 382
Jul 17, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Prevent Hunters From Attracting Bears With Food.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was an amendment by Representative Gallegly (R-CA) which would have prevented the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management from using funds to bait bears on federal lands. Bear-baiting is practiced by attracting bears with food; when the bear has found the meal, the hunter then shoots the bear. Progressives opposed bear-baiting on ethical grounds; in their view; bear-baiting unfairly advantages sportsmen over bears. Many Republicans, conversely, viewed Gallegly's amendment was an infringement on states' rights and opposed the measure for that reason. On a vote of 163-255, the Gallegly amendment was defeated.


ENVIRONMENT Humane Treatment of Animals
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 381
Jul 17, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Reduce the Federal Government's Role in Acquiring, Managing, and Conserving Wildlife Areas.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One function of the Interior Department is to acquire uninhabited lands for purposes of conservation and/or recreation. Another purpose of the Department is to fight forest-fires. During consideration of the 2004 Interior appropriations bill, a spending measure which funds the Interior department and related agencies, Congressman Shadegg (R-AZ) proposed to transfer $19 million contained in the appropriations bill from land acquisition programs to fire prevention programs. Progressives voted against Shadegg's proposed transfer of funds because, in their view, the spending bill already contained plenty of money for fire prevention programs (over $100 million) while the appropriation failed to include what they characterized as sufficient funding for land acquisition programs ($29 million was included). Progressives favored additional funding for land acquisition programs as a way to help safeguard natural areas for future generations. Shadegg's amendment, Progressives pointed out, would have only diminished the funds available in 2004 for land acquisition projects. Democrats voted overwhelming against the Shadegg amendment and the measure was soundly rejected on a vote of 128-298.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 380
Jul 17, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Protect Fish and Wildlife in the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Water-intensive alfalfa sprouts planted by California and Oregon farmers have caused water shortages and droughts in those states, especially in the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges located in Northern California and Southern Oregon. During debate on the 2004 Interior appropriations bill, Congressman Blumenauer (D-OR) offered an amendment which would have prevented alfalfa farmers from planting their crops in water-starved areas in the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges. Progressives supported Blumenauer's amendment as a way to protect fish and wildlife in those refuges from water-hungry crops. In 2002, Progressives noted, 33,000 fish went belly-up in the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges as a result of dried-up rivers and streams. The water from those streams, Progressives noted, had been absorbed by water-intensive alfalfa farming. Blumenauer's amendment to cut back on farming in and around the wildlife areas was defeated on a vote of 197-228.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 377
Jul 17, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Increase the Accessibility of Federal Lands and Recreational Areas to the Public.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on the 2004 Interior appropriations bill, Representative DeFazio (D-OR) introduced an amendment which, he argued, would have increased individuals' accessibility to federal forestland and other recreational areas. Had DeFazio's amendment passed, the total acreage of federal lands subject to recreational fees-payments by visitors who enter certain lands which are managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management-would have been reduced. Progressives voted in favor of DeFazio's amendment because, in their view, individuals should be encouraged, and not charged, to visit public lands and recreational areas. Forty-seven Democrats voted against DeFazio's amendment and the measure was defeated 184-241.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 376
Jul 17, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Increase Funding to the National Endowments of the Arts and Humanities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the Democratic amendments which was voted upon during debate on the 2004 Interior appropriations bill was a measure by Representative Slaughter (D-NY) to provide an additional $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and an additional $5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities. Progressives, who support federal assistance to the arts and humanities, voted in favor of Slaughter's amendment. A vibrant arts community, Progressives argued, is a necessary component of a civilized society. A majority of Republicans voted against the amendment; in their view, federal funding for the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities was a waste of taxpayer dollars. In fact, Republican lawmakers have made numerous attempts in recent years to eliminate all federal funding to the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. Thirty-five Republicans joined a solid majority of Democrats in passing the Slaughter amendment on a 225-200 vote.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities
Y Y Won
Roll Call 372
Jul 16, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote on Rules of Debate on an Interior Department Spending Bill Which, In the View of Progressives, Underfunded Land and Wildlife Conservation Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Prior to House floor consideration, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate. On this vote, Republican leaders sought passage of a rule governing debate on the $19.6 billion Interior appropriations bill. The Interior spending bill provided funding in 2004 for the Department of the Interior and related federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Progressives voted against the rule because it would prevent a House floor vote on an amendment-which was drafted by Congressman Obey (D-WI) and supported by Progressives-to add $569 million to the Interior appropriations bill for land and wildlife conservation programs. The rule governing debate on the 2004 Interior appropriations bill was adopted on a vote of 232-189 so Obey's amendment was killed without being voted upon.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 371
Jul 16, 2003
H.R. 2691. Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations/Vote to Allow Consideration of an Interior Department Spending Bill Which, In the View of Progressives, Underfunded Land and Wildlife Conservation Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

On this procedural vote, Representative Hastings (R-WA) motioned to allow consideration of the rule governing debate on the 2004 Interior appropriations bill (prior to House floor consideration, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate). The $19.6 billion spending bill provided funding in 2004 for the Department of the Interior and related federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Progressives voted no on the motion to proceed to a vote on the rule because the rule would have prevented a vote on an amendment drafted by Congressman Obey (D-WI) which Progressives supported. Obey's amendment would have added $569 million to the Interior appropriations bill for land and wildlife conservation programs. On a straight party-line vote of 219-199, the motion to proceed was adopted and a vote on the rule was allowed.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 370
Jul 16, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low Income Families As Quickly As Possible and Prevent the Inclusion of Additional Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The $350 billion tax cut package enacted earlier in the congressional session included a provision to increase the child tax credit-which was, in essence, a tax cut for families with children-from $600 to $1000. The final version of the tax legislation, however, did not extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families; only middle and high income households benefited from the increase in the child tax credit. In response, House and Senate Democrats rallied around the child tax credit issue, attempted to grind the legislative process to a halt, and otherwise tried to make life miserable for Republican leaders. After several weeks of debate, Republicans leaders proposed legislation to extend the child tax credit to low-income households. Also included in the child tax credit extension were additional tax breaks for military families and high-income individuals. The legislation passed both the House and Senate, albeit in different forms, and a conference committee was convened to iron out differences between the two forms of the child tax credit bills. On this vote, Congresswoman DeLauro (D-CT) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language during conference committee negotiations. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate's version extended the child tax credit increase to low-income families immediately upon enactment. Additionally, DeLauro's motion to instruct would have prevented House conferees from including additional tax breaks for high-income earners in the conference report (the final version of the legislation). Progressives supported the motion to instruct because, in their view, allowing low-income families to benefit from the child tax credit increase as quickly as possible was an important step toward providing financial assistance to the poorest individuals in society. Progressives also opposed the additional tax breaks for wealthy individuals which were included in the House bill and favored DeLauro's effort to prevent the inclusion of those tax breaks from the conference report (a conference report is the final version of legislation). Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the motion to instruct but the motion was denied on a party-line vote of 206-220.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 367
Jul 15, 2003
H.R. 1950. State Department Authorization/Vote to Increase the Difficulty for Immigrants Seeking Employment in the United States.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

For over 130 years, the Mexican Embassy located in Washington, D.C. has been issuing consular identification cards to its foreign nationals who are employed in the United States. The consular cards are meant to identify those individuals who have been approved by the Mexican government to represent Mexican commercial interests in the United States. During debate on the State Department authorization bill, Representative Hostettler (R-IN) offered an amendment which would have established new regulations governing the issuance of consular identification cards by Mexico (and other foreign missions) in the United States. Hostettler argued that his amendment was necessary to insure that accurate records on foreign nationals in the U.S. were maintained. Progressives opposed the Hostettler amendment and argued that the new regulations included in the proposal would have made it nearly impossible for immigrants, including Mexicans, to qualify for employment in the United States. In the view of Progressives, Hostettler's amendment was a thinly-veiled attempt to both discourage Mexicans from seeking employment in the United States and deny them status as foreign nationals. Despite opposition from Progressives, the Hostettler amendment was adopted on a vote of 226-198.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
N N Lost
Roll Call 366
Jul 15, 2003
H.R. 1950. State Department Authorization/Vote to Improve the Economic Vitality of the U.S. Communications Satellite Industry.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

U.S. trade laws require communication satellite (COMSAT) producers to obtain a license from the State Department before they are able to negotiate with a prospective satellite buyer. As a result of the often-lengthy licensing process, U.S. COMSAT producers often must wait weeks before formal negotiations with a prospective buyer are allowed to proceed. Similar bureaucratic hurdles and delays no not exist in other countries and, with the U.S. COMSAT market in economic decline, Representative Tauscher (D-CA) offered an amendment to the State Department authorization bill which would have expedited the licensing process for buyers in NATO (allied) countries and thereby allowed U.S. COMSAT producers to sell their products in a more timely manner. Progressives voted in favor of Tauscher's amendment as a way to level the playing field between the U.S. satellite industry and its foreign competitors and thereby insure the industry's future success. Fostering a vibrant domestic COMSAT industry, Progressives argued, was necessary to insure continued U.S.-dominance in defense-related technologies. Opponents, however, worried that a looser licensing process would allow U.S.-made COMSATs to fall into enemy hands. On a vote of 207-219, the Tauscher amendment was defeated and the licensing process remained unchanged.


WAR & PEACE Proliferation of Militarily Applicable Technology
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 365
Jul 15, 2003
H.R. 1950. State Department Authorization/Vote to Reduce U.S. Contributions to the United Nations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on the State Department authorization bill, Congressman King (R-IA) proposed an amendment which would have imposed a cap on U.S. assistance to the United Nations. The purpose of his amendment, King argued, was to insure that the U.S. did not pay any more money to the United Nations than did other countries. In 2003, contributions made by the United States to the United Nations comprised twenty-two percent of the U.N.'s budget; had King's amendment passed, the proportion of U.S. funding for the U.N. would have fallen to six percent. In the view of Progressives, King's amendment to cut U.S. assistance to the U.N. would have undermined the standing of the United States in the international community. Progressives argued that the United States-the world's most wealthy country (at least in terms of Gross Domestic Product)-had an important financial obligation to insure adequate funding for the United Nations, an organization which conducts and coordinates an extensive array of humanitarian aid missions. Progressives also viewed King's amendment as an unwarranted unilateral action by the U.S.; any funding inequalities perceived by King and others, they argued, should be addressed within the United Nations. Progressives voted against King's amendment and, with the support of fifty Republicans, the measure was rejected 187-237.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Famine Relief
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, International
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
N N Won
Roll Call 362
Jul 15, 2003
H.R. 1950. State Department Authorization/Vote to Deny U.S. Aid to an International Family Planning and Health Organization.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During International Relations Committee deliberations on the State Department authorization bill, Representative Crowley (D-NY) successfully added a provision to the bill to authorize $50 million per year for the U.N. Population Fund (also known as UNFPA). UNFPA, an international family planning and health services organization, operates in over 150 countries. When the State Department authorization bill reached the House floor, Representative Smith (R-NJ) protested that UNFPA had played an active role in financing coerced abortions in China (which maintains a "one-child" policy) and offered an amendment to strip Crowley's provision from the bill. Progressives contested Smith's claim that the UNFPA played an active role in financing abortions in China and pointed to the so-called Hyde amendment-enacted in 1984 and named after its sponsor Henry Hyde (R-IL)-which forbids U.S. funding to any group which provides support, financial or otherwise, for conducting abortions overseas. Progressives also argued that the funding cut contained in the Smith amendment would restrict UNFPA's ability to provide health care in impoverished countries; a goal which Progressives supported. Progressives voted against the Smith amendment but, on a narrow 216-211 vote, the Smith amendment passed and the Crowley language was dropped from the State Department authorization bill.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
FAMILY PLANNING Availability of Contraceptives
HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, International
N N Lost
Roll Call 360
Jul 15, 2003
H.R. 1950. State Department Authorization/Vote on Rules of Debate Which Prevented House Consideration of Twenty Amendments Supported By Democrats.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which is in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on a bill to authorize about $40 billion through 2008 for the State Department and foreign aid programs. Progressives voted against the rule because it disallowed debate and votes on twenty amendments which Progressives supported. If passed, those amendments would have increased foreign aid to Afghan women, required environmental impact assessments of U.S.-supported projects overseas, urged the Bush Administration to participate in negotiations on climate change to reduce greenhouse gases, and provided funding for the removal of land mines and agricultural redevelopment of former mine fields. Democrats voted unanimously against the rule but it was adopted on a party-line vote of 222-201.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Poor People in Developing Countries
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 359
Jul 14, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Both the House and the Senate passed legislation earlier in the congressional session which would provide prescription drug coverage through private companies. Because the legislation which emerged from each legislative body differed in certain respects, a conference committee was convened to iron out the differences between the two bills. One area of difference involved the existence of a "fallback" option if two or more private insurers were not providing drug coverage to a particular area. In the Senate bill, Medicare would provide a federally-funded option of drug coverage to seniors in under-served regions. The House bill contained no fallback option. On this vote, Representative Davis (D-TN) motioned to instruct House conferees to adopt the fallback option included in the Senate bill during conference committee negotiations. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to instruct based on their support for the fallback option. In their view, the fallback option was necessary to insure that seniors in under-served areas-which are usually poor areas that private companies avoid based on the lack of profit-making opportunities-still receive prescription drug coverage. On a nearly party line vote of 191-221, the motion to instruct was defeated and House conferees were therefore not compelled to adopt the Senate language regarding a prescription drug fallback option.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 358
Jul 14, 2003
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Agriculture Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill Which Prevents the Agriculture Department From Issuing Country-of-Origin Labels for Meat Products and Cuts Funding for Environmental Protection Activities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of the 2004 agriculture appropriations bill which provided $77.5 billion in 2004 for crop subsidies, rural development, and nutrition programs. Progressives voted against final passage for several reasons. First, in their view, the bill did not contain enough funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, a program which aims to improve water quality in agricultural areas. Second, the bill failed to include any money for the Wetlands Reserve Program, a program which seeks to protect wetland areas. Third, the bill prevented the Agriculture Department from issuing country-of-origin labels on meat products (see Roll Call Vote #354). Despite opposition from Progressives, the agriculture appropriations bill passed 347-64.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y N Lost
Roll Call 357
Jul 14, 2003
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Agriculture Appropriations/Vote to Prevent Human Consumption of Meat From Animals That Are Unable to Stand or Walk.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on the 2004 agricultural appropriations bill, Representative Ackerman (D-NY) introduced an amendment which would have prevented the Department of Agriculture from approving for human consumption meat that came from "downed animals," animals that cannot stand or walk. Progressives endorsed Ackerman's amendment as a way to protect consumers against meat products that come from sickly animals. Meat products from downed animals, Progressives argued, are likely to contain pathogens which could sicken consumers. The national school lunch program and fast-food chains, Progressives argued, do not accept meat from downed animals for that very reason. Other meat distributors, however, do purchase beef from downed animals. On a close vote of 199-202, the Ackerman amendment was defeated and meat from downed animals remained legal for human consumption.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 355
Jul 14, 2003
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Agriculture Appropriations/Vote to Crack Down on Illegal Animal Fighting.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Despite the enactment of federal laws that prohibit the activity, authorities in numerous states continue to find evidence of dog-fighting and cock-fighting. During debate on the 2004 agriculture appropriations bill, Congressman Blumenauer (D-OR) offered an amendment which would have dedicated $800,000 to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the purpose of enforcing laws that prohibit animal fighting. In the view of Progressives, animal-fighting is a barbaric activity and they voted in favor of Blumenauer's amendment to crack down on the illegal enterprise. Before fights, Progressives noted, owners give drugs to their animals to make them hyper-aggressive and make their blood clot more quickly so that the animal can continue fighting after being injured. Moreover, animals are often abandoned after the fight and left to roam wild. Allowing those drugged up animals free, Progressives argued, poses a risk to public safety should they attack a person. A solid majority of Democrats voted with sixty-five Republicans and the Bluenauer's amendment was adopted 222-179.


ENVIRONMENT Humane Treatment of Animals
Y Y Won
Roll Call 354
Jul 14, 2003
H.R. 2673. Fiscal 2004 Agriculture Appropriations/Vote to Allow the Agriculture Department to Institute a Country-of-Origin Labeling System for Meat Products.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The most recent reauthorization of the so-called "Freedom to Farm Act" in 2002, which authorized funding for a wide range of agricultural programs, included a provision to allow the Department of Agriculture to implement a country-of-origin labeling system for meat products. The 2004 agricultural appropriations bill, however, contains language supported by the Bush Administration which would prevent the labeling of meat by country-of-origin. During consideration of the appropriations bill, Representative Rehberg (R-MT) proposed an amendment which would have restored the Agriculture Department's ability to label where meat was produced. Progressives supported Rehberg's amendment as a way to help U.S. ranchers compete against Canadian beef producers. Additionally, Progressives argued, country-of-origin meat labels would better inform U.S. consumers about the quality of the meat they are purchasing. With country-of-origin labeling, Progressives pointed out, consumers would know when to steer clear of meat that was produced in a country which experienced a recent outbreak of mad-cow disease, E Coli, or any other pathogen. Forty-seven Republicans (many of them from meat-producing states) joined Progressives in supporting the Rehberg amendment but the measure was defeated on a 193-208 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 353
Jul 10, 2003
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill Which Fails to Fully-Fund Public Education and Weakens Labor Protections.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of the 2004 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill which provided federal funding for a wide range of labor protections, health and human services, and education initiatives. Progressives voted against the measure for two main reasons. First, the spending bill failed to fully-fund public schools at the level previously authorized by Congress. In fact, Progressives noted, the bill fails to provide the level of funding set forth in President Bush's 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. Second, the bill contains two provisions which, in their view, would seriously weaken labor and health protections for workers. One of those provisions would prevent certain workers from receiving overtime pay even if they worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. The other provision would weaken health protections for miners by imposing a fourfold increase in the maximum allowable level of carcinogenic coal dust in mine shafts. During a previous debate on the maximum allowable level of coal dust in mine shafts (see Roll Call Vote #349), Congressman Rahall presented data which showed that 55,000 miners had perished from black lung disease between 1969 and 1990 and that the disease has claimed an average of 1,400 lives each year from 1990 to 2003. Relaxing regulations on the maximum allowable amount of coal dust in mine shafts, Progressives argued, would cause even more deaths by black lung disease. Despite unanimous opposition from Democrats, the appropriations bill was enacted on a vote of 215-208.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
LABOR RIGHTS Occupational Safety and Health
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Lost
Roll Call 352
Jul 10, 2003
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Vote to Cut Funding For Several Health Grants Provided By the National Institutes of Health.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on the 2004 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, Congressman Toomey (R-PA) proposed an amendment which would have cut funding for four grants provided by National Institutes of Health. Those four grants all explored areas involving sex. Progressives opposed Toomey's amendment to cut funding for those grants because, while they might at first glance appear to be superfluous areas of health research, Progressives argued that politicizing scientific research will prevent important scientific breakthroughs from occurring in a wide range of potentially politically-charged areas of experimentation. Progressives pointed out that a study on Polish pigs conducted several decades ago-which drew criticism from lawmakers who though the grant was a waste of money-in fact led to the development of a new blood pressure medicine which millions of people depend on today. In the view of Progressives, scientists, and not Congressmen, should be the ones who decide which research proposals are worthy of further exploration. With the help of Progressives, the Toomey amendment was defeated on a close vote of 210-212.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Freedom of Scientific Inquiry
N N Won
Roll Call 351
Jul 10, 2003
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Vote to Strike a Provision in the Bill Which Would Deny Overtime Pay to White Collar Workers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the most controversial provisions in the 2004 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill was an administration-sponsored effort to exempt certain classes of workers from overtime pay. Specifically, the administration-backed provision would exempt white-collar workers, such as executive assistants, administrators, and professionals, from overtime pay even if those employees worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. During debate on the appropriations bill, Congressman Obey (D-WI) proposed an amendment which would have blocked the implementation of the overtime rules changes. Progressives viewed the administration's rules changes on overtime pay as an affront to both workers' rights and fair labor practices and they therefore voted in favor of Obey's proposal. Progressives also pointed out that many workers depend on overtime pay to provide for their families and that denying overtime pay would cause them financial hardship. Although Democrats voted almost unanimously in favor of Obey's measure, the amendment was narrowly defeated on a vote of 210-213.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 350
Jul 10, 2003
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Vote to Prevent Sanctions Against Under-Performing Schools If Those Schools Did Not Receive Full-Funding As Outlined by President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

President Bush's 2001 education initiative dubbed the No Child Left Behind Act combined a variety of authorizations to increase education funding with stricter standards to assess school performances. To date, however, Congress has failed to fully-fund the No Child Left Behind Act. Consequently, schools have not been provided the level of funding promised by the president to improve students' education. Despite these funding shortfalls, provisions in the Act still allowed the administration to sanction (cut funding to) public schools that failed to meet the performance standards set forth in the Act. During consideration of the bill, Congressman Allen (D-ME) offered an amendment which would have prevented the administration from sanctioning any schools that have not been provided the level of funding that was authorized in the president's 2001 Act. In the view of Progressives, imposing penalties on schools that are denied funding to improve their teaching was unfair and they voted in favor of Allen's amendment for that reason. On a nearly party-line vote, Allen's proposal was rejected by a 199-223 margin.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 349
Jul 10, 2003
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Vote to Protect the Health of Miners By Eliminating a Provision in Bill Which Would Allow Greater Concentrations of Cancerous Coal Dust in Mine Shafts.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In 1969, Congress passed important legislation to combat black lung disease acquired by coal miners by imposing tougher regulations on the amount of toxic coal dust that was allowed in the mine shafts. The 2004 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, however, included a provision sponsored by the Bush Administration to mandate a fourfold increase in the amount of allowable dust in coal mines. During debate on the appropriations bill, Congressman Rahall (D-WV) proposed an amendment which would have prevented implementation of the administration's weaker coal dust standard. Progressives voted in favor of Rahall's amendment as a way to protect coal miners from black lung disease and other health risks borne from coal dust inhalation. During House debate on his amendment, Congressman Rahall presented data which showed that 55,000 miners had perished from black lung disease between 1969 and 1990 and that the disease has claimed an average of 1,400 lives each year from 1990 to 2003. Weakening the coal dust standard, Progressives argued, would cause even more black lung deaths in the future. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of Rahall's amendment but the measure was narrowly rejected on a 210-212 vote and the weaker coal dust standard remained intact.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Coal Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
LABOR RIGHTS Occupational Safety and Health
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 348
Jul 10, 2003
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Protest Vote Against Spending Bill Which Fails to Fully-Fund Education and Other Domestic Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

As initially drafted, the 2004 Labor-HHS-Education spending bill-which provides federal funding for a wide range of domestic purposes including labor protections, health and human services, and education-failed to fully-fund education as set forth in President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. In an effort to restore funding to education and other domestic priorities, Congressman Obey (D-WI) proposed an amendment which would have reduced the amount provided in the Bush Administration's recently-enacted tax cuts to individuals earning in excess of $1 million in order to add funding for education and other programs in the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill. Under House budget rules, however, amendments to appropriations bills must be considered directly relevant to the legislation. During floor debate in the House chamber, Congressman Regula (R-OH) raised a point of order against the Obey amendment on the grounds that it was not relevant to the underlying spending bill. The objection was sustained and Obey's amendment was defeated. The subject of this new vote was a second attempt by Obey to strike the enacting clause in the appropriations bill which, if passed, would have effectively killed the appropriations bill. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to strike based on their objections to the funding shortfalls in the underlying bill. In the view of Progressives, Republican budget priorities placed the needs of wealthy individuals above those of children, workers, and the infirm. Evidence of their claim, Progressives argued, was President Bush's three rounds of tax cuts which they said had starved the government of the revenue needed for elementary and secondary education, health services for the infirm, and other purposes. Obey's second attempt to strike the enacting clause in the appropriations bill was rejected by a 197-224 vote margin.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 347
Jul 10, 2003
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Protest Vote Against Spending Bill Which Fails to Fully-Fund Education and Other Domestic Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

As originally proposed, the 2004 Labor-HHS-Education spending bill-which provides federal funding for a wide range of domestic purposes including labor protections, health and human services, and education-failed to fully-fund education as set forth in President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. To alleviate funding shortfalls in education and other domestic priorities, Congressman Obey (D-WI) proposed an amendment which would have reduced the size of the Bush Administration's recently-enacted tax cuts-only as they applied to individuals earning in excess of $1 million-in order to increase funding for education and other programs in the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill. Under House budget rules, however, amendments to appropriations bills must be considered directly relevant to the legislation. During floor debate in the House chamber, Congressman Regula (R-OH) raised a point of order against the Obey amendment on the grounds that it was not germane (relevant) to the underlying spending bill. The objection was sustained and Obey's amendment was struck down. In response, Obey motioned to strike the enacting clause in the appropriations bill which, if passed, would have effectively killed the measure. The subject of this vote was Obey's motion to strike the enacting clause and kill the appropriations bill. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to strike based on their objections to the funding shortfalls in the underlying bill and their opposition to Republican budget priorities which, in the view of Progressives, placed the needs of wealthy individuals above those of children, workers, and the infirm. Evidence of their claim, Progressives argued, was President Bush's three rounds of tax cuts which had starved the government of revenue needed for elementary and secondary education, health services for the infirm, and other purposes. Despite support from Progressives, Obey's motion to strike the enacting clause of the appropriations bill was defeated 199-222.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Chronically Ill
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 341
Jul 09, 2003
H.R. 2660. Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Which Fails to Fully-Fund Education in 2004.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the largest spending bills considered by Congress each year is the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. That bill provides funding for a wide range of government initiatives involving labor protections, health and human services, and elementary and secondary education. The subject of this vote was a procedural motion to allow consideration of the 2004 Labor-HHS-Education spending bill. Progressives voted against the motion to proceed based on their objections to the underlying legislation. In the view of Progressives, the spending bill failed to provide enough funding for education and a wide range of other government programs and services. Progressives pointed out that the appropriations bill under consideration did not even provide the level of education funding requested by President Bush in his No Child Left Behind Act. The reason for the lack of funding, Progressives argued, was what they characterized as the administration's reckless pursuit of tax cuts which has starved the federal government of funds for education and other important domestic priorities. Despite opposition from Progressives, the procedural vote to allow consideration of the bill was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 223-200.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 338
Jul 09, 2003
H.R. 2211. Teacher Training/Protest Vote Against Republican Tactics of Failing to Provide the Level of Education Funding Authorized by Congress.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The goal behind this legislation was to improve the quality of public school instruction by instituting a stricter standard for measuring the effectiveness of college and university teacher training programs. While members from both parties supported the goal of the legislation, Progressives voted against the rule governing debate on the bill based on their objections to the Bush Administration's failure to fully-fund education programs authorized by Congress. President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative, Progressives pointed out, received $8 billion less than the amount that Congress had authorized for education funding in the previous two congressional sessions. In the view of Progressives, the Republican strategy of authorizing large sums of money for education but failing to appropriate that money was an underhanded attempt to deceive the American public. The rule governing debate on the underlying teacher training measure, the subject of this vote, was adopted 252-170 and the measure passed overwhelmingly later in the day on a 404-17 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 337
Jul 09, 2003
H.R. 438. Student Loan Forgiveness for Teachers/Protest Vote Against Republican Tactics of Failing to Provide the Level of Education Funding Authorized by Congress.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In an effort to attract quality teachers to high schools in poor neighborhoods, legislation was proposed which would help pay the student loans of college-educated high school teachers if those teachers worked in underfunded schools. While both Republicans and Democrats supported the goal of the bill, Progressives supported a higher level of funding than was authorized in the legislation. Progressives also voted against the rule governing debate on the bill, the subject of this vote, to display their dissatisfaction with past Republican tactics of authorizing large sums of money for education but failing to deliver that money in the form of an appropriation. President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative, Progressives pointed out, continues to be underfunded by over $8 billion. In the view of Progressives, this strategy of failing to deliver the education funding authorized by Congress was an underhanded attempt to deceive the American public. Despite the show of force from Progressives, Republicans were able to pass the rule on a vote of 230-192 and the legislation was adopted later in the day by an overwhelming 417-7 margin.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 332
Jun 26, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill to Provide Seniors With Drug Coverage Through the Private Sector Rather Than Through the Medicare Program.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a Republican-drafted prescription drug bill which would provide seniors drug coverage either through private insurance plans, if they remained in the Medicare program, or through new private health networks (which function much like preferred provider organizations, or PPO's) if seniors switched out of Medicare. Monthly premiums would be $35 and the annual deductible would be $250 for those who remained in Medicare. Drug expenditures above $2000 and below $4900, however, would not be covered; seniors would have to pay those costs out of their own pocket. Progressives opposed the Republican drug bill because, in their view, drug coverage should be provided through Medicare and not contracted out to private companies for three main reasons. First, Medicare could provide drug coverage to seniors more cheaply than could private plans because the enormous purchasing power of Medicare would allow the government to negotiate cheaper drug prices with drug-makers. Second, unlike the Republicans' proposal, the Democrats' Medicare prescription drug plan does not contain any gaps in drug coverage. Third, Progressives worried that the underlying bill would spawn future efforts by conservatives to privatize health care and destroy the Medicare program. By the thinnest possible margin, the drug bill was adopted on a 216-215 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 331
Jun 26, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Provide Seniors With Drug Coverage Through the Private Sector Rather Than Through the Medicare Program.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Republican-drafted prescription drug bill under consideration would give seniors drug coverage either through private insurance plans, if they remained in the Medicare program, or through new private health networks (which function much like preferred provider organizations, or PPO's) if seniors switched out of Medicare. Progressives opposed the bill because, in their view, drug coverage should be provided directly though Medicare and not contracted out to the private sector. One of the few procedural tools available to opponents of a piece of legislation is the motion to recommit the bill to committee to make specified changes. During debate on the Republican drug bill, Representative Thompson (D-CA) motioned to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to provide drug coverage directly through Medicare instead of though private companies. Progressives supported the motion to recommit based on their objections to the underlying legislation. As is usually the case, the motion to recommit was defeated; the vote was 208-223.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 330
Jun 26, 2003
H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote on Democratic Substitute Bill Which Would Provide Prescription Drug Coverage Though the Medicare Program (Rather Than the Private Sector) and Would Not Contain Any Gaps In Drug Coverage.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Many senior citizens-and especially those living on fixed incomes-are unable to afford the rising costs of prescription drugs. While both Democrats and Republicans have attempted to solve the problem, the two parties have very different ideas about how best to achieve a positive outcome for America's seniors. Democrats, including Progressives, for instance, favor adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare health insurance program. Republicans, conversely, support proposals which provide prescription drug coverage to seniors through private insurance companies. During debate on Republican-drafted prescription drug legislation, Congressman Rangel (D-NY) proposed a substitute bill on behalf of the Democrats which would have established a prescription drug benefit through Medicare with a $25 monthly premium and a $100 yearly deductible. The Democratic plan would have covered eighty percent of all drug costs up to $2000 and all costs in excess of $2000. Moreover, the Democratic proposal would not contain any gaps in drug coverage (the Republican drug bill, conversely, provides no coverage for drug expenditures above $2000 and below $4900). Progressives supported the Democratic bill because it provided more generous coverage to seniors, did not rely on private companies to provide drug coverage (the Republican bill offers drug coverage solely through the private sector), and did not contain any gaps in drug coverage. Progressives supported the Democrats' public sector approach because, in their view, the Republicans' private-sector approach to drug coverage would weaken the Medicare program and subject the health care and drug coverage of seniors to the whims of the free market. Republicans voted unanimously against the Democratic drug bill and, with the help of twenty-nine Democrats, the proposal was defeated 175-255.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 328
Jun 26, 2003
H.R. 2596. Medical Savings Accounts/Vote to Make Prescription Drugs More Affordable By Creating Tax Incentives to Encourage Individuals to Save in Anticipation of Future Health Care Needs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This bill would create new tax incentives for individuals to invest in medical savings accounts. Republicans argue that creating medical savings accounts and encouraging investment in those accounts will help individuals afford the rising costs of prescription drugs. In the view of Progressives, medical savings accounts would do little to help seniors afford prescription drugs and they voted against the measure for that reason. Progressives argued that a more effective approach to insure that seniors can afford the drugs they need is to add a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. Doing so, they pointed out, would tap the vast purchasing power of Medicare to negotiate the cheapest possible drug prices from drug-makers. The Medicare program could then pass the savings on to patients. Despite opposition from Progressives, the medical savings account bill passed by a 237-191 vote margin.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 324
Jun 26, 2003
H.R. 2559. Fiscal 2004 Military Construction Appropriations/Vote to Prevent Consideration of an Amendment to the Military Construction Spending Bill Which Would Provide Funding to Build and/or Renovate the Living and Work Spaces of Military Families.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was a motion to order the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a spending bill to fund military construction efforts in 2004. The military construction spending bill provides funding for a wide range of projects, such as constructing or renovating living spaces for military families and building new military bases. Progressives voted against the motion to end debate because they wanted a vote on an amendment proposed by Congressman Obey (D-WI); if passed, the motion to order the previous question would have prevented consideration of the Obey amendment. The Obey amendment would have increased spending in the bill by ten percent to fund the construction and/or renovation of homes and workplaces of servicemen and their families. The costs of Obey's amendment would have been paid for by reducing the amount provided in the Bush Administration's 2003 tax cuts-which disproportionately benefit the nation's wealthiest individuals-by an equivalent amount. Democrats voted unanimously against the motion to end debate and the possibility of amendment on the military construction bill but the motion passed 220-200 which prevented House floor consideration of the Obey amendment.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
WAR & PEACE Well-Being of America's Military Personnel
N N Lost
Roll Call 323
Jun 26, 2003
H. Res. 297. Wednesday Suspensions/Vote to Change House Procedures to Allow House Leaders Greater Ease in Scheduling Legislation Without the Possibility of Debate or Amendment.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The suspensions calendar in the House is usually reserved for non-controversial pieces of legislation. When the Speaker of the House calls up a measure under suspension of the rules, debate is shut off, no amendments to the measure are allowed, and a two-thirds majority vote is required to pass the legislation. In the past, pieces of legislation could be activated from the suspensions calendar only on Mondays and Tuesdays. The subject of this vote was an effort to allow legislation to be considered under suspension of the rules on Wednesdays (in addition to Mondays and Tuesdays) for the remainder of the 108th Congress. Progressives opposed the move because, by definition, debate and amendments are not allowed on legislation considered under suspension on the rules. In their view, debate on important issues has been given short shrift in recent years and extending the suspensions procedure would only exacerbate the lack of public deliberation. Additionally, Progressives were concerned that the Republican leadership would abuse the suspensions procedure by using it for a wide variety of important legislative items that, in the past, would have been subjected to careful public scrutiny and dialogue. On a nearly party-line vote of 226-203, the proposal to extend the suspensions procedure to Wednesdays was adopted.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 322
Jun 26, 2003
H.R. 1, H.R. 2596. Prescription Drug Benefit and Medical Savings Accounts/Vote on Rules of Debate on Two Bills: One Would Create a Voluntary, Privately-Run Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare Beneficiaries and the Other Would Create Medical Savings Accounts.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

On this vote, Republican leaders sought passage of a rule governing debate on two bills (prior to floor consideration, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee must be adopted). The first bill (H.R. 1) would create a voluntary program in Medicare to provide drug coverage through private companies. The second bill (H.R. 2596) would create tax-exempt medical savings accounts to help seniors cover health care expenses. Progressives voted against the rule based on their objections to the two bills. In their view, the prescription drug bill relied too heavily on private insurance companies to provide affordable drug coverage. Progressives also objected to the medical savings account bill because, in their view, market-based or privately-managed health care proposals would weaken the Medicare program and subject the health care and drug coverage of seniors to the whims of the free market. In the view of Progressives, strengthening the Medicare program-and not adopting market-based proposals-is the most effective way to insure that all seniors, including the poor and those from rural areas, are provided the proper amount of care. On a nearly party-line vote of 221-203, the rule governing debate on the two bills was adopted.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 321
Jun 26, 2003
H.R. 1, H.R. 2596. Prescription Drug Benefit and Medical Savings Accounts/Vote to Allow Consideration of Two Bills: One Would Create a Voluntary, Privately-Run Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare Beneficiaries and the Other Would Create Medical Savings Accounts.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In each of the last five years, Congress has attempted to pass legislation to help senior citizens afford the rising costs of prescription drugs. The subject of this vote was a motion to allow consideration of two bills: H.R. 1 would provide seniors with voluntary drug coverage through private insurance plans if they remained in the Medicare program; and H.R. 2596 would create tax-exempt medical savings accounts to help seniors cover health care expenses. Progressives voted against the motion to proceed based on their objections to the two bills. The prescription drug bill, they argued, was too heavily reliant upon private insurance companies to provide drug coverage. Progressives also contended that the medical savings account bill would not solve the problem of rising health care costs. In the view of Progressives, strengthening the Medicare program-and not adopting market-based proposals-is the most effective way to insure that all seniors, including the poor and those from rural areas, are provided the proper amount of care. On a nearly party-line vote of 226-203, the motion to proceed to the two bills was adopted.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 320
Jun 26, 2003
H.R. 2417. Fiscal 2004 Intelligence Authorization/Vote to Investigate Whether the Bush Administration Failed to Provide Intelligence to U.N. Weapons Inspectors on the Whereabouts of Weapons of Mass Destruction In Order to Justify Military Action Against Iraq.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In the months leading up to the Iraqi war, President Bush repeatedly pledged to work with U.N. weapons inspectors by sharing U.S. intelligence regarding the location of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The President even cited military intelligence that he said proved the existence of Iraq's weapons program in his State of the Union Address. To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been unearthed in Iraq. Consequently, serious allegations have arisen that the U.S. knew the location of weapons but did not inform the U.N. inspectors or, worse, that the Bush Administration knew it had faulty intelligence all along. During debate on a bill to authorize funding for the CIA and other intelligence agencies, Congresswoman Lee (D-CA) introduced an amendment which would have sanctioned a study into how much intelligence was shared between the Pentagon and U.N. inspectors in the months leading up to war. Progressives supported Lee's amendment as a way to determine if in fact the administration cooperated with U.N. weapons inspectors as President Bush had promised, or whether intelligence was withheld or falsified in order to augment the administration's case for war. Sixteen Democrats voted with the Republicans and the Lee amendment was defeated 185-239.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 319
Jun 26, 2003
H.R. 2417. Fiscal 2004 Intelligence Authorization/Vote to Investigate Whether the Bush Administration Disclosed Erroneous Information to the Public to Justify War Against Iraq.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the administration's main justifications for war with Iraq was the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in that country. In his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation, President Bush cited military intelligence that Iraq had an extensive chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons program. The intelligence included in the State of the Union address even identified specific locations in Iraq where stockpiles of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons were stored. After months of searching for those weapons, however, U.S. inspectors have been unable to uncover any WMD in Iraq. In response, Representative Kucinich (D-OH) and others accused the administration of misleading the public about the dangers of Iraq's weapons program to the U.S. in order to justify war against Iraq. In Kucinich's words, "the CIA disseminated unreliable, raw, untrue information about Iraq's alleged threat to the United States." In an effort investigate the administration's intelligence-gathering activities prior to the Iraqi war, Congressman Kucinich offered an amendment to a bill to authorize funding for the CIA and other intelligence agencies which would have audited all telephone and electronic communications between the CIA and the office of Vice President Cheney on the subject of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in order to determine what evidence there was for the invasion. Progressives supported Kucinich's plan because, in their view, the public has a right to know if the administration disclosed intelligence which had previously been discredited by the U.S. intelligence establishment. Solid majorities from both parties voted against the Kucinich proposal and the measure was rejected 76-347.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 308
Jun 24, 2003
H.R. 2555. Fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations/Vote to Protect Airline Passengers by Requiring a Thorough Inspection of All Aviation Cargo.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the many duties of the Department of Homeland Security is to insure the safety of airline passengers. During House consideration of a $30.4 billion spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security, Congressman Markey (D-MA) introduced an amendment designed to prevent the implementation of any aviation cargo security plan which allows unscreened or uninspected cargo on passenger planes. Progressives voted in favor of Markey's amendment as a way to protect the flying public from the transport of potentially dangerous luggage. Opponents of the Markey amendment argued that requirements to screen every piece of luggage would be too costly to implement. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of Markey's proposal and, with help from a substantial number of Republicans, the amendment was adopted on a 278-146 vote.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Won
Roll Call 307
Jun 24, 2003
H.R. 2555. Fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations/Vote to Expedite Commuter Traffic at the U.S.-Mexico Border.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was an amendment by Representative Filner (D-CA) to the 2004 Homeland Security Department (DHS) spending bill. Had it passed, Filner's amendment would have transferred $5 million in DHS administrative funding into a program run by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection that allows low-risk commuters to use dedicated commuter lanes when crossing the U.S.-Mexico border (low risk commuters are defined as those drivers who have filed an application proving their residence, job location, and commuter status). Progressives supported Filner's amendment as a way to expedite commuter traffic at the border and allow border officials to dedicate greater attention toward inspecting vehicles driven by non-commuters. Progressives also pointed out that the number of applications for the low-risk commuter tags-which are displayed on the exterior of a car in plain view of customs officials-far exceeded the capacity of the Bureau of Customs to process those claims. The money included in the Filner amendment, they argued, would have helped process those applications more expeditiously. Despite support from Progressives, the Filner proposal was defeated by a 149-274 vote margin.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N Y Lost
Roll Call 305
Jun 24, 2003
H.R. 2555. Fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Amendment Designed to Increase Homeland Security Protections at the Nation's Seaports, Airports, and Borders.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, Congressman Obey (D-WI) proposed an amendment which would have added an additional $1 billion to the $30.4 billion package, including money to secure the nation's seaports, borders, and airports. Had Obey's amendment passed, the spending increase would have been offset by reducing the amount in tax breaks for individuals earning in excess of $1 million. Those tax breaks were contained in the $350 billion tax cut package that was enacted earlier in the congressional session. Progressives voted in favor of Obey's amendment because, in their view, protecting vulnerable areas of the nation's infrastructure against acts of terrorism is more important than providing tax relief to wealthy individuals. The Obey amendment, however, was not voted upon; Congressman Rogers (R-KY) raised a point of order against the Obey amendment on the grounds that the amendment constituted new legislation (House budget rules forbid additional legislative items to be added to an appropriations bill). The subject of this vote was a motion to sustain the objection to the Obey amendment which, if passed, would sink the Obey measure. Progressives voted against the Rogers objection based on their support for Obey's proposal. On a nearly party-line vote of 222-200, the objection was upheld and the Obey amendment was defeated.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Lost
Roll Call 302
Jun 24, 2003
H.R. 2555, H. Res. 293, Fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Department of Homeland Security Spending Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

On this vote, Republican leaders sought passage of a rule specifying how debate would unfold on a spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee-in essence an arm of the majority party leadership-and must be adopted prior to floor consideration of a measure. Progressives opposed the rule based on their objections to the underlying spending bill. In the view of Progressives, the homeland security appropriations bill failed to dedicate enough money to protect vulnerable areas of the nation's infrastructure such as seaports and public transit systems. Republicans had the votes to overcome opposition and the rule was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 220-197.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Lost
Roll Call 301
Jun 24, 2003
H.R. 2555, H. Res. 293, Fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Department of Homeland Security Spending Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was a procedural motion to allow consideration of a rule governing debate on a $30.4 billion spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to House consideration, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee must be adopted to set parameters on debate. Progressives voted against the motion based on their objections to the underlying spending bill. In their view, the appropriations bill did not contain enough funding for a wide range of homeland security needs, especially protections in potentially vulnerable areas such as the nation's seaports and public transit systems. As the majority party, however, Republicans had the votes and the motion to proceed was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 221-196.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Lost
Roll Call 296
Jun 19, 2003
H.R. 660. Health Plans for Small Businesses/Passage of a Bill Which Would Exempt Small Businesses from State Laws Regulating the Quality of Employee Health Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of GOP-drafted legislation that would enable small businesses to consolidate their resources before purchasing so-called "association" health insurance plans for their employees. While Progressives support the goal of allowing small businesses to combine their resources in purchasing health insurance plans, they opposed the GOP-drafted bill because language in that bill would exempt association plans from state laws. Progressives noted that many state laws are designed to protect individuals against illness by requiring that health plans cover specific diseases such as breast cancer, autism, and mental illness. Progressives argued that exempting association plans from state laws would enable employers to provide health plans to their employees which contain gaping holes in coverage for diseases and other health problems. Progressives were also concerned that exempting association plans from state law would provide employers with a financial incentive to switch from more comprehensive health plans that provide coverage for a wide range of diseases and health conditions to less-expensive plans that do not provide workers with the same level of protection against health problems as did their previous health insurance policy. Progressives voted in opposition to the legislation but the measure was adopted on a 262-162 vote.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Lost
Roll Call 295
Jun 19, 2003
H.R. 660. Health Plans for Small Businesses/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Which Would Exempt Small Businesses from State Laws Regulating the Quality of Employee Health Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the few procedural prerogatives available to opponents of legislation is the motion to recommit. If successful, a motion to recommit sends the measure back to committee and is usually accompanied with specific instructions to amend the bill. During debate on a GOP-drafted bill which would allow small businesses to combine their resources to purchase so-called "association" health plans for their employees, Congresswoman McCarthy (D-NY) motioned to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to add a provision which would prohibit employers from switching to association health care plans that do not provide their employees with the same level of coverage against breast cancer as did their previous health plan. While Progressives support the idea of allowing small businesses to combine their resources before purchasing health insurance plans, they opposed the GOP-drafted legislation because provisions in that bill would exempt association health plans from state law. In the view of Progressives, state laws that mandate coverage for diseases such as breast cancer provide a necessary guarantee that patients receive health care plans that provide adequate protections against health problems that may arise. Progressives argued that exempting association health plans from state law would enable employers to provide health care plans to their employees which contain gaping holes in coverage. Additionally, Progressives worried that exempting association plans from state law would provide employers with a financial incentive to switch from more comprehensive health plans that provide coverage for a wide range of diseases and health conditions to less-expensive health plans that do not provide workers with the same level of coverage as did their previous health insurance policy. Progressives voted in favor of the motion to recommit based on their opposition to the GOP-drafted bill but the motion was rejected on a 192-230 vote.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 294
Jun 19, 2003
H.R. 660. Health Plans for Small Businesses/Vote on Democratic Substitute Bill Which Would Provide Employees of Small Businesses with Similar Health Protections as Those Offered in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, a Comprehensive Health Plan for Federal Workers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During House debate on a GOP-drafted bill which would allow small businesses to pool their resources and purchase socalled "association" health plans for their employees, Congressman Kind (D-WI) proposed a substitute bill on behalf of the Democratic party which would have allowed employers with fewer than 100 employees to participate in a Small Employer Health Benefits Plan. That small employer plan would be tailored after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan; a comprehensive health care plan for federal employees that provides coverage for a wide range of health problems. The proposed small employer plan would have required employers to pay at least fifty-percent of their employees' premium costs and mandated that coverage be available to all employees who have worked at the company for over three months. Progressives supported the Democratic bill because, in their view, that bill provided employees with better health coverage and offered stronger safeguards against cost-cutting employers than the GOP-drafted measure. Moreover, Progressives were concerned that providing association plans with exemptions from state law would provide employers with financial incentives to switch from more comprehensive health plans that cover a wide range of diseases and health conditions to less-expensive plans that provide workers with weaker health care coverage. Republicans voted unanimously in opposition to the Democratic bill and the measure was defeated on a 196-226 vote.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 293
Jun 19, 2003
H.R. 1528. Tax Filing Changes/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill to Streamline Tax Collection Which Would Weaken Health Protections for Unemployed Workers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a bill to streamline the IRS's tax collection system. While widespread agreement existed among lawmakers on the purpose of the legislation, differences arose on a specific provision in the bill which would allow waivers of health protections that have been built into the tax code. One specific waiver contained in the tax filing bill would weaken protections for unemployed workers whose jobs were lost because their employer relocated overseas. Under the "fast-track" trade law implemented in 2002, unemployed workers were to receive a 65% tax credit for the purchase of health insurance if their job loss was caused by foreign competition. The underlying tax filing bill would waive that requirement. While Progressives supported the overall goal of the legislation, they objected to the health insurance waiver and voted against the bill for that reason. Twenty-nine Democrats supported nearly every Republican in supporting the bill to diminish health insurance coverage for unemployed workers and the legislation passed 252-170.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
LABOR RIGHTS Aid to Workers Negatively Impacted Upon by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas
N N Lost
Roll Call 292
Jun 19, 2003
H.R. 1528. Tax Filing Changes/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Streamline Tax Collection Which Would Weaken Health Protections for Unemployed Workers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Officially, this vote involved legislation to streamline the IRS's tax collection system. While widespread agreement existed among lawmakers on the goal of the legislation, differences arose on a specific provision in the bill which would allow waivers of health protections that have been built into the tax code. One specific waiver contained in the tax filing bill would weaken protections for unemployed workers whose jobs were lost because their employer relocated overseas. Under the "fast-track" trade law implemented in 2002, unemployed workers were to receive a 65% tax credit for the purchase of health insurance if their job loss was caused by foreign competition. Once enacted, the underlying tax filing bill would waive that requirement. During debate on the measure, Congressman Visclosky (D-IN) motioned to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to delete those provisions which weaken consumer and labor protections. A successful motion to recommit is usually a deathblow to a piece of legislation. Progressives supported the motion to recommit based on their objections to provisions in the tax filing bill which weakened protections for U.S. workers and consumers. The motion to recommit failed on a strictly party-line vote of 199-226.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
LABOR RIGHTS Aid to Workers Negatively Impacted Upon by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 291
Jun 19, 2003
H.R. 1528. Tax Filing Changes/Vote on Democratic Substitute Bill to Streamline Tax Collection Which Would Maintain Health Protections for the Unemployed, Expand the Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families, and Revoke Tax Breaks to U.S. Firms That Relocate Overseas.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Ostensibly, the subject of this vote was legislation to streamline the IRS's tax collection system by, among other things, encouraging individuals to electronically file their tax returns. While widespread agreement existed among lawmakers on the goal of the legislation, differences arose regarding a specific provision in the bill. That provision would allow waivers of health protections that have been built into the tax code. One specific waiver, for instance, would weaken protections for unemployed workers whose jobs were lost because their employer relocated overseas. Under the "fast-track" trade law implemented in 2002, unemployed workers were to receive a 65% tax credit for the purchase of health insurance if their job loss was caused by foreign competition. If enacted, the underlying tax filing bill would waive that requirement. During debate on the measure, Congressman McDermott (D-WA) offered a Democratic substitute bill which would have: 1) removed the health insurance waiver provision which lessened protection for unemployed workers; 2) extended the child tax credit to low-income families (an issue Democrats had been pursuing since passage of the 2003 tax cut); and 3) eliminated tax breaks for companies that move overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. Progressives supported McDermott's substitute bill as a way to maintain protections for U.S. workers against the exportation of their jobs. Additionally, Progressives favored the child tax credit provision in McDermott's bill as a way to insure that all families, rich or poor, would benefit from increases in child tax credit. Finally, Progressives endorsed the corporate tax section of the bill as a way to penalize U.S. companies that relocate their operations overseas and thereby cost U.S. workers their jobs. On a nearly party-line vote of 196-226, the McDermott substitute bill was defeated.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
LABOR RIGHTS Aid to Workers Negatively Impacted Upon by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 290
Jun 19, 2003
H.R. 660. Health Plans for Small Businesses/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Which Would Exempt Small Businesses from State Laws Regulating the Quality of Employee Health Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Prior to House floor consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate. On this vote, GOP leaders sought passage of a rule governing debate on a bill which would allow small businesses to consolidate their resources before purchasing socalled "association" health insurance plans for their employees. Progressives voted against the rule based on their objection to a provision in the underlying legislation which would exempt association plans from state laws. Progressives argued that association plans should follow state laws because many state laws protect individuals by requiring that health insurance companies provide coverage for specific diseases or conditions such as breast cancer, autism, and mental illness. In the view of Progressives, exempting association plans from state laws would enable employers to provide health plans to their employees which may contain gaping holes in coverage for diseases, accidents, and other health-related problems. Furthermore, Progressives were concerned that exempting association plans from state law would provide employers with a financial incentive to switch from more comprehensive health plans that provide coverage for a wide range of diseases and health conditions to less-expensive health plans that do not provide workers with the same level of coverage as did their previous health insurance policy. Despite opposition from Progressives, the rule governing debate on the measure was adopted by a 224-199 vote margin.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Lost
Roll Call 289
Jun 19, 2003
H.R. 660. Health Plans for Small Businesses/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Which Would Exempt Small Businesses from State Laws Regulating the Quality of Employee Health Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This procedural vote was a motion to move the previous question on a rule governing debate on a bill which would allow small businesses to band together to purchase health insurance for their employees. If successful, a motion to move the previous question ends debate and the possibility of amendment on legislation. Progressives voted against the motion based on their opposition to the underlying legislation. While Progressives support the goal of allowing small businesses to combine their resources in purchasing consolidated or "association" health insurance plans, they opposed the GOPdrafted bill because provisions in that bill would exempt those association plans from state laws. Progressives pointed out that many state laws require that health plans cover specific diseases and conditions such as breast cancer, autism, and mental illness. Exempting association plans from state laws, Progressives argued, would enable employers to provide health plans to their employees with gaping holes in coverage. Additionally, Progressives worried that exempting association plans from state law would provide employers with a financial incentive to switch from more comprehensive health plans that provide coverage for a wide range of diseases and health conditions to less-expensive health plans that fail to provide workers with the same level of coverage as did their previous health insurance policy. Progressives voted against the motion to move the previous question but the motion was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 224-198.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Health Insurance
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
N N Lost
Roll Call 288
Jun 18, 2003
H.R. 8. Estate Tax Repeal/Passage of a Bill to Repeal the Estate Tax Which Targets Wealthy Taxpayers and Comprises an Important Source of Government Revenue.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a bill that would permanently repeal the estate tax. The estate tax is an inheritance tax on estates valued at over $3 million that are passed down from one generation to the next. Progressives opposed final passage of the estate tax repeal because, in their view, the estate tax is needed to prevent the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small group of individuals. The GOP-bill, Progressives pointed out, would only serve to benefit wealthy individuals because the estate tax only applies to estates valued in excess of $3 million; very few low and middle income taxpayers, Progressives argued, own multi-million dollar estates and would therefore receive no benefits from the legislation. Just the opposite, Progressives contended that permanently repealing the estate tax would reduce federal revenues by over $800 billion in the next ten years and would necessitate cuts in important programs such as Medicare and Social Security that benefit low and middle income earners. Despite opposition from Progressives, the estate tax repeal was adopted by the House on a vote of 264-163.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 287
Jun 18, 2003
H.R. 8. Estate Tax Repeal/Vote on Democratic Substitute Measure to Retain, at a Reduced Rate, the Estate Tax Which Targets Wealthy Taxpayers and Comprises an Important Source of Government Revenue.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on legislation which would permanently repeal the estate tax, Congressman Pomeroy (D-ND) proposed a substitute bill on behalf of the Democratic party which would have imposed a forty-nine percent tax on estates valued at over $3 million. Progressives endorsed the Pomeroy proposal because, in their view, maintaining the estate tax is necessary to insure that wealth and power does not become concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of individuals. The estate tax, Progressives noted, only applies to estates that are worth over $3 million; very few low and middle income taxpayers, Progressives argued, would benefit from the estate tax repeal because those individuals are unlikely to own multi-million dollar estates. Progressives also argued that the GOP-drafted estate tax repeal would cost the U.S. Treasury over $800 billion in the next decade; that money, in the view of Progressives, would be better spent insuring that the baby-boomer generation is able to benefit from the payroll taxes they have paid into the Social Security and Medicare programs. The Pomeroy substitute bill was defeated on a 188-239 vote.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 285
Jun 18, 2003
H.R. 8. Estate Tax Repeal/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Repeal the Estate Tax Which Targets Wealthy Taxpayers and Comprises an Important Source of Government Revenue.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

On this vote, GOP leaders sought passage of a rule governing House debate on a bill which would permanently repeal the estate tax (the estate tax is an inheritance tax that applies to estates valued in excess of $3 million). Prior to House floor consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which functions on behalf of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on House debate. Progressives voted against the rule based on their opposition to the underlying legislation. In their view, the estate tax repeal would only serve to benefit wealthy individuals because low and middle income taxpayers are unable to afford multi-million dollar estates. The estate tax, Progressives argued, is necessary to insure that wealth and power do not become concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of individuals. Another concern raised by Progressives was the potential impact of the estate tax repeal on the federal budget. Repealing that tax, Progressives argued, would decrease federal revenue that could be used to address what they view as more important human needs such as Social Security, education, and health care. The rule governing debate on the estate tax repeal was adopted on a nearly party-line vote of 230-199.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 284
Jun 18, 2003
H.R. 8. Estate Tax Repeal/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Repeal the Estate Tax Which Targets Wealthy Taxpayers and Comprises an Important Source of Government Revenue.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

When parents die and bequeath their estate to their children, that estate is subject to an inheritance tax known as the estate tax. In the $1.35 trillion tax cut package enacted in 2001, provisions were included to phase-out the estate tax by 2010. Those provisions, however, would be nullified in 2011 and the estate tax would be restored to its pre-2001 level. For the fourth time in fifteen months, GOP leaders introduced legislation that would make the estate tax elimination permanent (the estate tax repeal has, to date, been unable to pass the Senate). Progressives opposed the estate tax repeal because that tax-which only applies to estates valued at over $3 million-would provide a windfall of benefits to the wealthy; low and middle income earners, Progressives argued, would receive no benefit from the estate tax repeal because those taxpayers are unlike to own multi-million dollar estates. The estate tax, Progressives argued, is necessary to insure that wealth and power do not become concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of individuals. Moreover, Progressives argued that the estate tax repeal would deprive the federal budget of funding that could be used for human needs such as education, health care, and environmental protection. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous questiona procedural motion that, if successful, ends debate and the possibility of amendment-on a bill to permanently eliminate the estate tax. Progressives opposed the procedural motion based on their opposition to the underlying legislation. The motion was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 227-200.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 279
Jun 17, 2003
S. 342. Child Abuse Prevention and Adoption Program/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Republican-Drafted Bill to Prevent Child Abuse Which Was Intended to Deflect Criticism Away From Republican Stances on Childrens' Issues.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question-a procedural motion which, if successful, ends debate and the possibility of amendment-to provide for House consideration of a conference report which would reauthorize $200 million in grants for the 1996 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (when the House and Senate pass legislation in different forms, a conference committee is convened to reconcile those differences; a conference report is the product of those negotiations). That 1996 Act provides financial assistance to community outreach programs for child abuse prevention activities. While Progressives supported the reauthorization of the 1996 law, they voted in opposition to the procedural motion to proceed as a way to protest the GOP's positions on child issues. During House debate on the motion to move the previous question, Progressives admonished the GOP for excluding low-income families from receiving the child tax credit increase that was included in the recently-adopted $550 billion tax cut measure. Progressives argued that GOP leaders scheduled a vote on the child abuse prevention bill not because they considered child abuse a pressing issue but rather to shift the public's focus away from the child tax credit controversy. On a straight party-line vote, the motion to move the previous question was adopted by a 226-200 vote margin.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
N N Lost
Roll Call 275
Jun 12, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language During Conference Committee Negotiations Because Senate Version of Bill Does Not Include Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In response to the outcry from Democrats over a section in the recently-adopted $350 billion tax cut bill which would prevent low-income families from benefiting from the child tax credit increase contained in the tax legislation, GOP leaders in the House and Senate drafted legislation to address Democrats' concerns. Differences in the House and Senate bills, however, required the formation of a conference committee to reconcile the two versions of the legislation. During House debate on the issue, Congressman Rangel (D-NY) motioned to instruct House conferees to insist on the Senate's language. In the view of Progressives, the Senate bill was preferable to the House version because it did not contain additional tax breaks for individuals earning over $150,000 a year and would provide immediate assistance to low-income families who would benefit from the child tax credit increase. Progressives endorsed Rangel's motion because, in their view, the additional tax breaks for higher-income taxpayers contained in the House version were unjustified. Moreover, they argued that low-income taxpayers should receive immediate benefits from the child tax credit increase (the House bill would have delayed those benefits by one year). The motion to instruct was narrowly adopted on a 205-201 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Won
Roll Call 274
Jun 12, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families and Provide Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

On this vote, GOP leaders sought passage of a rule governing debate on legislation which would extend the child tax credit to low-income families, provide additional tax reductions for individuals who earn over $150,000 annually, and reduce the tax burden on military families. (Prior to House floor consideration of a measure, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which in effect is an arm of the majority party leadership-must be passed to set parameters on debate.) Progressives opposed the rule based on their objections to the underlying legislation. In their view, the tax breaks included in the bill for individuals who earn over $150,000 a year were unjustified; the recently-passed $350 billion tax cut proposal, Progressives argued, contained plenty of tax reductions for wealthy individuals. Progressives supported narrowly drafted legislation which would limit tax breaks to low-income families who, in their view, where neglected in the GOP-drafted tax cut bill. The rule governing debate passed the House on a 224-201 vote.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
N N Lost
Roll Call 273
Jun 12, 2003
H.R. 1308. Child Tax Credit and Military Tax Breaks/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Extend the Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families and Provide Tax Breaks for Wealthy Individuals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The recently adopted $350 billion tax cut package contained numerous provisions--such as reductions in the top marginal income tax rate and tax cuts on dividends income--that would benefit wealthy taxpayers. In the view of Progressives, relatively few tax breaks were contained in the bill which would benefit low and middle income taxpayers. One provision which increased the child tax credit, however, was purported to benefit low-income taxpayers. However, after passage of the legislation, Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) discovered that the child tax credit increase from $600 to $1000 which was contained in the tax package would not be available to low-income families. Upon their discovery, House Democrats adopted a strategy of opposing all legislation until the GOP extended the child tax break to low income families. In an effort to appease Democrats, GOP leaders drafted legislation to extend the child credit to low income families; also included in the legislation, however, were additional tax breaks for individuals who earn in excess of $150,000 a year. Tax reductions for military families, which Democrats also supported, were included in the legislation as well. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question, a motion which, if successful, ends debate and the possibility of amendment on a rule governing debate on the matter. Progressives opposed the motion based on their objections to the underlying legislation. In their view, the additional tax breaks included in the bill were unjustified; Progressives only supported legislation which would extend the child credit to low-income families and provide additional financial assistance to military families. The motion to move the previous question was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 225-201.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
N N Lost
Roll Call 272
Jun 12, 2003
H.R. 1115. Class Action Lawsuits/Passage of a Bill Designed to Curb Class Action Lawsuits (and Opportunities for Justice) by Assigning Original Jurisdiction to Overworked Federal Courts Rather Than State Courts in Those Cases.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was passage of a bill which would transfer legal jurisdiction on class action lawsuits from state courts to the federal bench. The legislation would also make the transfer of authority retroactive; pending class action cases against corporate criminals such as Enron and WorldCom, then, would be transferred to the federal court system. In the view of Progressives, the proposed rules changes to class action lawsuits would hinder the ability of victims of corporate fraud or other criminal acts from receiving timely justice and reparations. Progressives argued that the federal bench is already overburdened with cases; providing federal courts with an even broader legal jurisdiction, Progressives noted, would result in lengthy delays in judicial action. Moreover, Progressives opposed the retroactivity provision contained in the bill; in their view, victims of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and WorldCom should receive compensation in a timely manner. Despite their opposition, the legislation was adopted on a 253-170 vote.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 271
Jun 12, 2003
H.R. 1115. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Designed to Curb Class Action Lawsuits (and Opportunities for Justice) by Assigning Original Jurisdiction to Overworked Federal Courts Rather Than State Courts in Those Cases.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on GOP-drafted legislation which would transfer class action cases from state courts to the federal bench, Congressman Weiner (D-NY) motioned to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to delete a section in the bill which makes the rules changes to class action lawsuits contained in the bill retroactive. (If successful, a motion to recommit sends the measure back to committee and is usually a deathblow to the legislation.) Progressives supported the motion to recommit; during debate on the legislation, Progressives pointed out that the retroactivity provision would cause judicial delays for pending lawsuits against known corporate criminals such as Enron, Arthur Anderson, and WorldCom. The motion to recommit the bill was defeated by a 185-240 vote margin.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 270
Jun 12, 2003
H.R. 1115. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote on a Democratic Substitute Measure Designed to Insure Timely Access to Justice for Victims of Corporate Fraud or Misconduct By Maintaining State Involvement in Class Action Lawsuits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Bush Administration has made several efforts in recent years to limit corporate liability in cases involving medical malpractice and asbestos exposure. In a move to limit the number of class action rulings against corporations which defraud or cause serious injury to their employees or clients, the administration and GOP leaders introduced legislation which would transfer authority on the handling of class action lawsuits from state courts to the federal bench. Progressives opposed the GOP-drafted legislation; they argued that federal courts are already overburdened with cases and that the transfer of authority to the federal courts would delay justice for victims of corporate fraud or other criminal misconduct. In an effort to ease the additional caseload on federal courts, Democrats proposed a substitute bill which would have established a multi-district litigation panel to consolidate class action cases in state courts for pretrial proceedings. Progressives endorsed the Democratic bill as a way to insure timely judicial rulings on class action lawsuits. Republicans voted unanimously in opposition to the Democratic bill and the measure was rejected 170-255.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 269
Jun 12, 2003
H.R. 1115. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Strike a Provision in Bill Which Prevents States From Enforcing Their Antitrust and Consumer Protection Laws in Class Action Cases.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

GOP-drafted legislation to change the rules on class action lawsuits would require federal courts, and not state courts, to decide those lawsuits in a wide range of cases. Progressives noted that federal courts already have more cases than they can handle; adding class action lawsuits to their list of duties, Progressives argued, would delay justice for plaintiffs who have suffered from criminal misconduct by corporations for months or years. During debate on the legislation, Congresswoman Lofgren (D-CA) offered an amendment which would have eliminated a provision in the bill which prevented state or local prosecutors from enforcing state antitrust and consumer protection laws in state courts (the bill required federal courts to handle those cases). Progressives voted in support of Lofgren's amendment as a way to insure timely justice for corporate misdeeds. Moreover, in the view of Progressives, corporate misbehavior should be subjected to state as well as federal prosecution. The Lofgren proposal was rejected on a 186-234 vote.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 268
Jun 12, 2003
H.R. 1115. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Prevent U.S. Corporations From Merging With Foreign Companies As a Way to Avoid Culpability for Illegal Actions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on a bill which would transfer the jurisdiction of class action lawsuits from state courts to the federal bench, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee proposed an amendment which would have prevented U.S. corporations from merging with foreign companies for the purpose of avoiding liability in a class action lawsuit. Progressives supported the Jackson-Lee proposal as a way to insure that those U.S. corporations that commit fraud or other illegal activities against individuals are held legally accountable for their actions. The Jackson-Lee amendment was defeated by a 185-238 vote margin.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 266
Jun 12, 2003
H.R. 1115. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Designed to Curb Class Action Lawsuits (and Opportunities for Justice) by Assigning Original Jurisdiction to Overworked Federal Courts Rather Than State Courts in Those Cases.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Prior to House floor consideration of a bill, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which in effect is an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to govern debate on the legislation. On this vote, GOP leaders sought passage of a rule handling debate on a bill which would transfer jurisdiction on class action lawsuits from state courts to the federal bench when: 1) the plaintiffs and the defendant are from different states; 2) the number of plaintiffs exceed one-hundred; or 3) the expected damages are in excess of $2 million. Progressives opposed the bill because, in their view, the measure would restrict the ability of plaintiffs to receive timely justice for criminal acts against them. Progressives pointed out that federal courts are already overburdened; adding class action lawsuits to their caseload, Progressives argued, would result in lengthy delays in judicial action. Also of concern to Progressives was a provision in the bill making the proposed rules changes to class action suits retroactive. Progressives pointed out that the retroactivity provision would apply the rules changes to already-filed class action suits against corporate criminals such as Enron and WorldCom; defrauded employees and clients of those corporations, then, would be required to wait for federal judicial action before receiving reparations. Based on their objections to the underlying legislation, Progressives voted against the rule for debate. Despite their opposition, the rule was adopted on a 235-188 vote.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 265
Jun 12, 2003
H.R. 1115. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Designed to Curb Class Action Lawsuits (and Opportunities for Justice) by Assigning Original Jurisdiction to Overworked Federal Courts Rather Than State Courts in Those Cases.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Republicans have made several efforts in recent years to impose limits on the amount a plaintiff may receive in damages for lawsuits involving medical malpractice and asbestos exposure. In a move to further reform the tort system, GOP leaders introduced legislation which would require federal courts--and not state courts--to handle class action lawsuits in cases where the plaintiffs are from a different state than the defendant, at least one-hundred plaintiffs are involved in the case, or if the expected damages exceeds $2 million (these qualifications would apply to nearly all class action lawsuits). The legislation would also make the rules changes retroactive, thereby transferring already-filed class action suits from state to federal courts. In the view of Progressives, the proposed rules changes to class action lawsuits would hinder the ability of victims of corporate fraud or other criminal acts from receiving timely justice and reparations. In the course of debate, Progressives argued that the federal bench is already overburdened with cases; requiring federal courts to handle most class action lawsuits, Progressives noted, would delay justice for months or even years. Second, the rules changes contained in the bill would be retroactive. Progressives pointed out that the retroactivity would apply to already-filed class action lawsuits against Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, and other known corporate criminals. Progressives opposed the legislation because, in their view, the policy changes would protect corporate wrongdoers against the individuals that they harm and would enable fraudulent corporations and their executives to escape accountability for their illegal activities. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question on a rule governing debate on the measure. If successful, the procedural motion would end debate and the possibility of amendment on the rule. Progressives voted in opposition to the motion to proceed based on their objections to the underlying legislation. On a 229-193 vote, the motion to allow the bill to proceed in the legislative process was adopted.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 257
Jun 11, 2003
H.R. 2115. FAA Reauthorization/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Reauthorize Federal Spending for the Federal Aviation Administration and Privatize Air-Traffic Control Functions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was a procedural motion which would allow House consideration to proceed on legislation which would reauthorize federal spending for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Progressives voted in opposition to the procedural motion to move the previous question on the FAA reauthorization-a motion which cuts off debate and the possibility of amendment-based on their objection to a provision in the bill which would privatize air-traffic control functions in airports. In June of 2002, President Bush issued an executive order determining that air-traffic control was not inherently a government function, thereby allowing air-traffic control duties to be privatized (occupations that are determined to be "inherently governmental" cannot be privatized). In response to Bush's executive order, Republicans included provisions in the FAA reauthorization which would privatize air traffic controllers, computer system and maintenance workers, and flight service stations operated by the FAA. Progressives were concerned that private companies would focus greater attention on profits rather than public safety. Air-traffic control, Progressives argued, is an occupation which requires a tremendous mental focus and places enormous pressures on individuals. In the view of Progressives, air-traffic control operations should not be conducted by private companies whose hiring standards or training programs might be inferior to the standards and training extended to public employees. The motion to move the previous question was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 219-195 and the legislation was allowed to proceed.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 256
Jun 10, 2003
H. Res. 252. Food Biotech Products/Vote to Adopt a Resolution Expressing Congressional Support for President Bush's Challenge to European Moratorium on the Trade of Genetically-Modified U.S. Crops.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

While few studies have been devoted to the health effects of genetically modified (GM) foods, some scientists claim that a link exists between the resurgence of infectious diseases and genetic modifications in the U.S. food supply. In contrast to Americans, Europeans have voiced strong opposition to GM foods and, in response, the European Union (EU) has imposed a five-year moratorium on the purchase of GM crops. The Bush Administration, however, views European skepticism toward GM foods as unfounded because those crops are subjected to USDA, FDA, and EPA approval. Earlier this year, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick announced that the U.S. would file a case against the EU on the grounds that restricting the sale of GM foods to Europe was in violation of international trade laws set forth by the World Trade Organization (WTO). The subject of this vote was a resolution expressing support for the administration's challenge to the EU moratorium which rejects the European importation of GM food from the United States. Progressives voted in opposition to the resolution because, in their view, the potential consequences of genetically-modified foods to humans and the environment demand further investigation. Moreover, Progressives argued that the U.S. has no right to force GM foods on the rest of the world and especially those European countries whose citizens reject GM foods. The resolution expressing support for the administration's position was adopted overwhelmingly on a vote of 339-80.


ENVIRONMENT Genetically Engineered Organisms' Effect on Environment
ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
N N Lost
Roll Call 255
Jun 10, 2003
H.R. 2143. Internet Gambling/Passage of a Bill Intended to Regulate the Internet Gambling Industry Which Contained Loopholes to Prevent Enforcement.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a bill which would prevent the use of credit cards for internet gambling. Progressives supported the spirit of the legislation because, in their view, strong federal regulations on the multi-billion dollar internet gambling industry should be imposed to protect consumers. However, Progressives opposed the House bill because, in their estimation, the legislation contained numerous loopholes that would counteract the gambling restrictions contained in the legislation. One loophole that Progressives objected to, for instance, would exempt state-regulated internet gambling venues from the credit card restrictions contained in the legislation. Progressives argued that the state exemption would nullify any impact of the legislation on curtailing internet gambling and they voted against the bill on those grounds. Despite Progressives' opposition, the legislation passed the House by a 319-104 vote margin.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Internet Gambling Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 254
Jun 10, 2003
H.R. 2143. Internet Gambling/Vote to Close a Loophole Contained in Bill Which Would Prevent Enforcement of Regulations on Internet Gambling.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During House debate on a measure which would prevent the use of credit cards for internet gambling activities, Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-WI) offered an amendment which would have eliminated a provision in the legislation which exempted states with state-regulated internet gambling sites from the internet gambling restrictions contained in the bill. In the view of Progressives, the multi-billion dollar internet gambling industry should be subjected to tough federal regulations. The House bill, they worried, contained too many loopholes that would ease the gambling restrictions contained in the legislation. Progressives argued, for instance, that the state exemption contained in the bill would significantly diminish any impacts of the legislation on curbing internet gambling. Progressives endorsed the Sensenbrenner amendment as a way to close the loophole for state-regulated internet gambling venues. The Sensenbrenner amendment was defeated on a vote of 186-237.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Internet Gambling Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 253
Jun 10, 2003
H.R. 2143. Internet Gambling/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Intended to Regulate the Internet Gambling Industry Which Contained Loopholes to Prevent Enforcement.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Prior to House floor consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on legislation which would require credit card companies to block gambling transactions over the internet. Since most internet casinos depend on electronic payments for placing bets, lawmakers intended to siphon off the flow of money to those casinos through passage of the legislation. Progressives support limitations on the multi-billion dollar internet gambling industry-an industry that is not subject to strong federal regulations-but opposed the House bill because it contained a provision which would exempt those states with state-regulated internet gambling venues from the credit card restrictions that were contained in the bill. In the view of Progressives, the state exemption provision provided internet casinos with an enormous loophole that could be easily exploited by the industry. Progressives argued that the state exemption contained in the legislation would nullify the impact of the legislation on curbing internet gambling and they voted in opposition to the measure on those grounds. Progressives voted against the rule based on their objections to the underlying legislation but the rule passed by a 259-158 vote margin.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Internet Gambling Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 252
Jun 10, 2003
H.R. 2143. Internet Gambling/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Intended to Regulate the Internet Gambling Industry Which Contained Loopholes to Prevent Enforcement.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Internet gambling has been the subject of congressional debate for the last two years. In an effort to restrict the multibillion dollar industry, legislation was drafted in the House which would mandate that credit card companies block gambling transactions over the internet. Since most internet casinos rely on some form of electronic payment for placing bets, lawmakers hoped the bill would siphon off the flow of money to those casinos. Progressives support restrictions on internet gambling-which is an industry that is not subject to strong federal scrutiny-but opposed a provision in the House bill which would exempt those states with state-regulated internet gambling venues from the provisions in the bill. In the view of Progressives, the state exemption provided an enormous loophole that could be easily exploited by internet casinos. Progressives opposed the legislation because, in their view, the state exemption that was contained in the legislation would nullify the impact of the legislation on curbing internet gambling. The subject of this vote was a procedural motion which would allow House consideration of the legislation to proceed. Progressives voted in opposition to move the previous question, a procedural motion which ends debate and the possibility of amendment, but the motion was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 222-196.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Internet Gambling Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 245
Jun 05, 2003
S. 222, S. 273. Zuni Water and Grand Teton National Park/Protest Vote Against Rules of Debate on Two Non- Controversial Bills In Response to Republican Refusal to Extend the Recently-Passed Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Officially, this vote pertained to a rule governing debate on two non-controversial pieces of legislation; a bill to extend water rights to Zuni Indians and legislation to authorize the secretary of the Interior to acquire 1,406 acres of state lands within the exterior boundaries of the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Prior to House consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which in effect is an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate. While bipartisan agreement existed on those two pieces of legislation, Democrats voted against the rule based on their objections to a child tax credit provision contained in the recently-passed $350 billion tax cut package. After the tax cuts were signed into law, Democrats discovered that the eligibility requirements contained in the child tax credit section of that legislation would have prevented low-income families from receiving the $400 child tax credit increase contained in the tax package. To force action on the issue, House Democrats adopted a strategy of opposing all measures considered on the House floor until the child tax credit eligibility requirements were amended. Progressives supported the Democratic strategy and voted against the rule because, in their view, excluding low-income families from the child tax credit increase contained in the tax-cut bill was unfair. In the view of Progressives, low and middle income families should be the prime beneficiaries of tax cuts because those taxpayers are in greater need of financial assistance than are wealthy individuals. The rule governing debate was passed by a 229-175 vote margin.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 244
Jun 05, 2003
S. 273, S. 222. Zuni Water and Grand Teton National Park/Protest Vote Against Allowing Consideration of Two Non- Controversial Bills In Response to Republican Refusal to Extend the Recently-Passed Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Ostensibly, the subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question-thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment-on a rule governing debate on two non-controversial bills; a measure to extend water rights to Zuni Indians and a bill to authorize the secretary of the Interior to acquire 1,406 acres of state lands within the exterior boundaries of the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. While bipartisan agreement existed on those two pieces of legislation, Democrats voted in opposition to the measure based on their objections to a child tax credit provision contained in the recentlyadopted $350 billion tax cut package. After the tax cuts were signed into law, Democrats discovered that the eligibility requirements contained in the child tax credit section of that legislation would have prevented low-income families from receiving the $400 child tax credit increase contained in the tax package. In an effort to force action on extending the child tax credit increase to low-income families, House Democrats adopted a strategy of opposing all measures considered on the House floor until the child tax credit eligibility requirements were amended. Progressives endorsed the Democratic strategy and voted against the motion to move the previous question based on their opposition to the exclusion of lowincome families from the benefits of the child tax credit increase that was contained in the tax-cut measure. In the view of Progressives, low and middle income families should be the prime recipients of tax cuts; denying the benefit of the child tax credit increase to low-income families, Progressives argued, was unfair because those taxpayers are in greater need of financial assistance than are wealthy individuals. The motion to move the previous question was adopted on a 220-194 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 243
Jun 05, 2003
H.R. 1474. Digital Checks/Protest Vote Against Allowing Consideration of a Non-Controversial Bill In Response to Republican Refusal to Extend the Recently-Passed Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Officially, the subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question-thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment-on a rule governing debate on a bill which would modernize check writing by allowing digital checks to be transmitted over the internet (digital checks are paper reproductions of an original check from an electronically transmitted image). Although bipartisan agreement existed on the legislation to allow digital checks, Democrats voted in opposition to the measure based on their objections to a child tax credit provision contained in the recently-adopted $350 billion tax cut package. The eligibility requirements contained in the child tax credit section of that legislation-which Democrats learned about after the bill was signed into law-would have prevented low-income families from receiving the $400 child tax credit increase contained in the tax package. In a move to force GOP leaders to extend the child tax credit increase to lowincome families, House Democrats adopted a strategy of opposing all measures considered on the House floor until the child tax credit eligibility requirements were amended. Progressives endorsed the Democratic strategy and voted against the digital checks bill based on their opposition to the exemption for low-income families that was contained in the child tax credit section of the tax bill. In the view of Progressives, tax cuts should be targeted to low and middle income families because those taxpayers are in greater need of financial assistance than are wealthy individuals. The motion to move the previous question on the digital checks bill was adopted by a vote of 220-198.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 242
Jun 04, 2003
H.R. 760. Ban on "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions/Passage of a Bill to Restrict Abortion Rights By Banning "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was passage of legislation which would ban a medical procedure known as a late term (or "partial birth") abortion. Since the U.S. Supreme Court granted abortion rights to women in its landmark 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, social conservatives have lobbied Congress to enact restrictions on those rights. With the GOP now in control of the House, Senate, and the White House, passage of the legislation appears inevitable. However, the ban on late term abortions will no doubt be the subject of a legal challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2000, the high court ruled that a Nebraska law banning late term abortions was unconstitutional; Progressives and other pro-choice lawmakers hope the current legislation will similarly be struck down. Progressives voted in opposition to the late term abortion ban because, in their view, the proposal violates a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, is in conflict with the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling on abortion rights, and is therefore unconstitutional. Despite Progressives' opposition, the late term abortion ban was adopted by the House on a 282-139 vote.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
N N Lost
Roll Call 241
Jun 04, 2003
H.R. 760. Ban on "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Restrict Abortion Rights By Banning "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The issue of abortion incites strong and polarized preferences among lawmakers and the public to a degree that is not present in most other areas of public policy. In a effort to find middle ground on legislation which would ban a medical procedure known as a late-term abortion, Congresswoman Baldwin (D-WI) offered a motion to recommit the measure to committee with instructions to add a provision which would have allowed late-term abortions if a doctor determines that the procedure is medically necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother. (The motion to recommit is one of the few procedural prerogatives afforded to opponents of legislation; if successful, the motion sends a bill back to committee, is usually accompanied with specific instructions to amend the bill, and is often a deathblow to the legislation.) Progressives voted in favor of the motion to recommit as a way to prevent an outright ban on late-term abortions as specified in the GOP-bill; in the view of Progressives, provisions in the Baldwin amendment which allow a mother's doctor to determine whether an abortion is necessary would help to insure that late-term abortions are still available and legal for women. The motion to recommit was defeated by a 165-256 vote margin.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 236
Jun 04, 2003
H.R. 760. Ban on "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Restrict Abortion Rights By Banning "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Ever since abortion rights were first guaranteed to women in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 landmark case of Roe v. Wade, social conservatives have lobbied Congress to adopt legislative restrictions on those rights. With the GOP now in control of both houses of Congress and the White House, legislative restrictions on abortion rights appear attainable. On this vote, House GOP leaders sought passage of a rule governing debate on a bill which would ban the medical procedure known as a late-term (or "partial birth") abortion (prior to House floor consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee-which in effect is an arm of the majority party leadership-must be adopted to set parameters on debate). Progressives opposed the rule based on their objections to the underlying legislation. In the view of Progressives, women should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion; a woman's body, they argued, should not be controlled by legislation. Republicans voted unanimously in favor of the rule and the measure was adopted on a 280-138 vote.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
N N Lost
Roll Call 234
Jun 03, 2003
H.J. Res. 4. Flag Desecration/Passage of a Bill to Restrict Political Speech by Criminalizing the Destruction of the U.S. Flag.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

For the fifth time in fourteen years, the House took up legislation that would ban the destruction of the U.S. flag. Progressives voted in opposition to the ban because, in their view, defacing the U.S. flag is a protected form of political speech under the First Amendment. The view of Progressives, it should be noted, is supported by a Supreme Court ruling on the issue. In a flag-burning case considered in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning was protected under the First Amendment. To pass a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution, a two-thirds majority vote must be obtained in both the House and Senate. The necessary majority was obtained in the House on a 300-125 vote. However, four previous attempts to add a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration have been defeated in the Senate.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 233
Jun 03, 2003
H.J. Res. 4. Flag Desecration/Vote to Protect Political Speech By Weakening the Proposed Ban on the Destruction of the U.S. Flag.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protected flag burning as a form of political speech. Since the 1989 decision, the House has passed five resolutions which have called for a constitutional amendment to prohibit the desecration of the U.S. flag (none of those resolutions were passed by the Senate). During House debate on a fifth attempt to ban flag desecration, Congressman Watt (D-NC) proposed an amendment which would have weakened the bill by limiting Congress's authority to ban flag desecration to those activities that fall outside the purview of the First Amendment. Progressives supported the Watt proposal because, in their view, damaging the U.S. flag is a Constitutionally-protected form of political speech. Had Watt's amendment passed, Congress would likely have been unable to prohibit flag destruction because, by the Supreme Court's analysis, all activities that deface the flag are protected by the First Amendment. The Watt amendment was defeated on a 129-296 vote.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 232
Jun 03, 2003
S. 763. Birch Bayh Courthouse/Protest Vote Against Passage of a Non-Controversial Bill In Response to Republican Refusal to Extend the Recently-Passed Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Officially, the subject of this vote was a motion to suspend House rules and pass a bill that would name a federal courthouse in Indianapolis after Indiana's former Democratic Senator Birch Evan Bayh (Senator Bayh served in the Senate from 1963 until 1981). The suspension procedure-which is employed more frequently for non-controversial measureslimits the time available for debate, bars amendments, and requires a two-thirds majority vote for passage of the legislation. Although Senators from both parties held Senator Bayh in high esteem and supported renaming the Indianapolis courthouse after their former colleague, Democrats voted in opposition to the measure based on their objections to a child tax credit provision contained in the recently-adopted $350 billion tax cut package. The eligibility requirements contained in the child tax credit provision would have excluded low-income families from obtaining the $400 child tax credit increase contained in the tax package. In an effort to force GOP leaders to extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families, House Democrats pursued a strategy of opposing all measures considered on the House floor until GOP leaders scheduled a vote on the eligibility requirements for the child tax credit. Progressives endorsed the Democratic strategy and voted against the Birch Bayh bill based on their opposition to the provision in the tax cut bill which would prevent low-income families from obtaining the $400 child tax credit increase. In the view of Progressives, low and middle income families should be the prime beneficiaries of tax breaks because those taxpayers are in greater need of financial assistance than are wealthy individuals. The motion to suspend House rules failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority vote and was rejected on a vote of 235-179.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 231
Jun 03, 2003
S. 273. Grand Teton National Park/Protest Vote Against Passage of a Non-Controversial Bill In Response to Republican Refusal to Extend the Recently-Passed Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Officially, the subject of this vote was a motion to suspend House rules and pass a bill that would authorize the secretary of the Interior to acquire 1,406 acres of state lands within the exterior boundaries of the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. The suspension procedure-which is most often used for non-controversial measures-limits the time available for debate, bars amendments, and requires a two-thirds majority vote for passage of the legislation. Although bipartisan agreement existed on the Grand Teton National Park legislation, Democrats voted in opposition to the measure based on their objections to a child tax credit provision contained in the recently-adopted $350 billion tax cut package. The eligibility requirements contained in the child tax credit provision would have prevented low-income families from obtaining the $400 child tax credit increase contained in the tax package. In an effort to force GOP leaders to extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families, House Democrats adopted a strategy of opposing all measures considered on the House floor until GOP leaders scheduled a vote on the eligibility requirements for the child tax credit. Progressives endorsed the Democratic strategy and voted against the Grand Teton bill based on their opposition to the provision in the tax cut bill which would prevent low-income families from obtaining the $400 child tax credit increase. In the view of Progressives, tax breaks should be targeted to low and middle income families because those taxpayers are in greater need of financial assistance than are wealthy individuals. The motion to suspend House rules failed to garner the necessary twothirds majority vote and the Grand Teton bill was defeated by a 217-198 vote margin.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
N N Won
Roll Call 230
Jun 03, 2003
S. 222. Zuni Water Rights/Protest Vote Against Passage of a Non-Controversial Bill In Response to Republican Refusal to Extend the Recently-Passed Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Ostensibly, the subject of this vote was a motion to suspend House rules and pass a bill that would approve a water rights agreement between the Zuni Indian tribe and non-Indian communities in Arizona. The suspension procedure-which is usually reserved for non-controversial measures-limits the time available for debate, bars amendments to the legislation, and requires a two-thirds majority vote for passage of the legislation. Lawmakers, however, were united in their support for Zuni water rights. Democratic opposition to the bill reflected a controversy over a child tax credit provision contained in the recently-adopted $350 billion tax cut package. The eligibility requirements contained in the child tax credit provision would have prevented low-income families from obtaining the child tax credit increase from $600 to $1000 which was contained in the tax package. In an effort to force GOP leaders to extend the child tax credit increase to lowincome families, House Democrats adopted a strategy of opposing all measures considered on the House floor until GOP leaders scheduled a vote to change the eligibility requirements for the child tax credit. Progressives endorsed the Democratic strategy and voted against the Zuni water rights bill to demonstrate opposition to the provision in the tax cut bill which would prevent low-income families from benefiting from the child tax credit increase. In the view of Progressives, tax breaks should be targeted to low and middle income families because those individuals are most in need of financial assistance. The motion to suspend the rules failed to attract the necessary two-thirds majority vote and the Zuni water rights bill was therefore defeated on a 224-188 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
N N Won
Roll Call 226
May 22, 2003

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 191 Providing for a conditional adjournment of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 225
May 22, 2003
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Passage of a Conference Report Containing $350 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

When legislation passes the House and Senate in different forms, the majority and minority party leaders in both chambers of Congress select conferees from their respective bodies to participate in a conference committee to reconcile the differences between the two bills and produce a conference report (which is the final version of the legislation). The conference report is then reintroduced into the House and Senate and, if both legislative bodies pass the report, the measure is sent to the president for final approval (or a veto). The subject of this vote was final passage of a conference report which would provide $350 billion over eleven years in tax cuts. Progressives voted in opposition to the tax-cut conference report because, in their view, the bill provided an excessive amount of tax breaks for high-income individuals and not enough assistance for low and middle income taxpayers. Language contained in the conference report, for instance, would cut taxes on capital gains and dividend income and reduce the highest marginal income tax rate from 39.6% to 35% (the highest income tax rate applies only to income in excess of $1,171,000). These tax breaks, Progressives argued, would disproportionately benefit wealthy taxpayers and increase federal budget deficits in future years. Rising budget deficits, Progressives argued, would reduce the availability of funding for basic human needs such as health care, Social Security, and education. The conference report was adopted 231-200 and the measure was subsequently sent to the president for his signature.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 224
May 22, 2003
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Conference Report Containing $350 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

When legislation passes the House and Senate in different versions, a conference committee is convened to reconcile the differences between the two bills and produce a conference report; the final version of the measure. The conference report is then reintroduced in both chambers of Congress for final approval. If both the House and Senate agree to the conference report, the measure is then sent to the White House for a presidential signature or veto. On this vote, Republicans sought to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a rule to allow for House consideration of the conference report providing $350 billion over eleven years in tax reductions. Before legislative matters can be considered in the House, a rule must be adopted to set parameters on debate (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee which functions on behalf of the majority party leadership). In the view of Progressives, the tax-cut conference report was overly-generous to high-income individuals and failed to include enough tax reductions for low and middle income taxpayers. Provisions in the conference report, for instance, would cut taxes on capital gains and dividend income and reduce the highest marginal income tax rate (which applies only to income above $1,171,000) from 39.6% to 35%. These tax breaks, Progressives argued, would disproportionately benefit wealthy taxpayers and inflate future federal budget deficits. Despite unanimous opposition from the Democrats, the motion to allow for House consideration of the conference report was adopted on a 221-205 vote.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 222
May 22, 2003
H.R. 2185. Unemployment Benefits/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Republican-Drafted Bill to Extend Unemployment Benefits to a Limited Number of Jobless Workers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The economic downturn which began in late 2000 has caused nearly 2.7 million Americans to lose their jobs. One of the few federal programs designed to assist unemployed workers provides those workers with $260 a week for thirteen weeks after their state unemployment benefits have expired. However, an estimated 1.1 million laid-off workers who have been unable to find new jobs will soon exhaust their sixteen week federal benefits and would be left without a steady source of income while they are searching for new employment. To address the issue, GOP leaders drafted a bill which would extend the federal unemployment insurance program through December 31, 2003 (the federal unemployment insurance program is a temporary program which requires a congressional reauthorization every six months and was due to expire on May 31, 2003). Progressives noted that the six-month extension of the federal unemployment insurance program would not extend the eligibility of those 1.1 million workers who would have already exhausted their state and federal unemployment benefits; only recently unemployed workers would benefit from the program's extension. In the view of Progressives, the GOP-bill was a half-hearted effort that failed to provide the necessary level of financial support for those workers who would soon become ineligible for any additional unemployment benefits. During House debate on the legislation, Congressman Cardin (D-MD) motioned to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to extend workers' eligibility for federal unemployment benefits by twenty-six weeks. Progressives supported the motion to recommit-which is one of the few procedural prerogatives afforded to opponents of legislation-as a way to provide assistance to jobless workers whose unemployment benefits are due to expire. The motion to recommit was rejected on a 205-222 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 221
May 22, 2003
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Passage of a Bill to Provide Funding for the Research and Development of "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote involved passage of a $400.5 billion defense authorization bill which would fund defense-related activities in 2004. Provisions in the bill would exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The bill would also provide funding to research new "low-yield" nuclear weapons and grant the Pentagon greater flexibility over civilian personnel issues. Progressives voted in opposition to passage because, in their view, federal money should not be spent to develop new nuclear weapons systems. Moreover, Progressives voiced opposition to the environmental exemptions for the Defense Department and disapproved of the provisions restricting the rights of civilian defense employees. The defense authorization was adopted by the House on a 361-68 vote.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE Arms Controls Treaties
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
N N Lost
Roll Call 220
May 22, 2003
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Provide Funding for the Research and Development of "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In the House, one of the few procedural prerogatives afforded to opponents of legislation is the motion to recommit. If successful, the motion recommits a measure to the committee with jurisdiction on the issue and is usually accompanied with specific instructions to change the legislation. During debate on the 2004 defense authorization bill, Congressman Cooper (D-TN) made a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that would have established additional protections for civilian employees in the Defense Department. The Cooper instructions were inspired by language contained in the bill that would provide the Defense Secretary with greater control over civilian defense employees. Progressives supported the Cooper motion as a way to protect the rights of civil servants against possible abuses by the Secretary of Defense regarding hiring, placement, and pay raises. The motion to recommit was defeated by a 204-224 margin.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 219
May 22, 2003
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Restrict the Export of Powerful U.S.-Made Computers that Could Enable Foreign Countries to Develop Weapons Systems.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Under current law, U.S. exports of high-performance computers to foreign countries are regulated by a criteria known as MTOPS (which stands for million theoretical operations per second). The MTOPS standard provides a measure of the computational strength of a computer; those computers with MTOPS scores that exceed a certain level are not permitted to be sold abroad because they pose a risk to U.S. security. During debate on the 2004 defense authorization bill, Congressman David Dreier (R-CA) proposed an amendment which would terminate the MTOPS standard and require that the administration, in conjunction with the Congress, develop a new standard by which to gauge computational power. Progressives supported Dreier's proposal because, in their view, the MTOPS criteria was outdated; a new standard, they argued, was necessary to insure that powerful U.S. computers were not used by foreign countries to develop weapons systems, infiltrate U.S. intelligence databases, or otherwise threaten U.S. security. Dreier's proposal was narrowly rejected on a 207-217 vote.


WAR & PEACE Proliferation of Militarily Applicable Technology
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 218
May 22, 2003
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Castigate France For Its Anti-War Stance on Iraq.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The recent war in Iraq inspired great animosity among U.S. leaders toward France. In the House cafeteria, for instance, Representative Robert Ney (R-OH) renamed French fries "freedom fries" as a symbolic denouncement of France's opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. More importantly, cooperation between the U.S. and France on non-military issues has suffered since U.N. negotiations between the two countries broke down and on several occasions the U.S. has shunned France in the international arena. More recently, Congressman Saxton (R-NJ) offered an amendment to the 2004 defense authorization bill which would repeal the requirement that U.S. military officers serving as diplomats to France in defenserelated areas are brigadier generals or rear admirals (which are two of the highest military ranks one can achieve). By Saxton's own admission, his move was intended as a way to castigate France for its anti-war stance. Progressives opposed the Saxton amendment because, in their view, the measure would needlessly exacerbate tensions between the U.S. and France. Effective diplomacy, Progressives argue, requires cooperation rather than antagonism between world leaders. House Republicans, many of whom in recent months have strongly denounced the French in speeches on the floor, voted nearly unanimously in support of Saxton's amendment and the measure was adopted on a 302-123 vote.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 216
May 22, 2003
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Transfer Funding for the Development of "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons into Conventional Weapons Research.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Bush Administration has made clear its desire to develop so-called "low-yield" nuclear weapons (in contrast "highyield" nuclear weapons such as the hydrogen bomb, low-yield weapons would have limited explosive capabilities and could be used to eradicate concentrated targets). "Low-yield" nuclear weapons, the administration argued, are needed to explode underground targets containing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden. In the 2004 defense authorization bill, $15 million was provided for the development of "earth penetrator" weapons-lowyield nuclear weapons designed to explode underground targets-and $6 million in research funding to develop low-yield nuclear weapons for other purposes. During debate on the defense authorization bill, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (DCA) proposed an amendment which would have transferred the $21 million designated for low-yield nuclear weapons research and development into conventional weapons research programs. Progressives supported Tauscher's proposal because, in their view, developing new uses for nuclear weapons poses grave risks to humans and the environment; conventional weapons, Progressives argued, would be just as effective as low-yield nuclear weapons in destroying underground targets. Progressives also contended that providing funds for nuclear weapons research could encourage other countries to develop nuclear arsenals of their own, thereby triggering a second nuclear arms race (the first nuclear arms race occurred during the Cold War between the U.S. and U.S.S.R.). The Tauscher amendment was defeated on a tally of 199-226.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
WAR & PEACE Arms Controls Treaties
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 215
May 22, 2003
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Insure that Women Soldiers Have Access to Abortions When Stationed Overseas.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During House debate on the $400.5 billion defense authorization bill, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) proposed a measure which would have allowed women to obtain abortions on military bases located overseas as long as the abortion was privately funded. Progressives supported Sanchez's amendment as a way to provide women based overseas with the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion (current law forbids abortions on military bases located overseas). The Sanchez amendment was defeated by a 201-227 margin.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 214
May 22, 2003
H.R. 2185. Unemployment Benefits/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Republican-Drafted Bill to Extend Unemployment Benefits to a Limited Number of Jobless Workers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before debate is allowed on legislation in the House, agreement must be reached on a rule that governs the handling of a particular bill on the floor (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership). The subject of this vote was a rule to provide for House consideration of a bill to extend the federal unemployment benefits program through December 31, 2003. Progressives pointed out that the GOP-drafted bill to extend the federal unemployment insurance program by six months would not extend the eligibility of those 1.1 million workers who exhausted their state and federal unemployment benefits and were ineligible for additional benefits; only recently unemployed workers would benefit from the program's extension. In the view of Progressives, the GOP-bill was a mediocre effort that failed to provide the necessary level of financial support for those workers who ineligible for any additional unemployment benefits. Progressives opposed the rule because they opposed the GOP-bill. On a straight party line vote, the rule was adopted by the House by a 216-201 margin.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
N N Lost
Roll Call 213
May 22, 2003
H.R. 2185. Unemployment Benefits/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Republican-Drafted Bill to Extend Unemployment Benefits to a Limited Number of Jobless Workers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Federal unemployment benefits are one of the few protections afforded to individuals who have lost their jobs. Those benefits-which are worth $260 a week for thirteen weeks-only take effect after a worker has exhausted his/her state unemployment benefits (which are usually provided for a twenty-six week period) and remains unemployed. Due to a sluggish economy, the jobless rate is currently at six percent, an eight-year high, and 8.8 million people are unemployed. Many of those unemployed workers have been unable to find new jobs and have exhausted all their unemployment benefits. In an effort to provide financial protections for the unemployed, Senate Democrats have pursued a strategy of proposing amendments which would have expanded the benefits an additional twenty-six weeks to every piece of legislation considered in the Senate; GOP leaders, however, only wanted a thirteen-week extension of those benefits. House Democrats, whose procedural rights are limited compared to Senators, voted unanimously in opposition to a bill which would reauthorize funding for the National Transportation Safety Board and cited the House's failure to consider extending unemployment benefits as the sole reason for their objection. In a last-minute move to address the issue, GOP leaders drafted a bill to extend the federal unemployment benefit program to December 31, 2003 (the program was due to expire on May 31, 2003). Progressives noted that extending the federal unemployment insurance program by six months (which is equal to twenty-six weeks) would not provide financial assistance to those 1.1 million workers who have already exhausted their state and federal unemployment benefits; only recently unemployed workers would benefit from the program's extension. In the view of Progressives, the GOP-bill was a half-hearted effort that failed to provide the necessary level of financial support for those 1.1 million workers who need it the most (those who are no longer eligible to receive unemployment benefits). The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question (thus ending debate and the possibility of amendment) to allow for a vote on a rule governing debate on a bill to extend the unemployment benefit program through December 2003. Progressives voted against the motion based on their objections to the GOPdrafted legislation; in their view, a twenty-six week extension of unemployment benefits was needed to protect unemployed workers who are ineligible for any additional state or federal unemployment benefits. The motion to move the previous question was adopted on a 217-203 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
N N Lost
Roll Call 212
May 22, 2003
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Provide $350 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before legislation can be considered on the House floor, agreement must be reached on a rule that governs the handling of a particular bill on the floor (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee which operates on behalf of the majority party leadership). However, if the rule is to be adopted by the House on the same day it was reported from the Rules Committee, a two-thirds majority vote on the rule must be obtained (ordinarily, rules can be passed with a simple majority). In a effort to circumvent the two-thirds requirement for same day consideration of a rule, Republicans proposed a resolution to waive the requirement which would allow the rule to be passed by a simple majority, not a two-thirds majority as required under normal House practices. Progressives opposed the resolution because, in their view, the tax reductions heavily favored wealthy individuals (who would disproportionately benefit from cutting the dividends tax and reducing the highest marginal income tax rate) and failed to included enough tax breaks for low and middle income taxpayers. Additionally, Progressives considered the Republican's unorthodox parliamentary maneuvering as a violation of their procedural rights. The motion to adopt the resolution allowing same-day consideration of the tax cut bill was passed 218-202.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 211
May 22, 2003
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Containing $350 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Prior to House consideration of legislation, agreement must be reached on a rule which sets parameters on the handling of a particular bill on the floor (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee which functions on behalf of the majority party leadership). If the rule is to be adopted by the House on the same day it was reported from the Rules Committee, however, a two-thirds majority vote on the rule must be obtained (ordinarily, rules can be passed with a simple majority). In a effort to circumvent the two-thirds requirement for same day consideration, Republicans offered a motion to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a resolution to waive the requirement and allow the rule to be passed by a simple majority, not a two-thirds majority as required under normal House practices. Progressives objected to the resolution to waive the two-thirds requirement for two main reasons. First, in the view of Progressives, the tax cut bill heavily favored wealthy individuals (by cutting the dividends tax and reducing the highest marginal income tax rate) and included too few tax breaks for low and middle income taxpayers. Second, Progressives viewed the Republican's unorthodox parliamentary maneuvering as a violation of their procedural rights. The motion to move the previous question was adopted on a 221-202 vote.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 208
May 22, 2003
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Provide Funding for the Research and Development of "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In an effort to further restrict amending activity on the 2004 defense authorization bill, the House Rules Committee (which functions on behalf of the majority party leadership) drafted a second rule for the purpose of preventing floor votes on certain Democratic amendments to the bill. Rules are legislative items that limit debate, schedule a time for a final vote, and restrict amendments. Progressives opposed the second rule because, in comparison to the first rule which was adopted on May 21, it afforded the minority party even fewer opportunities to amend the legislation. Democrats voted unanimously against the second rule but it was adopted on a 222-199 vote.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Lost
Roll Call 207
May 22, 2003
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Provide Funding for the Research and Development of "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Democrats raised numerous objections to the $400.5 billion defense authorization bill-including provisions to restrict the rights of civilian Pentagon employees and exempt the Department of Defense from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act-and drafted amendments to address their concerns. Under the rule adopted by the House (prior to floor consideration, a rule must be adopted governing debate on the bill), several of the Democratic amendments would be considered. Midway through House debate on the defense authorization, however, the House Rules Committee (which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership) drafted a new rule to further restrict Democratic amendments. By specifying exactly which amendments could be considered on the House floor, the rule protected the majority party from casting tough votes on issues raised by the minority party. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on the new rule to further restrict Democratic amendments to the defense authorization bill. Progressives voted in opposition to the more restrictive rule because it would allow them even fewer opportunities to propose changes to the defense authorization during floor debate. Democrats unanimously opposed the motion allow consideration of the revised rule but, on a straight party line vote, the motion was passed 222-199.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Lost
Roll Call 206
May 21, 2003
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Allow the Secretary of Defense to Assign Members of the Armed Forces to Border Protection Activities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Congressman Goode (R-VA) offered an amendment to the $400.5 billion defense authorization bill which would allow the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the armed forces to border protection activities. Progressives opposed the Goode proposal because, in their view, military personnel, who are trained for combat rather than border policing, should be reserved for military operations. During debate on the issue, Progressives also pointed out that border protection falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and not the military; border protection, Progressives argued, should therefore be conducted by employees of the DHS. The Goode measure was adopted on a 250-179 vote.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Lost
Roll Call 205
May 21, 2003
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During House debate on a $400.5 billion defense authorization bill, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) proposed an amendment to weaken language in the bill which defines a critical habitat (a habitat where threatened or endangered species reside) under the Endangered Species Act. In the view of Progressives, the Hunter amendment was environmentally-irresponsible because it would provide the Defense Department with exemptions to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act that would allow the Defense Department to conduct military exercises in environmentally-sensitive areas such as wildlife refuges. Despite Progressives' concerns, the Hunter amendment was adopted by a 252-175 margin. (There was bipartisan agreement on the section of the amendment which would prevent Inspector General employees who are transferred to the United Nations from engaging in political activities.)


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Lost
Roll Call 202
May 21, 2003
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Provide Funding for the Research and Development of "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before the House can consider a measure on the floor, a rule must be adopted to set parameters on debate. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee (which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership) and usually limit debate, schedule a time for a final vote, and restrict amending activity on a measure. On this vote, Republicans sought passage of a rule governing debate on a $400.5 billion defense authorization bill. Progressives opposed the rule because they objected to provisions in the bill which would: 1) allow Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld greater leeway in hiring, assigning, and giving pay raises to the nearly 700,000 civilian employees and; 2) exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Republicans voted unanimously in favor of the rule and it passed by a 224-200 margin.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Lost
Roll Call 201
May 21, 2003
H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Provide Funding for the Research and Development of "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Defense Department from the Endangered Species Act.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

House debate on the $400.5 billion Defense Authorization centered on two main issues. First, provisions in the bill would allow Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld increased leeway in hiring, assigning, and providing pay raises to the Pentagon's nearly 700,000 civilian employees. In the view of Progressives, Rumsfeld's grant of authority could politicize the agency responsible for military operations and be used to quell dissent among civilian Pentagon employees within the Pentagon. Second, the authorization would exempt the Defense Department from compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Progressives pointed out that current laws already allow case-bycase exemptions to the species protection acts; exempting the Defense Department altogether from those Acts, in their view, would further threaten those endangered species. On this vote, Republicans sought to move the previous question, thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment, on a rule to provide for House consideration of the defense authorization bill. Before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee (which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership) must be adopted. Progressives opposed the motion to allow adoption of the rule because that rule disallowed any Democratic amendments-including an amendment drafted by Congressman Jim Cooper (D-TN) which would have protected the rights of civilian employees in the Pentagon-from being considered during House debate. On a straight party line vote, the motion to move the previous question was adopted on a 225-203 vote.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
N N Lost
Roll Call 200
May 20, 2003
H.R. 1904. Forest Thinning/Passage of a Bill to Provide Timber Companies With Increased Access to Federal Forestland.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a bill to allow thinning projects on twenty million acres of federal forestland for the purpose of combating wildfires. Provisions in the bill would expedite judicial review of thinning projects and allow logging in insect-infested areas. In the view of Progressives, the main objective of the legislation was to provide timber companies with greater access to federal land for purposes of logging and they opposed final passage on those grounds. Provisions in the bill, they worried, could be interpreted broadly for purposes of increasing timber extraction on federal forestland. The forest thinning legislation was adopted on a vote of 256-170.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Forest and Paper Industry
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 199
May 20, 2003
H.R. 1904. Forest Thinning/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Provide Timber Companies With Increased Access to Federal Forestland.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

A motion to recommit a measure to the committee with jurisdiction on the issue is one of the few procedural prerogatives afforded to opponents of legislation considered in the House. If successful, the recommit motion is usually fatal to the measure. During debate on legislation to combat wildfires, Congressman Udall (D-NM) made a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that the committee strike provisions that would speed up judicial review of court decisions that challenge wildfire prevention projects. In the view of Progressives, a process of judicial review for wildfire prevention projects provides an important safeguard against the pressures exerted by the timber industry to increase logging operations in forested areas. Progressives supported Udall's motion as a way to protect judicial decisions regarding wildfire prevention projects (those projects usually involve thinning forest areas through logging or burning dense areas in a controlled manner). The motion to recommit the legislation was defeated on a 176-250 vote.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Forest and Paper Industry
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 198
May 20, 2003
H.R. 1904. Forest Thinning/Vote on Democratic Substitute Measure Which Would Restrict the Total Acreage Available to Timber Companies for Logging Activities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During House debate on legislation to combat wildfires, Congressman George Miller (D-CA) offered a substitute measure on behalf of the Democratic party which would have allowed forest thinning projects within a one-half mile of at-risk communities or near municipal water supplies to be undertaken without environmental review. Progressives favored the Democratic plan because it restricted forest thinning projects to areas near population centers or water supplies, thereby limiting the total area of forestland subject to thinning projects (the GOP-plan, conversely, would apply to all woodlands that are deemed high-risk areas for wildfires). Progressives worried that the language contained in the GOP-bill could be used by the timber industry to justify new and more extensive logging operations in forested areas. The Democratic proposal was rejected by a 184-239 margin.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Forest and Paper Industry
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 195
May 20, 2003
H.R. 1904. Forest Thinning/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Provide Timber Companies With Increased Access to Federal Forestland.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In 2002, more than 88,000 wildfires burned 6.9 million acres and cost the federal government $1.6 billion to suppress those fires. The policy response by the White House to limit wildfires was to accelerate the environmental and judicial reviews of wildfire prevention projects-which include forest thinning and controlled burning-on 20 million acres of woodlands near populated areas and water supplies. Progressives viewed the Bush proposal with skepticism; in their view, the main purpose of the policy was to give timber companies greater access to federal lands by granting forest thinning projects. Also of concern to Progressives was a provision in the bill which would allow the felling of trees to prevent insect infestation; they worried that the provision could be interpreted broadly and thereby expand logging operations in forested areas. The subject of this vote was the rule governing debate on the legislation. Prior to House consideration, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee must be adopted to set parameters for debate. Progressives opposed the rule because they were hesitant to grant timber companies additional access to forestland for purposes of "thinning". Republicans voted unanimously in favor of the rule and it was adopted on a 234-179 vote.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Forest and Paper Industry
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Forest and Paper Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 191
May 15, 2003
H.R. 1527. NTSB Reauthorization/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Amendment to Extend Federal Unemployment Benefits to Jobless Workers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During House debate on reauthorization legislation for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Congressman Cardin (D-MD) proposed an amendment which would have extended unemployment benefits by thirteen weeks for those workers who have exhausted their federal unemployment benefits. After unemployed workers exhaust their state unemployment benefits, federal benefits are provided for an additional thirteen weeks to provide jobless workers with additional time to find a new job. The stagnant economy in recent years, however, has made it difficult for the jobless to find work. As a result, the unemployment benefits for over 1.1 million jobless workers have expired and those individuals are currently left with few available means to make ends meet. Progressives supported Cardin's amendment as a way to provide financial assistance to unemployed workers whose benefits have expired. In their view of Progressives, the federal government has a responsibility to insure that unemployed workers are provided for during tough economic periods. During debate on Cardin's proposal, Congressman Mica (R-FL) raised a point of order against the measure on the grounds that Cardin's amendment was not relevant to the NTSB legislation under consideration (in the House, amendments to legislation must be deemed relevant to that legislation; points of order can be raised against irrelevant amendments). Progressives voted in opposition to the point of order based on their support for the Cardin amendment. On a 225-200 vote, however, the Cardin amendment was defeated.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
N N Lost
Roll Call 190
May 15, 2003
H.R. 1527. NTSB Reauthorization/Protest Vote Against Passage of a Non-Controversial Bill In Response to Republican Refusal to Extend the Recently-Passed Child Tax Credit to Low-Income Families.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Ostensibly, the subject of this vote was a procedural motion which would allow for House consideration of a bill that would authorize $341 million through 2006 for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and its training academy. Lawmakers, however, were united in their support for the NTSB reauthorization. The straight party-line division on the vote reflected a controversy over a child tax credit provision contained in the $350 billion tax cut package which was recently signed into law by President Bush. The eligibility requirements contained in the child tax credit provision would have prevented low-income families from benefiting from the child credit increase from $600 to $1000 which was contained in the tax package. In an effort to force Congress to rewrite the $350 billion tax cut package to extend the child tax credit increase to low-income families, House Democrats adopted a strategy of opposing all measures considered on the House floor until GOP leaders scheduled a vote to change the eligibility requirements for the child tax credit. Progressives endorsed the Democratic strategy and voted against the NTSB reauthorization and other noncontroversial measures to demonstrate opposition to the exemption contained in the GOP-tax cut bill which would prevent low-income families from benefiting from the child tax credit increase. In the view of Progressives, tax breaks should be targeted to low and middle income families because those individuals are most in need of financial assistance. Despite unanimous opposition from Democrats, the procedural motion to allow debate on the NTSB reauthorization was adopted on a 220-205 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
N N Lost
Roll Call 189
May 14, 2003
H.R. 1000. Employee Pensions/Passage of a Bill Intending to Safeguard Employee Pension Accounts Which Failed to Extend Those Rules to Corporate Executive Pension Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of the Pension Protection Act; a GOP-drafted bill designed to improve safeguards on employee pension accounts. The bill would allow employees greater control over their retirement accounts, provide them with more information about their investments, and require employers to provide quarterly statements regarding employee pension plans. Though the bill represented a modest first step, Progressives argued that the measure did not go far enough to protect employee pensions. Specifically, they were concerned that allowing private money managers to provide employees with financial advise would create a conflict of interest because the managers might be tempted to recommend those investments that benefit them personally (money managers can receive benefits if they channel investments to certain companies). Progressives also sought to impose the same pension rules on executives that apply to non-executives; a move intended to disallow what they often view as overly generous pension packages to corporate executives. These two specific concerns that were raised by Progressives during debate on the employee pensions bill were not incorporated into the legislation. Despite opposition from Progressives, the pension protection legislation was adopted on a 271-157 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
N N Lost
Roll Call 188
May 14, 2003
H.R. 1000. Employee Pensions/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Intending to Safeguard Employee Pension Accounts Which Failed to Extend Those Rules to Corporate Executive Pension Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In the House, one of the few procedural prerogatives afforded to opponents of legislation is the opportunity to make a motion to recommit. If successful, the recommit motion sends a measure back to the committee with jurisdiction on the issue and is usually accompanied with specific instructions to change the legislation. During House consideration of the Pension Protection Act, Congressman George Miller (D-CA) offered the motion to recommit the GOP-drafted bill with instructions to provide additional investment protections to workers whose companies choose to convert from a defined benefit to a cash balance benefit plan. One provision in the instructions to recommit the bill would have allowed workers with at least ten years of service to the company to choose whether they wanted to switch to a cash balance plan. Whereas defined benefit plans describe an employee's benefit as a series of monthly payments for life after retirement, cash balance plans define the benefit in terms of an account balance. Moreover, unlike cash balance plans-which are often composed mainly of stocks that can fluctuate based on the stock market-defined benefit plans provide workers with financiallysecure savings; defined benefit plans are secure from market variability because the defined benefit is fixed over time. In the view of Progressives, workers should be allowed to choose between the two types of pension plans and supported the motion to recommit on those grounds. Progressives argued that defined benefit plans are preferable to cash balance plans because defined benefit plans provide a guaranteed income for retired workers even during periods of economic recession. Support for Miller's motion was nearly divided along party lines and was defeated on a 202-226 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 187
May 14, 2003
H.R. 1000. Employee Pensions/Vote on Democratic Substitute Measure to Safeguard Employee Pension Accounts and Restrict Overly-Generous Corporate Executive Pension Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

As American Airlines was firing workers and negotiating wage reductions with the airline unions, the company gave its recently-resigned CEO a pension worth an estimated $1 million per year. During House debate on a bill to protect employee pensions, Congressman Andrews (D-NJ) offered a substitute measure on behalf of the Democratic party which would have, among other things, imposed the same pension rules on executives that apply to non-executives and created an excise tax on so-called "golden parachute" packages to departing executives. Progressives supported the Democratic plan because, in their view, workers should not be forced to accept wage reductions if a company is able to shower their executives with valuable pension plans or severance packages. It is unfair, Progressives argue, for workers to be fired or have their pay reduced when corporate executives continue to receive large sums while the company is struggling. The Democratic plan was defeated on a 193-236 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 186
May 14, 2003
H.R. 1000. Employee Pensions/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Intending to Safeguard Employee Pension Accounts Which Failed to Extend Those Rules to Corporate Executive Pension Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

After Enron's fraudulent corporate accounting practices were publicly exposed, employees of the company attempted to sell Enron stock in their 401(k) retirement plans before the stock bottomed out. The energy company, however, prevented its employees from selling their stock and, as a result, employees' retirement savings dissipated as Enron's stock plunged from $90 in October 2000 to $0.26 in December 2001. Enron's actions preventing its employees from selling their stock in the company fueled concerns regarding the safety of retirement plans and have inspired congressional reforms of corporate pension programs. In a move to rebuild confidence in corporate pension programs, House Republicans drafted a bill to provide employees with more control over their pension funds and greater information about their retirement investments. In the view of Progressives, however, the GOP-drafted bill was a half-hearted measure and failed to address major problems in the current system. Specifically, Progressives opposed provisions in the bill that would allow money managers hired to run a company's 401(k) plan to provide investment advice to workers because those managers might unduly profit by recommending investments for which they would earn fees. On this vote, Republicans attempted to move the previous question, thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment, on a rule to provide for House consideration of the pension protection measure. Before legislation can be debated in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee (which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership) must be adopted. Progressives voted against the motion because they were opposed to the key provisions mentioned above in the underlying legislation. On a straight party-line vote, the motion was adopted 218-201.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
N N Lost
Roll Call 182
May 09, 2003
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Passage of a Bill Containing $550 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a tax cut bill which would provided $550 billion in tax breaks over eleven years. Provisions in the bill would reduce the tax rate on dividends taxes, capital gains taxes, and income taxes. Businesses would be allowed to write off up to $100,000 in investments, and the child tax credit would be increased to $1000 for middle and upper income taxpayers. The standard deduction for married couples would be double that for single filers through 2005, thereby eliminating the so-called marriage penalty in those years (because couples have a higher tax obligation than if they file their taxes separately, they are in essence penalized under the current tax code). Progressives opposed final passage of the bill because, in their estimation, the proposal disproportionately benefits highincome taxpayers and provides inadequate tax breaks for low and middle income individuals. Additionally, Progressives were concerned that the tax cut would significantly increase federal budget deficits in future years and would reduce the availability of funding for human needs such as public education, health care, and Social Security. On a nearly party-line vote, the tax cut was passed by a 222-203 margin.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 181
May 09, 2003
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Containing $550 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the few procedural prerogatives afforded to opponents of legislation considered in the House is a motion to recommit. If successful, the recommit motion sends a measure back to the committee with jurisdiction on the issue and is usually accompanied with specific instructions to change the legislation. During debate on legislation to provide $550 billion in tax reductions over eleven years, Congressman Moore (D-KA) motioned to recommit the measure with instructions to delay the tax cuts until the federal budget is balanced. Progressives supported Moore's motion because, in their view, the tax cut legislation contains an excessive amount of tax breaks that benefit wealthy individuals-including provisions to eliminate dividends taxes and reduce the tax rate on income only in excess of $1,171,000-and comparatively few provisions that would benefit low and middle income taxpayers. Additionally, Progressives complained that the tax reductions would deprive the federal budget of funding that would be needed for public education, Social Security, and Medicare. Republicans voted unanimously against the motion to recommit and it was defeated on a nearly party-line vote of 202-218.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 180
May 09, 2003
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Effort to Recommit to Committee a Bill Containing $550 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

A successful motion to recommit a measure to committee-which can only be exercised by a Congressman who opposes the legislation-is usually fatal to a piece of legislation. During debate in the House on a $550 billion tax cut proposal, Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) offered a motion to recommit the bill to the House Ways and Means Committee with instructions to substitute language that would pare down the amount provided in tax cuts to $177 billion, include smaller tax breaks for individuals and businesses, and extend unemployment benefits and grants to states to help alleviate state budget shortfalls. Congressman Bill Thomas (R-CA) raised a point of order against the Rangel motion to recommit on the grounds that the motion was not relevant to the underlying legislation. House rules dictate that instructions contained in motions to recommit must be limited to subject areas contained in the legislation under consideration; because the underlying bill did not contain language to provide unemployment benefits and aid to states, Rangel's motion to recommit was subject to a point of order. Progressives voted against the point of order (and in favor of Rangel's motion) because, in their view, the Rangel proposal achieved a more equitable distribution of tax breaks than those contained in the GOP-drafted tax cut bill. The GOP bill, for instance, included provisions to eliminate the dividends tax (dividends are corporate payouts to shareholders) and reduce the marginal income tax rate only on income earned in excess of $1,171,000; both provisions disproportionately benefited wealthy individuals and would have been scaled down had Rangel's motion to recommit been successful. The point of order against the Rangel motion was sustained on a 222- 202 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 179
May 09, 2003
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Containing $550 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Prior to House consideration of a measure, a rule must be adopted to set parameters on debate. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee (which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership) and usually limit debate, schedule a time for a final vote, and restrict amending activity on a measure. On this vote, Republicans sought passage of a rule governing debate on legislation to provide $550 billion in tax reductions over eleven years. Among other things, the tax reductions would eliminate the dividends tax (dividends are corporate payouts to shareholders) and reduce the highest marginal income tax rate (which applies only to income in excess of $1,171,000). Progressives voted in opposition to the rule because, in their estimation, the GOP-drafted tax cuts were too heavily stacked toward wealthy individuals and provided an insufficient amount of financial assistance for low and middle income taxpayers. Democrats unanimously opposed the rule but it was adopted on a party line vote of 220-203.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 178
May 09, 2003
H.R. 2. Tax Reductions/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Containing $550 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In a move intended to spur the anemic economy, the Bush Administration proposed and Congress enacted a $1.35 trillion tax cut package in 2001. In 2003, President Bush again pushed for tax reductions. The administration's 2003 tax cut proposal would eliminate the dividends tax (dividends are corporate payouts to shareholders) and reduce the highest marginal income tax rate (the highest rate applies only to income in excess of $1,171,000). The cost of the 2003 tax cut package to the U.S. Treasury was originally valued at $726 billion but was later pared down to $550 billion during negotiations between the House and Senate because a majority of Senators were unwilling to enact tax cuts in excess of $550 billion. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question, thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment, on a rule to provide for House consideration of the $550 billion tax cut measure. Before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee (which is in effect an arm of the majority party leadership) must be adopted. Progressives opposed the rule and voted against the motion to cut off debate because they considered the tax cut proposal as heavily favoring wealthy individuals at the expense of low and middle income taxpayers. Moreover, Progressives worried that the tax cuts would significantly increase federal budget deficits in future years and would potentially require drastic spending cuts in areas such as Medicare, Social Security, and education. Democrats voted unanimously in opposition to the motion to move the previous question but the motion was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 219-203.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 175
May 08, 2003
H.R. 1261. Job Training Reauthorization/Passage of a Bill to Provide Federal Assistance for Job Training Programs and Allow Providers of Job Training to Discriminate By Using an Individual's Religion as a Factor in Hiring Decisions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was passage of a bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act, an Act providing federal assistance for job training and education programs. The bill would also authorize $1.25 billion in 2004 for youth job training programs and provided additional resources for out-of-school youth. Language in the bill, which progressives opposed, would allow faith-based providers of job training activities to use religion as a factor in hiring decisions (see Roll Call Vote #170). Progressives viewed this language as a form of discrimination against individuals whose religious beliefs might differ from those of the faith-based organization where they might be employed and voted against the bill on those grounds. The legislation was adopted by a margin of 220-204.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 174
May 08, 2003
H.R. 1261. Job Training Reauthorization/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Provide Federal Assistance for Job Training Programs and Allow Providers of Job Training to Discriminate By Using an Individual's Religion as a Factor in Hiring Decisions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

House rules allow the minority party to offer a motion to recommit legislation for further committee consideration which, if passed, is usually a death blow to the bill. Congressman Miller (D-CA) offered the recommit motion on the job training reauthorization bill with instructions that the House Education and Workforce Committee (the committee which developed the legislation) add an amendment which would have provided unemployed workers an additional 26 weeks of income support and extended the eligibility of workers who have exhausted their federal extended unemployment benefits by 13 weeks. Progressives supported the committee instructions contained in the recommit motion as a way to insure that unemployed workers are able to provide for their families during the period in which they are searching for a new job. The motion to recommit the bill with instructions was defeated on a 202-223 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 171
May 08, 2003
H.R. 1261. Job Training Reauthorization/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Provide Federal Assistance for Job Training Programs and Allow Providers of Job Training to Discriminate By Using an Individual's Religion as a Factor in Hiring Decisions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before legislation is able to be considered on the House floor, agreement must be reached on a rule (which is drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership) that governs the handling of a particular bill on the floor. This vote involved a rule governing debate on a bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act which provides federal assistance for job training programs. Progressives voted against the rule because the bill contained language that would allow faith-based providers of job training activities to consider an individual's religious beliefs in their hiring decisions. Progressives viewed this language as a form of discrimination against individuals who do not have the same religious beliefs as the faith-based organization where they might be employed. The rule was adopted by a 221-196 margin.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 170
May 08, 2003
H.R. 1261. Job Training Reauthorization/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Provide Federal Assistance for Job Training Programs and Allow Providers of Job Training to Discriminate By Using an Individual's Religion as a Factor in Hiring Decisions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of President Bush's most controversial domestic policies has been the "faith-based initiative" which, among other things, would allow religious groups to receive federal grants and still maintain their religious nature. Though the faith based initiative has stalled in Congress, Republicans have attempted to weave language contained the initiative into other bills concerning social policy. The job training reauthorization bill, for instance, contained language that would allow faith-based providers of job training activities to use religion as a factor in hiring decisions. Progressives viewed this language as a form of discrimination against individuals who do not espouse the religious beliefs of the faith-based organization where they might be employed. More generally, progressives oppose efforts to provide federal assistance to faith-based groups because in their view such assistance violates the constitutional separation of church and state. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question (thus ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a rule governing debate on legislation to reauthorize spending for the Workforce Investment Act (a rule must be adopted prior to House consideration of legislation). The purpose of the Act was to provide federal assistance for job training programs, but the legislation also contained faith-based language that progressives found objectionable and they therefore voted against the motion. The motion to move the previous question was adopted on a 222-199 vote.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 166
May 07, 2003
H.R. 766. Nanotechnology Research/Vote to Require Research into the Potential for Nanotechnology to Provide Clean Sources of Energy.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on a bill to authorize additional spending in the field of nanotechnology-which the science of manipulating matter on an atomic or molecular scale-Congressman Bell (D-TX) proposed an amendment that would have required research and development into the potential for nanotechnology to provide clean and inexpensive energy. Progressives voted in favor of the Bell measure because nanotechnology may provide new scientific advances into the production of clean energy sources and reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, a goal progressives support. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the amendment but the measure was defeated 207-217.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 165
May 07, 2003
H.R. 766. Nanotechnology Research/Vote to Undertake a Study Into the Potential Adverse Environmental Consequences of Nanotechnology.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Nanotechnology-the science of manipulating matter on an atomic or molecular scale-could spur the next major technological revolution; nanotechnology potentially has applications in nearly every scientific field including medicine and energy (a nanometer is one billionth of a meter). Lawmakers overwhelmingly supported legislation to encourage scientific advances in the nanotechnology market and authorized $2.4 billion over three years for a federal program to support research, development, and education in the field of nanotechnology. Historically, however, the development of new technologies have brought unintended environmental consequences; examples include the development of nuclear power, DDT, and the gasoline additive MTBE. In an effort to prevent environmental degradation from nanotechnology, Congressman Bell (D-TX) offered an amendment to the legislation which would have required that toxicological and environmental impact studies be undertaken during the development of nanotechnlogy. Progressives favored the Bell amendment as a way to guard against any adverse environmental impacts of nanotechnology but the measure was rejected on a 209-214 vote.


ENVIRONMENT Nanotechnology's Effect on the Environment
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 157
May 01, 2003
H.R. 1298. Global AIDS Relief/Vote to Require One-Third of AIDS Relief Funding Be Used for Abstinence Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During committee consideration of the AIDS relief bill, agreement was reached among lawmakers on an effective approach to combat the spread of AIDS. The plan developed in committee-known as the ABC strategy for abstinence, being faithful, and condom use-has proven effective in curbing the spread of AIDS in Uganda. Social conservatives and some religious groups, however, opposed to the distribution of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS; they view condoms as morally-objectionable in all circumstances. In an effort to restrict funding for condom distribution programs to prevent the spread of AIDS, Congressman Pitts (R-PA) proposed an amendment that would have mandated that onethird of the AIDS relief funding be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs. Progressives opposed the Pitts amendment because condom distribution, which has been proven to be an effective tool against AIDS transmission, should in their view play an integral role in the policy approach adopted by Congress. The Pitts amendment, progressives argued, would tie the hands of those working to prevent the spread of AIDS. The Pitts amendment was adopted on a 220-197 vote.


FAMILY PLANNING Availability of Contraceptives
HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, International
N N Lost
Roll Call 156
May 01, 2003
H.R. 1298. Global AIDS Relief/Vote to Reduce Funding for Global AIDS Relief Efforts.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During consideration of a bill to authorize fifteen billion over five years in funding for international AIDS relief, Congressman Smith (R-MI) proposed an amendment that would have reduced AIDS relief spending in 2004 from $3 billion to $2 billion. Progressives opposed the Smith measure because they regarded AIDS as needed immediately. Moreover, some lawmakers worried that adopting the Smith amendment would have upset the carefully-crafted compromises made in committee to secure passage of the bill on the House floor. The proposed reduction in AIDS relief was defeated by a 130-288 margin.


FAMILY PLANNING Availability of Contraceptives
HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, International
N N Won
Roll Call 155
May 01, 2003
H.R. 1298. Global AIDS Relief/Vote to Restrict Funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, a Humanitarian Aid Group.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In response to President Bush's call for AIDS relief in his State of the Union address, Congress drafted legislation to combat the AIDS pandemic by authorizing $15 billion over five years to treat and prevent AIDS in Africa and elsewhere. During House consideration of the measure, Congressman Stearns (R-FL) offered an amendment to restrict funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, a Geneva-based humanitarian aid group. Specifically, the measure would cap the salaries of Global Fund employees at $192,000. Progressives opposed the salary cap because Global Fund employees play a central role in gathering and directing funds for AIDS assistance worldwide. Moreover, progressives argued that the current salary levels are necessary to attract the most highly-qualified and competent individuals to combat AIDS. The Stearns amendment was adopted on a 276-145 vote.


HEALTH CARE Funds for Combating AIDS, International
N N Lost
Roll Call 154
Apr 30, 2003
H.R. 1350. Special Education Reauthorization/Passage of a Bill Which Fails to Fully-Fund the Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA)-which requires congressional reauthorization every five yearswas passed by Congress in 1975 to provide federal assistance to states for special-education programs. The original legislation specified that forty percent of states' costs in providing special education to disabled students would be paid for by the federal government. The current IDEA reauthorization, however, fails to provide the necessary $20.2 billion needed to fulfill the federal government's obligation to the states (it includes only $8.5 billion). Progressives opposed the IDEA reauthorization because it does not fully-fund IDEA at the level specified in 1975, a funding level which they believe to be necessary to insure that disabled students receive a quality education. Additionally, the IDEA reauthorization removes parental involvement in actions relating to the evaluation and education of their child and allows disabled children to be punished for behavior resulting from their disability; progressives also opposed these provisions in the IDEA reauthorization legislation. The reauthorization was adopted by the House on a 251-171 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 152
Apr 30, 2003
H.R. 1350. Special Education Reauthorization/Vote to Provide Disabled Students with Vouchers to Attend Private Schools.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote is very similar to the previous one (see Roll Call Vote #151). Instead of channeling federal money to states for disabled children to attend private schools as the unsuccessful DeMint (R-SC) amendment would have done, the Musgrave amendment would have allowed school districts to provide parents of disabled children in private schools with a certificate (or voucher) for the child's special education needs. Progressives opposed the Musgrave voucher program because the protections and rights granted to disabled students in the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) are limited to those attending public schools; disabled students who attend a private schools have no legal guarantees that they receive an adequate education. Progressives argued that taxpayer money should not be spent on private school vouchers without mechanisms in place to insure that private schools are accountable for the education they provide to disabled students. The Musgrave amendment was defeated on a 176-247 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 151
Apr 30, 2003
H.R. 1350. Special Education Reauthorization/Vote to Provide Public Tax-Dollars to Private Schools to Create Special Education Programs for Disabled Students.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), Congressman DeMint (RSC) proposed an amendment that would have provided states with federal money to set up programs for children with disabilities to attend private schools. Progressives opposed the DeMint amendment because in their view, public schools, not private schools, should be the recipients of public taxpayers money. While public schools must hold open meetings and make their test scores, dropout rates, and other basic information public, private schools are not subject to similar oversight. Private schools, then, are not publicly accountable for providing disabled students a quality education and, in the view of progressives, should not receive public money. A majority opposed the DeMint amendment and the measure was defeated on a 182-240 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Won
Roll Call 149
Apr 30, 2003
H.R. 1350. Special Education Reauthorization/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Which Fails to Fully-Fund the Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In certain areas of domestic policy-such as welfare and education-Congress is required to reauthorize spending after a set period of time has elapsed. The reauthorization process allows Congress to make programmatic and funding changes to the laws governing certain domestic programs. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). A rule, which is drafted by the House Rules Committee, must be adopted prior to floor consideration of legislation. Progressives opposed the rule because it prevented floor consideration of an amendment they favored which would have required that IDEA be classified as a mandatory spending program (similar to Medicare and Social Security). Unlike discretionary spending, mandatory spending levels cannot be changed by the congressional appropriations committees; recipients of mandatory spending are therefore better protected against spending cuts. The rule governing floor debate was narrowly adopted by a vote of 211-195.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 145
Apr 11, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Passage of a Bill to Provide Tax Breaks to Energy Companies and Allow Oil Drilling in the Pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of energy legislation that would overhaul the nation's energy policies. Specifically, the bill would restructure the electricity-production system, allow oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and provide $18.7 billion in tax breaks for energy-producing companies. Progressives opposed final passage of the energy plan because of its emphasis on fossil fuel rather than renewable energy production. Moreover, the plan would allow oil-companies to drill in Alaska's ANWR, a pristine wildlife sanctuary, which had definite potential to cause environmental degradation as a result of the drilling operations. The energy plan was adopted on a 247-175 vote in favor of the legislation.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Coal Industry
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 144
Apr 11, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Provide Tax Breaks to Energy Companies and Allow Oil Drilling in the Pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

House rules allow the minority party to offer a motion to recommit legislation for further committee consideration which, if passed, is usually a death blow to the bill; Congressman Dingell (D-MI) offered the recommit motion to the energy plan that would have instructed the committee reporting the legislation to strike a provision in the energy plan that would allow applicants for a license to build a hydroelectric facility alternative means of environmental protection. Progressives supported Dingell's instructions to recommit the energy bill as a way to insure that current laws protecting fish and wildlife are not circumvented by new proposals offered by applicants seeking to build a hydroelectric facility. More generally, progressives supported the recommit motion based on their objections to provisions in the bill that would allow oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They also favored investments in renewable energy sources which are not included in the energy bill. The motion to recommit was defeated on a 171-250 vote.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 143
Apr 11, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Prevent Coal Producers From Seizing Unlimited Amounts of Federal Land.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One-third of the nation's coal is owned by the federal government because it is on public lands (mostly in the Western States). Coal is made available to coal-producing companies under a competitive leasing program; taxpayers receive a return from the leases because companies are obligated to pay a percentage of the lease amount and royalties from coal production to the U.S. Treasury. A provision in the energy bill, however, would repeal a 160-acre limit on coal leases and thereby allow coal producers with federal leases to seize unlimited additional Federal coal lands without competitive bidding and be exempted from paying production royalties. During debate on the energy plan, Congressman Rahall (DWV) proposed an amendment to reinstate the 160-acre limit on coal leases. Progressives favored the Rahall amendment as a way to prevent private companies from purchasing public lands without adequately compensating the U.S. taxpayer. Rahall's amendment was narrowly defeated on a 208-212 vote.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Coal Industry
ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Coal Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 142
Apr 11, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Eliminate a Provision in Bill Providing a Federal Subsidy for Oil-Drilling on Public Lands.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on energy legislation, Congressman Kind (D-WI) offered an amendment to strike a section in the bill that would reduce the amount that oil-companies would pay the federal government in royalty payments for the right to drill on public lands. Progressives opposed the corporate subsidy for oil companies included in the energy bill--which is estimated to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars--because it would create economic incentives for additional oil-drilling on public land. Progressives argue that improving the fuel efficiency of automobiles and investing in renewable energy sources--and not more oil-drilling--are the key to a sound energy policy. The Kind amendment failed to garner majority support and was defeated on a 171-251 vote.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Oil & Gas Industry
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 141
Apr 10, 2003
H. Con. Res. 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Passage of a Conference Report Containing $550 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The purpose of the congressional budget process is to set an overall financial framework to guide the House and Senate in drafting the thirteen annual appropriations bills, tax legislation, and changes to mandatory spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare. After each chamber passed a budget resolution, a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the legislation that emerged from the two chambers. The subject of this vote was the conference report on the budget resolution. Progressives opposed the conference report because it failed to provide what they viewed as adequate funding in areas such as education, health care, and Social Security. Additionally, the conference report would provide $550 billion in tax reductions benefiting wealth individuals. Progressives oppose tax reductions during poor economic conditions saying instead money should instead be spent to help those who lost their jobs regain their financial footing. Democrats voted unanimously in opposition to the conference report but the measure narrowly passed the House on by a 216-211 margin.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 140
Apr 10, 2003
H. Con. Res. 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Conference Report Containing $550 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before legislation can be considered in the House, agreement must be reached on a rule that governs the handling of a particular bill on the floor (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership). Normally, if a rule is to be adopted by the House on the same day it was reported from the Rules Committee--which is the case for the rule considered in this vote--a two-thirds majority vote on the rule must be obtained. Republicans--eager to pass the conference report on the budget resolution--made a successful motion to circumvent this requirement (see Roll Call Vote #139). The subject of this vote was the rule governing debate on the conference report which, by language adopted in the previous vote, requires only a simple majority for passage. Progressives opposed the rule on the grounds that the budget resolution contains an excessive amount in tax reductions but fails to provide enough domestic spending for priorities such as education, Medicare, and Social Security. Republicans voted unanimously in favor of the rule and it was adopted on a 221-202 vote.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 139
Apr 10, 2003
H. Con. Res. 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Procedural Vote to Circumvent House Rules to Allow a Vote on the Rules of Debate on a Conference Report Containing $550 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before legislation is able to be considered on the House floor, agreement must be reached on a rule that governs the handling of a particular bill on the floor (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership). If the rule is to be adopted by the House on the same day it was reported from the Rules Committee, however, a two-thirds majority vote on the rule must be obtained (ordinarily, rules can be passed with a simple majority). In a effort to circumvent the two-thirds requirement for same day consideration of a rule, Republicans--who were eager to pass the 2004 budget resolution conference report--offered a motion to waive the requirement which would allow the rule to be passed by a simple majority, not a two-thirds majority as required under normal House practices (a conference report is the final version of a bill and is developed in a conference committee between House and Senate conferees who reconcile differences in legislation that passed the two chambers). Progressives objected to the Republican's unorthodox parliamentary manuevering because they did not have a chance to review the conference report on the budget resolution; it was reported out of committee only two hours before this vote. On a straight party-line vote, Republicans were able to pass the motion to waive the two-thirds requirement by a 223-203 margin.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 138
Apr 10, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Eliminate Funding for Environmentally-Damaging Methods of Uranium Extraction.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The energy plan as currently written provides a $10 million subsidy over three years to promote an experimental technology in which uranium is mined from groundwater. Groundwater, however, is the only reliable source of water for tens of thousands of Navajo Indians who reside near uranium mines where the technology would be employed. Many Navajo men worked in uranium mines from the 1940's to the 1970's and already face alarming rates of cancer as a result; using groundwater to extract uranium may adversely affect Navajo Indians even further. During debate on the energy legislation, Congressman Udall (D-NM) proposed an amendment to eliminate funding for the uranium-extraction technology. Progressives supported Udall's effort to preserve the groundwater from contamination as a way to protect the health of Navajo Indians. Udall's amendment failed to garner majority support and was defeated on a 193-231 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Nuclear Energy Industry
ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Nuclear Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Nuclear Industry
HEALTH CARE Native American Health Care
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 137
Apr 10, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Create a Reserve Program to Minimize Fluctuations in Gasoline Prices.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Like most products, gasoline prices are sensitive to the laws of supply and demand; reduced supplies and/or increased demand for a product cause an increase in its price. When an oil refinery catches fire or a gas pipeline bursts, gasoline prices tend to increase as a result of the reduction in supply. In an effort to minimize the effects of supply system glitches on American consumers, Congressman Brown (D-OH) offered an amendment to the energy legislation providing for a Gasoline Availability Stabilization Reserve program. Three reserves--each containing about 20 million barrels--would have been established to help regions of the country blunt the price effects of a refinery fire or a pipeline outage. Progressives supported Brown's amendment as a way to stabilize gasoline prices. Consumers, progressives argue, should not suffer unduly from price increases that result from a refinery fire or a pipeline outage. Republicans voted overwhelmingly in opposition to the Brown amendment and the measure was defeated by a 173-252 margin.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 135
Apr 10, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Prevent Oil-Drilling in the Pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Congress drafted energy legislation for the purpose of increasing domestic energy production so as to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil. Included in the energy plan, however, are plans to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil-drilling operations; a policy which progressives strongly oppose (see Roll Call Vote #134). In an effort to prevent drilling operations from being undertaken, Congressman Markey (D-MA) offered an amendment to the energy legislation which would have prevented the Interior Department from granting oil and gas leases to oil companies wishing to drill for oil in ANWR. Progressives supported Markey's amendment as a way to protect one of the nation's most pristine wildlife refuges. The amendment failed to muster majority support in the chamber and was defeated by a vote of 197-228.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 134
Apr 10, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Allow, But Limit, Oil-Drilling in the Pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The most controversial provision included in legislation outlining the nation's energy policy was oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Some have argued that drilling in ANWR is a necessary step to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil reserves. Progressives, however, opposed the ANWR drilling for two main reasons. First, the oil-drilling had definite potential to cause environmental degradation. Second, the stock of oil in the ANWR would not decrease foreign reliance; geologists estimate that the ANWR reserves could satisfy only a miniscule percent of the nation's energy demand. Improving the fuel efficiency in automobiles, progressives argue, is a better way to reduce oil-consumption in the U.S. In an effort to make oil-drilling in ANWR more palatable, Congresswoman Wilson (R-NM) proposed an amendment to the energy legislation which would have limited the surface area in ANWR that could be used for oil production to 2000 acres. Progressives voted in opposition to the amendment on the grounds that no drilling in ANWR should be allowed. The Wilson amendment was adopted on a 226-202 vote.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Oil & Gas Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 133
Apr 10, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Expand the Authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to Combat Corporate Fraud and Market Manipulation By Energy Producers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Outlining a national energy policy has been on the congressional agenda for several years. In 2001, energy legislation passed both chambers of Congress but was ultimately defeated in a conference committee between the House and Senate. Energy legislation that is similar to what was proposed in 2001 was again debated by each chamber of Congress. The main difference between the 2001 and 2003 policies considered in the House was the addition of a controversial section on electricity deregulation which would preserve state authority to regulate retail electricity systems. In the wake of Enron's collapse, electricity deregulation has become a controversial issue for lawmakers because evidence suggests that the former energy-giant illegally took advantage of deregulated energy-markets in 2001 by purchasing available energy stocks and then restricting the supply of electricity to drive up energy costs for consumers in Western states like California. In an effort reach a compromise on the issue, Congressman Dingell (D-MI) proposed an amendment that would have replaced the deregulation provision with language to expand the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) anti-fraud powers, require reports on sales and transmissions of electricity and gas, and authorize FERC to refund electricity overcharges retroactively. Progressives supported the Dingell amendment as a way to protect consumers against market manipulations by corporations such as Enron. Dingell's amendment was defeated by a 193-237 margin.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 132
Apr 10, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Spur the Development of More Fuel Efficient Automobiles.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on legislation outlining the nation's energy policy, Congressman Boehlert (R-NY) proposed an amendment that would have required the Department of Transportation to ensure that the total amount of gasoline consumed annually by cars and light trucks in the year 2010 will have been reduced by five percent relative to gasoline consumption in 2004. The purpose of Boehlert's amendment was to spur the development of more fuel efficient automobiles, a goal which progressives strongly endorse. The Boehlert amendment failed to garner majority support and was defeated on a 162-268 vote.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Automobile Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 131
Apr 10, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Provide Tax Breaks to Energy Companies and Allow Oil Drilling in the Pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before legislation is able to be considered on the House floor, agreement must be reached on a rule (which is drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership) that governs the handling of a particular bill on the floor. This vote pertains to a rule for debate on the energy plan which would set time limits for debate, limit the number of amendments considered, and specify a time for the final vote to be held. Progressives opposed the rule because they object to the energy plan as currently written. A sound energy policy, progressives argue, requires investment in renewable energy sources which the current proposal does not provide. Republicans voted unanimously for the rule and it was adopted by a 236-190 margin.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
Y N Lost
Roll Call 130
Apr 10, 2003
H.R. 6. Energy Plan/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Provide Tax Breaks to Energy Companies and Allow Oil Drilling in the Pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In 2003, the House Energy Committee created legislation outlining a national energy plan. In many respects, the energy legislation recently proposed is similar to legislation drafted in 2001. The 2001 legislation was defeated in conference committee because the House and Senate could not resolve their differences on issues such as oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); similar challenges confronted the current energy plan. This vote involved a motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a rule governing debate on the energy plan (rules are resolutions drafted by the House Rules Committee-which function in effect as an arm of the majority party leadership-that govern the handling of a particular bill on the floor). As a general rule, lawmakers in the minority party who oppose a piece of legislation generally oppose the rule for debate (given the potential for punishment by the majority party leadership, majority party lawmakers seldom oppose either the motion to move the previous question or the rule). Progressives voiced opposition to key provisions in the energy plan which included: 1) allowing oil-drilling in ANWR; 2) the absence of investment in renewable energy sources; and 3) providing tax breaks for fossil-fuel energy producers. The motion to order the previous question was adopted on a nearly party-line vote of 226-202.


ENVIRONMENT Air Pollution
ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, Oil & Gas Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Utility Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 124
Apr 09, 2003
H.R. 1036. Gun Liability/Passage of a Bill to Restrict the Legal Rights of Victims of Gun Violence.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote involves final passage in the House of a gun liability bill that would restrict liability lawsuits filed on behalf of victims of gun violence against gunmakers and dealers. Two exceptions to the lawsuit restrictions would allow certain lawsuits to be filed. Civil suits would be permitted against gunmakers or sellers who "knowingly and willfully violated" state or federal laws in selling or marketing a weapon and against gun manufacturers who produce defective weapons. Progressives opposed final passage of the bill because it reduces the legal standing of victims of gun violence vis-à-vis gun manufacturers and dealers. The legislation was adopted on a 285-140 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Gun Violence
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Firearms Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Firearms Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Gun Control
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL War on Drugs
N N Lost
Roll Call 123
Apr 09, 2003
H.R. 1036. Gun Liability/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Restrict the Legal Rights of Victims of Gun Violence.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Prior to the vote on final passage of gun liability legislation, Democrats offered a motion to recommit the bill to committee for further consideration with instruction to remove language in the bill that would make it immediately applicable to pending lawsuits against the gun industry. In general, a successful motion to recommit-which is always offered by the minority party-is usually a death blow to a piece of legislation. Progressives supported the recommit motion to forestall passage of a bill designed to legally empower the gun industry at the expense of victims of gun violence. The motion was defeated by a 140-282 margin.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Gun Violence
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Firearms Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Firearms Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Gun Control
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL War on Drugs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 122
Apr 09, 2003
H.R. 1036. Gun Liability/Vote to Enhance the Legal Rights of Victims of Gun Violence By Allowing Lawsuits Against Gun Retailers Who Negligently Provide Guns to Known Criminals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Congressman Meehan (D-MA) offered an amendment to the gun liability bill that would allow the victims of gun violence to recover damages from the manufacturers or sellers of firearms if their negligence allows guns to fall into the hands of criminals. Progressives supported Meehan's amendment as a way to ensure that manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are held responsible for their negligence just as every other industry and every other individual may be held responsible for any wrongdoing. Meehan's amendment failed to muster majority support and was defeated on a 144-280 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Gun Violence
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Firearms Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Firearms Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Gun Control
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL War on Drugs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 121
Apr 09, 2003
H.R. 1036. Gun Liability/Vote to Enhance the Legal Rights of Victims of Gun Violence By Allowing Lawsuits Against Gun Retailers Who Negligently Provide Guns to Known Drug Addicts or Individuals Certified as "Mentally Defective".

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on gun liability legislation, Congresswoman Sanchez (D-CA) offered an amendment that would have allowed lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers who sell or transfer guns or ammunition to drug addicts or individuals certified as "mentally defective". Progressives supported Sanchez's amendment on the grounds that guns should only be available to responsible and mentally-competent citizens. Gun dealers, progressives argue, should be responsible for conducting adequate background checks to insure that addicts and mentally-defective individuals are denied the sale of guns. The Sanchez amendment failed to garner majority support and was defeated 134-289.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Gun Violence
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Firearms Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Firearms Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Gun Control
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL War on Drugs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 120
Apr 09, 2003
H.R. 1036. Gun Liability/Vote to Enhance the Legal Rights of Victims of Gun Violence By Allowing Lawsuits Against Gun Retailers Who Knowingly Provide Guns to Individuals Intending to Commit a Crime.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Lawsuits filed on behalf of victims of gun violence have been circulating though the court system for years. In an effort to set legal parameters on the firearms industry, Congress developed legislation to limit the liability of gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers from certain lawsuits. One provision in the legislation would prevent lawsuits against gun-sellers with clean criminal records even if the seller knowingly sold or transferred a firearm to someone planning to commit a crime. Congressman Scott (D-VA) offered an amendment to the bill that would have eliminated that provision. Had Scott's amendment passed, any gun-seller--even if they had no prior convictions--could be sued if they knowingly transferred a gun to someone plotting a crime. Progressives supported Scott's amendment as a way to strengthen the accountability of gun dealers and to insure that those dealers do not sell guns to individuals if the seller is aware that the buyer plans to use the weapon to commit a crime. Scott's amendment was defeated by a vote of 148-278.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Victims of Gun Violence
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Firearms Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Firearms Industry
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Gun Control
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL War on Drugs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 119
Apr 09, 2003
Procedural Motion/Vote to Table (Kill) an Effort to Chastise Congresswoman Cubin (R-WY) For Her Racially-Charged Remarks on the House Floor.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During House debate on an amendment to gun-liability legislation that would bar the sale of guns to drug addicts, Congresswoman Cubin (R-WY) queried, "Well, so does that mean if you go into a black community, you can't sell any gun to any black person?" Cubin's remarks offended many of her colleagues and Congressman Watt (D-NC), a member of the congressional black caucus, asked to have Cubin's words "taken down" which, if Watt's motion was successful, would have prevented Cubin from speaking on the floor for the rest of the day. Congressman Sensenbrenner then offered a motion to table (or strike down) Watt's challenge; this vote pertains to the Sensenbrenner motion to strike down Watt's objection to Cubin's statement. Progressives supported Watt's effort to penalize Cubin for her racially-charged remarks. Republicans voted unanimously to table Watt's motion to have Cubin's words taken down and were successful on a vote of 227-195; Congresswoman Cubin was therefore not penalized for her racially-charged statement.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 112
Apr 08, 2003
H.R. 1559. Fiscal 2003 War Supplemental/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Include More Generous Senate Language Regarding Unemployment Benefits for Displaced Airline Workers During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The airline industry has faced serious financial problems since the September 11th attacks-fewer travelers are flying and airlines have laid-off numerous aviation workers as a result. The Senate version of the war supplemental spending bill included a provision providing displaced airline workers an additional twenty-six weeks of temporary unemployment benefits; the House version included a similar though less generous provision. During House debate on the war supplemental bill, Congressman Obey made a motion to instruct House conferees to adopt the more generous Senate language regarding unemployment benefits for aviation workers in the final version of the legislation. House conferees are lawmakers chosen by their party's leadership to attend a conference committee with the Senate to iron out any differences in the legislation approved by each chamber. Progressives supported the Obey motion as a way to help unemployed airline workers-many of whom lost their jobs through no fault of their own-regain their financial footing and find new jobs. Democrats voted unanimously in favor of Obey's motion and it passed on a 265-150 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
Y Y Won
Roll Call 107
Apr 03, 2003
H.R. 1559. Fiscal 2003 War Supplemental/Vote to Establish Civil Support Teams Though the National Guard to Guard Against the Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on a $74.7 billion supplemental spending bill for costs associated with the Iraqi war, Representative DeFazio (D-OR) introduced an amendment which would have reduced economic assistance to Turkey by $207 million (from about $1 billion to $800 million) and redirected that money toward the establishment of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) civil support teams to be managed by the National Guard. DeFazio pointed out that the civil support teams-which are intended to reduce the threat of a WMD detonation on U.S. soil-had already been authorized by Congress; the money, however, had yet to be provided in the form of a congressional appropriation. Progressives supported DeFazio's amendment because, in their view, safeguarding the public from WMD through civil support teams was a higher priority than providing economic aid to Turkey. Turkey, Progressives noted, had not even solicited the funds from the U.S.; surely, they argued, the Turkey aid package could be reduced from $1 billion to $800 million in order to augment U.S. protections against WMD. Despite support from Progressives, the DeFazio amendment was defeated 113-312.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N Y Lost
Roll Call 106
Apr 03, 2003
H.R. 1559. Fiscal 2003 War Supplemental/Vote to Increase Funding for Domestic Security Activities and Reduce Funding for Counter-Drug Missions in Colombia.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During consideration of the war supplemental spending measure, Congressman McGovern (D-MA) offered an amendment that would have increased funding for the Office of Domestic Preparedness by $34 million and reduced spending for counter-drug activities in Colombia by $61 million. The mission of the Office of Domestic Preparedness is to improve the capacity of state and local first responders to handle terrorist acts involving weapons of mass destruction. In the wake of 9/11, the responsibilities of police, fire, and other first responders have increased; they must now meet their regular law enforcement and public safety duties while also being prepared to handle the possibility of responding to a terrorist attack. State governments across the country, however, are facing severe budget deficits and are unable to provide the necessary level of funding for first responders. Progressives supported the McGovern amendment as a way to improve public safety at home while reducing the amount spent on counter-drug activity in Colombia. Curtailing the drug trade, progressives argue, requires an effort to reduce the demand for drugs through treatment programs rather than military operations attacking the supply chain in foreign countries. Democrats voted overwhelmingly in support of the McGovern amendment but the measure failed to attract majority support in the chamber and was defeated 209-216.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL War on Drugs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
WAR & PEACE Military Aid to Colombia
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 104
Apr 03, 2003
H.R. 1559. Fiscal 2003 War Supplemental/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Amendment to Increase Funding for Homeland Security Purposes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Democrats in both chambers of Congress proposed amendments to the war supplemental spending bill to increase the level of funding for domestic security. The bulk of the money would have been directed to the Department of Homeland Security; the Department of Justice and the FBI would have also received additional revenue. During House consideration, Congressman Obey (D-WI) offered an amendment that would have added $2.5 billion for homeland security purposes. A point of order was raised against the Obey amendment by Congressman Young (R-FL) that the measure was not "germane", or relevant, to the pending legislation (unlike the Senate, the House requires that amendments to legislation are relevant to the issue being debated). Progressives opposed the point of order because Obey's amendment would direct much-needed funding to the federal agencies responsible for protecting American citizens against terrorist attacks. On a party-line vote of 217-195, the point of order was sustained and the Obey amendment was defeated.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Lost
Roll Call 103
Apr 03, 2003
H.R. 1559. Fiscal 2003 War Supplemental/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Fund the Initial Stages of the Iraqi War and Limit Congressional Power in Determining the Specific Uses of Those Funds.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The 2004 budget resolution, a financial blueprint for future federal spending, was adopted by the House on April 1, 2003. The budget resolution, however, did not appropriate federal money to pay the costs associated with the Iraqi war effort. To budget for the costs of war and to protect the home front against terrorism, the Bush Administration crafted a $74.7 billion supplemental spending bill which was sent to Capitol Hill for debate following passage of the budget resolution. The administration's proposal included $62.6 billion for defense-related expenditures; $59.9 billion of that total, however, would be spent at the discretion of the Pentagon, not Congress. The administration's "flexibility" in war-related spending was a contentious issue between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. As the constitutional entity responsible for directing federal spending, Congress pared down the $59.9 billion requested by the executive branch for discretionary purposes; amendments to the war supplemental bill sought to further clarify how the money would be spent. This vote involved a motion to move the previous question (thus ending debate and the possibility of amendment) and adopt a rule allowing for House consideration of a $77.9 billion war supplemental spending bill. Before legislation can be considered on the House floor, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee governing the handling of a particular bill on the floor must be adopted. Progressives opposed the motion to move the previous question on the House bill because they objected to the $25.4 billion provided in flexible spending for the president-they wanted reductions in the discretionary fund to be more in line with the $11 billion provided in the Senate's version of the bill. Democrats unanimously opposed the procedural motion but were defeated on a party-line vote of 221-200 in support of the motion.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N N Lost
Roll Call 101
Apr 02, 2003
H.R. 743. Social Security Fraud/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Revoke Social Security Benefits for Retired Public Employees in Texas and Georgia.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In a final effort to defeat the Social Security Fraud bill, Congressman Green (D-TX) offered a motion to recommit the bill for further committee consideration with instructions to remove a requirement that retirees pay into the Social Security system for a minimum of five years before they are eligible to receive benefits. In general, a successful motion to recommit is usually a death blow to a piece of legislation. The most contentious provision in the bill would revoke Social Security benefits for retired public employees in Texas and Georgia. Some of those retirees become eligible to receive federal Social Security benefits when their spouse dies, even if they did not pay Social Security taxes while in the workforce (Texas and Georgia have their own state plans and do not require public employees to pay federal Social Security taxes). Progressives supported the effort to preserve Social Security benefits for retired public employees in Texas and Georgia-many of whom were teachers, firefighters, and police-because revoking the benefits might cause serious financial hardship for those retirees. Green's motion to recommit gained unanimous support from Democrats but a united front of Republicans were able to defeat the motion on a 203-220 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 100
Apr 02, 2003
H.R. 743. Social Security Fraud/Vote to Eliminate a Provision in Bill to Revoke Social Security Benefits for Retired Public Employees in Texas and Georgia.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During consideration of the Social Security Fraud bill, Congressman Green (D-TX) offered an amendment that would have deleted language in the bill preventing public employees in Texas and Georgia from receiving federal Social Security benefits if their spouse dies (see Roll Call Vote #99). Progressives supported the Green measure to insure that retired public employees in those states would continue to receive the benefits they currently enjoy; revoking those benefits might in many cases cause serious financial hardship. The Green amendment failed to attract majority support and was defeated on a 196-228 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 99
Apr 02, 2003
H.R. 743. Social Security Fraud/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Revoke Social Security Benefits for Retired Public Employees in Texas and Georgia.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Public employees in several states (including Texas and Georgia) are not required to pay federal Social Security taxes and do not receive those benefits as a result; they are instead covered by state plans. If a spouse dies, however, public employees may be eligible to receive their spouse's Social Security benefits. Republicans viewed this as fraudulent and proposed legislation to curb Social Security benefits for public employees in Texas and Georgia by requiring them to pay into the system for a minimum of five years to be eligible for full spousal benefits. Progressives opposed this effort on the grounds that public employees--many of whom are teachers, firefighters, and police--deserve financial support. Moreover, many of those individuals who rely on the federal benefits would fall below the poverty line if they were revoked. This vote involved a motion to end debate on the issue and adopt a rule allowing for House floor consideration of the bill. Progressives opposed the rule to forestall a final vote but the motion was passed by a 245-177 margin.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Lost
Roll Call 92
Mar 31, 2003
H.R. 1463. Smallpox Vaccination Compensation Fund/Passage of a Bill to Provide Compensation for a Limited Number of Individuals Who Die From Smallpox Inoculations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Aid for first responders has become a popular cause for Democrats and Republicans eager to improve the nation's emergency and preparedness programs. After reports surfaced that three nurses providing smallpox inoculations for first responders contracted the illness, Congress initiated efforts to create a compensation fund for health and emergency workers who suffer adverse effects from smallpox. To date, only 30,000 health care volunteers have received the vaccination; this number is far fewer than the goal of 500,000 set by President Bush in December. In an effort to increase the number of inoculations, Congressman Tauzin (R-LA) introduced a bill that would have awarded a $262,000 lump-sum payment to survivors of individuals who die or are permanently disabled from smallpox inoculations. Progressives opposed the Tauzin bill on the grounds that it was too narrowly-defined; they sought to broaden the definition of "disabled" in the bill to include disfigurement and other potentially incapacitating consequences of contracting smallpox through the inoculation. The vote on the Tauzin bill was held under a suspension of the rules-a procedure usually reserved for non-controversial legislation-which requires the support from two-thirds of those present and voting (260 in this case). Proponents of the Tauzin bill failed to attract the necessary 260 votes and the measure was defeated 184-206.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Disabled
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Won
Roll Call 90
Mar 27, 2003
H. Res. 153. Day of Prayer/Passage of a Bill Expressing the Sense of the House that the President Should Designate a Day of Prayer, Fasting, and Humility.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote pertains to a motion offered by Congressman Shays (R-CT) to adopt a "sense of the House" resolution-a nonbinding resolution that lacks the force of law-urging President Bush to designate a day of prayer, fasting, and humility. The resolution would also encourage individuals to observe the designated day by seeking guidance from God to understand their failings and find resolve to confront the nation's challenges. Progressives objected to the Shay's resolution on the grounds that government has no business instructing its citizens on religious matters. The vote on the Shay's proposal was held under suspension of the rules-a procedure designated for non-controversial pieces of legislation which requires the support from two-thirds of those voting-and the measure passed overwhelmingly on a 349-49 vote.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y N Lost
Roll Call 87
Mar 27, 2003
H.R. 1104. Protections for Children/Vote to Impose Minimum Sentencing Guidelines and Thereby Reduce Judges' Discretion in Cases Involving Child Pornography and Sexual Abuse.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During House consideration of a bill to strengthen protections for children, Congressman Feeney (R-FL) proposed an amendment to limit the ability of the courts to depart from federal sentencing guidelines in cases involving child pornography and sexual abuse. Feeney's measure would also increase penalties for individuals who possess child pornography featuring violent conduct. Progressives opposed Feeney's effort because it would infringe on civil liberties and reduce the discretion of judges in assigning punishments for those convicted of crimes against children. The Feeney amendment was overwhelmingly supported and passed 357-58.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
Y N Lost
Roll Call 86
Mar 26, 2003
H.R. 1104. Protections for Children/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Impose Minimum Sentencing Guidelines and Thereby Reduce Judges' Discretion in Cases Involving Child Pornography and Sexual Abuse.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Following the rescue of Elizabeth Smart, attention crystallized to improve the AMBER alert system (which stands for America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response). Edward Smart, Elizabeth's father, advocated on national television for improving the AMBER alert system. AMBER alerts are bulletins that provide information regarding a recent kidnapping and are broadcast on local television, radio stations, and even on electronic highway signs. Lawmakers in both the House and Senate overwhelmingly support increasing state grants for the AMBER system. In drafting the AMBER legislation, however, Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-WI) packaged the proposal with several failed bills addressing other protections for children. Those failed bills included efforts to ban virtual (or computer-generated) child pornography, make crimes involving child abuse eligible for federal first-degree murder charges, impose minimum sentencing requirements for individuals convicted of abusing children, and authorize wire-tapping authority to investigate those suspected of child abuse. Progressives supported improvements to the AMBER system but objected to other provisions in the bill which would curtail civil liberties and limit the discretion of judges in punishing those convicted of crimes against children. Democrats voted unanimously in opposition to the Sensenbrenner bill but the measure was adopted on a 218-198 vote.


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
N N Lost
Roll Call 82
Mar 20, 2003
H Con Res 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Passage of a Bill Containing $726 Billion in Tax Cuts That Mainly Benefit Wealthy Individuals Which Would Reduce Federal Revenue and Likely Necessitate Cuts in Domestic Spending.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The annual budget resolution is a blueprint for the coming year's taxing and spending. Though its outlines are fundamentally non-binding, there are procedural benefits to staying within the document's limits. The main feature of the Republican resolution for 2004 was the president's $726 billion tax cut, but it also made many earlier temporary tax cuts permanent, included cuts in spending outside of defense and homeland security, and set aside $400 billion for Medicare reform and a prescription drug benefit. Progressives--and Democrats generally--disliked passing a large tax cut in a time of war and disliked that the tax cut proposed was directed mainly at wealthy Americans. No Progressives supported the budget, only one Democrat voted for, and 12 Republicans voted against. This was almost enough to kill it, but it squeaked through on a 215-212 vote.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 81
Mar 20, 2003
H Con Res 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Vote on a Democratic Substitute Measure Which Eliminated Tax Cuts for Wealthy Individuals and Increased Spending for Medicare and Prescription Drugs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The budget resolution is a document passed each year by both chambers of Congress that serves as a blueprint for the year's taxing and spending. Though the resolution is ultimately non-binding, there can be procedural advantages to staying within the document's bounds. The main feature of the Republican resolution for 2004 was the president's $726 billion tax cut, but it also included cuts in spending outside of defense and homeland security and $400 billion for Medicare reform and a prescription drug benefit. Democrats proposed an alternative budget that increased nondefense spending, eliminated the tax cuts for the wealthy, reduced the overall size of the cut to $136 billion, and allowed $528 billion (up from the Bush administration's $400 billion) for a prescription drug benefit. Progressives supported this plan because they saw it as an improvement over the Republican version. This Democratic substitute was rejected, 192-236.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 80
Mar 20, 2003
H Con Res 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Vote on an Alternative Bill Which Eliminated Tax Cuts for Wealthy Individuals, Provided Additional Tax Cuts for Low-Income Individuals, and Increased Spending for Health, Education, and Public Housing.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The federal budget process begins with the budget resolution, a blueprint for spending and revenue that is ultimately non-binding but does impose some constraints on the taxing and spending process for the coming year. The Republican resolution for 2004 included $726 billion in new tax cuts and cuts in spending outside of defense and homeland security. To Progressives, a tax cut as the nation headed to war was anathema, and the tax cut the Republicans proposed was too slanted toward the rich. They proposed an alternative budget that eliminated high-income tax cuts and increased tax cuts for the poor, increased funding in such areas as education, health and child care, and housing, and balanced the budget. This alternative plan was rejected, 85-340.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 78
Mar 20, 2003
H Con Res 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Vote on an Alternative Bill Which Maintained Republican Spending Levels But Would Cancel Any Tax Cuts for Wealthy Individuals if the Federal Budget was in Deficit.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Usually the first step in the annual budget process is the budget resolution: a big-picture blueprint for spending and revenue that is fundamentally non-binding but can constrain the appropriations and tax bills passed that year. The main feature of the Republican resolution for 2004 was the president's $726 billion tax cut, but it also included spending cuts in most programs. Conservative Democrats proposed an alternative budget that stuck with the broad outlines of the president's plan but introduced some flexibility. It maintained the Republican spending levels but gave Congress more discretion about allocating the money, and it cancelled tax cuts for wealthy Americans if the war in Iraq kept the budget in deficit. Though in many ways it did not go as far as Progressives would have liked, they voted for this substitute because in their minds it was better than the original. Even so, it was rejected 174-254.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 74
Mar 19, 2003
HR 975. Bankruptcy Reform/Passage of a Bill to Change Bankruptcy Laws to Reduce Protections for Individual in Debt.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Republicans had long claimed that the nation's bankruptcy laws made it too easy hide assets from creditors. They wanted more bankruptcy filers to use Chapter 13, which opened these assets to confiscation by creditors, instead of Chapter 7, which provided more protection. The bill proposed by Republicans would require debtors to file under Chapter 13 if they were able to pay either $10,000 or 25 percent of their debts. The bill would also limit the home equity exemption to $125,000 for any home purchased within three years and four months of the filing. Progressives opposed these changes as too hard on those already struggling to make ends meet, and they viewed the whole bill as a bonanza to banks and credit card companies. They voted "no," but the bill passed by a large margin 315-113.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
N N Lost
Roll Call 73
Mar 19, 2003
HR 975. Bankruptcy Reform/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Change Bankruptcy Laws to Reduce Protections for Individual in Debt.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Republicans had been trying off and on to change the bankruptcy law since taking back the House in 1995. They felt the laws made it too easy for bankruptcy filers to hide assets under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. They proposed a bill that would move those with more ability to pay into filing under Chapter 13, which opened more assets to confiscation by creditors. Progressives felt the criteria for "ability to pay" were too hard on those who were already struggling to make ends meet, and that the whole bill was a gift to the credit card industry. Progressives had attempted to provide additional protections for alimony and child support payments as part of a larger substitute version of the bill, but that substitute had been voted down. In a second attempt, Jackson-Lee (D-TX) moved to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that only the provisions for alimony and child support be added to the bill. Progressives voted "yes," but the motion was rejected, 150-276.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 72
Mar 19, 2003
HR 975. Bankruptcy Reform/Vote on a Democratic Substitute Measure Which Would Maintain Bankruptcy Protections for Individuals in Debt.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Republicans were eager to make major changes to the bankruptcy law, which they felt made it too easy for debtors to file for bankruptcy without major repercussions. They proposed a bill that would force bankruptcy filers with more assets to file under Chapter 13, which provides those assets with less protection from creditors. Progressives felt this change benefited credit card companies alone, and that these companies should stop encouraging consumers to go into debt and start assessing credit risks more carefully. Nadler (D-NY) proposed a substitute version of the bill that would soften the means test and protect forms of income such as health insurance, child support, and alimony payments. The substitute also made it more difficult for abortion protesters to use bankruptcy as a way to avoid fines for their actions. Progressives supported the substitute as a less draconian reform, but it was voted down 128-296, with numerous Democrats crossing party lines.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
HOUSING Preventing Bank Foreclosures on Homes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 71
Mar 19, 2003
HR 975. Bankruptcy Reform/Vote to Require Bankrupt Corporations to File for Bankruptcy Protection in the District Court with Jurisdiction Over the Corporation's Principle Place of Business.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Republicans had tried for several years to pass an overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy laws. They felt the laws made it too easy for debtors to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 7, which protects many assets from confiscation. They proposed a bill with a means test that required those with more assets to file under the less protective Chapter 13. Progressives, on the other hand, felt that bankruptcy reform mainly benefited credit card companies, and that these companies should become better at assessing credit risk and not encourage individuals to go deeply into debt. As part of the debate on this bill, Sherman (D-CA) proposed an amendment that would require a corporation filing for bankruptcy to do so in the district court with jurisdiction over the corporation's principal place of business. Progressives supported this amendment to prevent "venue shopping," where corporations file in the court most friendly to their claims and make it difficult for those they did business with in their community to attend court hearings. But the amendment was rejected, 155-269.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 64
Mar 13, 2003
HR 5. Caps on Malpractice Awards/Passage of a Bill to Restrict Patients' Rights By Limiting Damages in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Since retaking the House in 1995, Republicans had been interested in imposing caps on medical malpractice claims. They felt these claims had become so large that they were driving physicians out of the profession and increasing the cost of medical care for everyone. They proposed a bill that would cap pain and suffering damages at $250,000 and punitive damages at the greater of $250,000 or double the economic damages. The bill also capped attorneys' fees and limited the circumstances when punitive damages would be allowed. Progressives--and Democrats generally--agreed that something needed to be done about malpractice awards, but they argued the current bill would restrict patient rights while doing nothing to ensure that physicians (and so the system as a whole) would see savings on their malpractice insurance bills. However, with almost all Republicans supportive of the bill, Progressives and Democrats in general had very little say in the matter. The bill passed, 229-196.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Doctors
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Doctors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 63
Mar 13, 2003
HR 5. Caps on Malpractice Awards/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Restrict Patients' Rights By Limiting Damages in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In the years since taking over the House in 1995, Republicans had proposed capping medical malpractice claims seven times. They felt the size of these awards was driving doctors out of the profession and raising the cost of health care for everyone. The eighth version of the bill capped pain and suffering awards at $250,000 and capped punitive damages at either $250,000 or twice the economic damages, whichever was greater. Progressives--and Democrats generally--agreed that some restrictions on awards were necessary, but they felt the Republican caps restricted patient rights without any means to ensure that the savings would be passed to physicians in the form of lower malpractice premiums. The rules for debate on this bill forbade any amendments to it. However, Conyers (D-MI) moved instead to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that two provisions be added: an independent advisory commission, and a requirement that plaintiff attorneys in medical malpractice cases file a certificate of merit. Progressives opposed the bill itself, so they supported this attempt to scuttle it. However, the motion to recommit failed, 191-234, and the bill moved closer to final passage.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Doctors
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Doctors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 62
Mar 13, 2003
HR 5. Caps on Malpractice Awards/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Restrict Patients' Rights By Limiting Damages in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Republicans had long complained that the growing size of medical malpractice awards was making the health care system more expensive for everyone and driving many doctors from the profession. They proposed a bill to cap these awards: at $250,000 for pain and suffering damages, and at either twice the economic damages or $250,000--whichever was greater--for punitive damages. Progressives--and Democrats generally--agreed that some restrictions on awards were necessary, but they felt the Republican approach limited patient rights without requiring that malpractice insurance companies would pass any savings on to physicians. They were also angry at the way Republicans handled the bill. In the House, the rules for debate on a bill must be passed separately from and before debate begins on the bill itself. The rule Republicans proposed for the malpractice bill forbade any amendments, and 29 of the 31 pending amendments had been drafted by Democrats. Progressives opposed the malpractice bill itself, so they opposed this restrictive rule as well. They voted "no," but the rule passed, 225-201.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Doctors
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Doctors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 61
Mar 13, 2003
HR 5. Caps on Malpractice Awards/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Restrict Patients' Rights By Limiting Damages in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Since taking over the House in 1995, Republicans had made seven attempts to pass caps on medical malpractice awards from juries. They argued that the growing size of jury awards was increasing the cost of medical care for everyone and driving good doctors out of medicine. This latest bill capped pain and suffering damages at $250,000, and capped punitive damages at either twice the economic damages or $250,000, whichever was greater. Progressives--and Democrats generally--agreed something needed to be done about the size of awards, but they disliked this particular approach. They argued it restricted patient rights without any promise that physicians would see lower malpractice insurance premiums. In the House, the rules for debate on a bill must be passed separately from the bill itself. Those opposed to a bill--in this case, Progressives and Democrats generally--often obstruct the rule as a means to kill the bill itself, since a bill will die if its rule does not pass. The vote at issue here was on a Republican motion to order the previous question: a way to end debate on the passage of a rule and move to voting on the rule itself. Because Progressives opposed the Republican malpractice bill and opposed its rule, they opposed ending debate on the rule and moving the process forward. They voted "no" on the motion, but it passed 225-201, with only one Democrat crossing party lines.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Doctors
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Doctors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 44
Mar 05, 2003
HR 743. Social Security Fraud/Passage of a Bill to Revoke Social Security Benefits for Certain Retired Public Employees.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Under law at the time of this vote, public employees serving in jobs not covered by Social Security received reduced spousal benefits upon retirement. Many such employees had recently switched to a job covered by Social Security just before retirement--sometimes as late as one day before retirement--in order to avoid this penalty. The Republican leadership in the House considered this an act of fraud, but Progressives considered the rule imposing reduced spousal benefits to be unfair. When this bill to close the job-switching loophole was proposed, Progressives voted against it. The bill was proposed under suspension of the rules, which limits debate and forbids amendments, but which also requires a two-thirds majority for passage. Supporters of the bill could not muster that two-thirds vote, and the Progressive position prevailed on a vote of 249-180, 37 "yes" votes short of the required number.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Won
Roll Call 39
Feb 27, 2003
HR 534. Human Cloning Ban/Passage of a Bill to Ban Human Cloning and Potentially Life-Saving Research on Human Embryos.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The development of cloning technology raised new political questions that divided old alliances. Despite concerns about cloning for reproduction, the more immediate question concerned scientific research. Moderate Republicans, most Democrats, and Progressives favored the procedure as a way to produce stem cells for research that might one day cure a wide range of life-threatening illnesses, while most Republicans, as well as Democrats who see embryos as human life, opposed the very same research as murder because it involved the destruction of the cloned embryos. A ban on all human cloning--for whatever purpose--was proposed in the House, with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million for violators. The bill would also ban imported embryo clones and any products made from them. Progressives opposed the ban, but it passed, 241-155.


HEALTH CARE Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes
N N Lost
Roll Call 38
Feb 27, 2003
HR 534. Human Cloning Ban/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Ban Human Cloning and Potentially Life-Saving Research on Human Embryos.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The debate over the cloning of human embryos defied normal partisan divisions. Progressives, most Democrats, and moderate Republicans focused on the procedure's potential benefits for stem cell research, which in turn held promise of treating or curing a wide range of life-threatening diseases. Most Republicans, as well as Democrats who see embryos as human life, opposed the procedure because it involved creating and often destroying what they considered human life. The ban on human cloning proposed in the House also banned imports of products developed from cloning. Lofgren (D-CA) moved to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions to exempt products related to curing a variety of diseases--including Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, and heart disease--provided none of these products could be used to start a pregnancy. Progressives supported this motion, because they supported the scientific applications of human embryo cloning. However, the motion was voted down, 164-237.


HEALTH CARE Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 37
Feb 27, 2003
HR 534. Human Cloning Ban/Vote on a Substitute Measure to Ban Human Cloning But Allow Potentially Life-Saving Research on Human Embryos.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

This vote concerned a proposed ban on the cloning of human embryos. Divisions over the issue crossed party lines. On one side were most Democrats--including Progressives--and moderate Republicans, who saw the procedure in scientific terms. They focused on the procedure's potential to provide stem cells, which many scientists felt could be used to treat a wide range of life-threatening diseases. On the other side were most Republicans and Democrats who see embryos as human life. They focused on the destruction of the cloned embryo and the potential for humans to "play god." A bill to ban all human cloning was proposed, and Greenwood (RPA) responded by proposing a substitute that made what he felt was a critical distinction: the alternate ban forbade only cloning for the sake of reproduction, while allowing it for scientific research. Progressives supported this as an important clarification of the pro-cloning position. However, the substitute fell on a 174-231 vote.


HEALTH CARE Embryo Cloning for Scientific Purposes
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 32
Feb 13, 2003
H J Res 2. Fiscal 2003 Appropriations/Final Passage of Government Spending Measure Which, With Few Exceptions, Contained Across-the-Board Funding Cuts in Domestic Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In the fall of 2002, Congress had been unable to agree on a spending plan for 2003. Republicans sought to cut spending and Democrats to increase it. However, the 2002 elections expanded the Republican majority in the House and put the Senate back in Republican hands. As a result, Republicans moved quickly in 2003 to pass a spending plan. The plan they proposed cut 0.65 percent from all programs but a handful (mostly related to education) in the bill. It provided $10 billion for intelligence and military activities; it also increased drought relief by $3.1 billion, election reform by $1.5 billion, and Medicare payments to physicians by $54 billion. Progressives supported many of these measures, but disagreed fundamentally with the amounts and with how closely the bill hewed to the Bush administration's low spending request. Progressives voted "no," but it was a lonely stand: the bill passed 338-83.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 31
Feb 13, 2003
H J Res 2. Fiscal 2003 Appropriations/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Government Spending Measure Which, With Few Exceptions, Contained Across-the-Board Funding Cuts in Domestic Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Throughout the fall of 2002, Democrats and Republicans struggled to agree on a spending plan for 2003, but never succeeded. Republicans approached the project with renewed vigor after expanding their majority in the House and winning back the Senate in the November 2002 elections. But in addition to cutting spending across most categories, the spending bill they proposed also included a number of "riders": provisions unrelated to the spending bill at hand that members would attach in the hopes they would be passed on the momentum of the larger bill. Obey (D-WI) moved to recommit (send back) the spending bill to the committee that drafted it with instructions that several riders related to the environment be removed, including one that would open up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil leasing studies. Obey's motion also would require additional funding for conservation resource programs and $500 million for state and local "first responders" to emergencies. Progressives supported these ideas as favorable to the environment and homeland security, but their votes were not enough to carry the day. The motion fell, 193-226.


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 30
Feb 13, 2003
HR 4. Reauthorizing Welfare/Passage of a Bill to Reauthorize the Federal Welfare Program Which Included New Restrictions on Welfare Eligibility.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the most significant pieces of legislation of the Clinton presidency was, ironically enough, a centerpiece of the Republican agenda--welfare reform. The 1996 bill imposed time limits on benefits and work requirements for those who received them. The bill's authorization had expired by 2003, and Republicans saw the reauthorization process as a chance to tighten the law's restrictions. States under the original law had been required to have 50 percent of their welfare recipients at work; the new version raised it to 70 percent. The original law had required recipients to work at least 30 hours per week; the new law raised that number to 40 hours per week. The new welfare bill also added $1 billion to child care and $200 million (to be matched by $100 million from the states) for marriage promotion programs. Progressives felt the more onerous requirements were unnecessary and likely to be difficult to meet in a slow economy, so they opposed the new bill. They voted "no," but the bill still passed, 230-192.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
N N Lost
Roll Call 29
Feb 13, 2003
HR 4. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Reauthorize the Federal Welfare Program Which Included New Restrictions on Welfare Eligibility.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Republicans had pushed welfare reform in 1996 that imposed time limits on benefits and various requirements on recipients. By 2003, the original bill needed to be reauthorized, and Republicans seized the opportunity to tighten its restrictions. The bill they offered changed many provisions of the original law-especially work requirements-but Progressives and most Democrats were particularly concerned that the bill did not provide enough money for child care. Cardin (D-MD) moved to recommit (send back) the bill to the committee that wrote it, with instructions that more child care funding be added. Despite the support of all Progressives and all but one Democrat, the motion failed, 197-221.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 28
Feb 13, 2003
HR 4. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote on a Second Democratic Substitute Measure to Reauthorize the Federal Welfare Program, Liberalize Eligibility Requirements, and Increase Funding for Child Care Services.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

By 2003, the 1996 welfare reform law needed to be reauthorized, and Republicans were using this as an opportunity to tighten the restrictions of the original bill. The 1996 law imposed a two-year limit on welfare support, mandated that states have at least 50 percent of their recipients working, and required those recipients to work at least 30 hours per week. Republicans wanted to increase the state requirement to 70 percent and the recipient requirement to 40 hours per week, among other changes. Progressives-and Democrats generally-resisted these increases. Cardin (D-MD) proposed a substitute to the Republican plan that would maintain the existing 30-hour-per-week requirement, but would stipulate that 24 of those had to be in certain core activities. Cardin's version would also make it easier for states to provide job training and education to recipients, would extend benefits to legal immigrants, and would increase child care funding by $11 billion over five years. Progressives saw this as a sensible alternative to the Republican plan, and voted for it. Even so, the substitute bill was defeated, 197- 225.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 27
Feb 13, 2003
HR 4. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote on a Democratic Substitute Measure to Reauthorize the Federal Welfare Program, Liberalize Eligibility Requirements, and Increase Funding for Child Care Services.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The 1996 welfare reform law transformed the original welfare program by imposing a number of restrictions on welfare recipients. By 2003 the law needed to be reauthorized, and Republicans sought to tighten the restrictions. Their version raised the work requirement for welfare recipients from 30 hrs to 40 hrs per week, and it required states to get 70 percent of their recipients into a job, up from 50 percent in the 1996 bill. Kucinich (D-OH) proposed a substitute that preserved the original law's requirements on both counts, increased child care funding, and extended benefits to legal immigrants, among other liberalizing changes. Progressives supported this effort to ease what they viewed as a draconian law. With Progressives voting "yes" on this substitute, it went down to defeat, 124-300.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 18
Feb 05, 2003
H J Res 18. Continuing Resolution/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Continuing Resolution to Extend Government Funding at Previous Year's Level with Committee Instructions to Increase Medicare Reimbursement Rates at Rural Hospitals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Congress arrived at the November 2002 elections without a spending plan for 2003. Conflicts within each body and split control--Republicans held the House and Democrats the Senate--proved too difficult to overcome. In place of such a final plan, Congress passed a series of stopgap "continuing resolutions" (CRs) that funded the government at 2002 levels. But after the elections gave Republicans control of both chambers and widened their margin in the House, a final spending plan looked likely. Even so, the Republican leadership needed to rely on CRs to keep the government funded while they put together this final spending package. Progressives and Democrats in general struggled to add what they felt to be needed funding to these CRs. In the vote at hand here, Obey (D-WI) moved to recommit (send back) the latest CR to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to add language to maintain physician payment rates under Medicare at 2002 levels and to raise base payments to rural hospitals to match those of urban ones. Progressives supported the motion because they worried that the CR would underfund health programs and they saw Obey's motion as a way to correct that problem. However, the motion was rejected, 195-215, with two Republicans and no Democrats crossing party lines.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Funding for Rural Hospitals
HEALTH CARE Medicare & Medicaid Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 17
Jan 29, 2003
H J Res 2. Fiscal 2003 Appropriations/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Highest Possible Funding Levels for Veterans' Medical Care, Homeland Security, Education, and Health Programs During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

With Republicans controlling the House and Democrats the Senate in the fall of 2002, agreement on a spending plan for 2003 proved impossible. Congress passed a series of stopgap spending measures (continuing resolutions, or CRs) instead. However, the outcome of the 2002 electionswhich widened the Republicans' margin in the House and gave them control of the Senate-encouraged the Republican leadership to move aggressively toward a new spending package. Progressives--and Democrats generally--were concerned that this final spending package would short-change domestic programs, including homeland security. As House and Senate negotiators worked out differences between the two bodies' versions of the spending plan, Obey (D-WI) moved to instruct the negotiators from the House to agree to the highest levels of funding for veterans' medical care, for homeland security, and for education, labor, and health programs in general. Progressives supported this motion to instruct, but it was defeated 200-209 on an almost perfect party-line vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 16
Jan 28, 2003
H J Res 13. Continuing Resolution/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Continuing Resolution to Extend Government Funding at Previous Year's Level with Committee Instructions to Increase Funding for Homeland Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Republicans and Democrats had been unable to agree on a spending plan for 2003 by the time of the fall 2002 elections. The result of those elections--greater Republican control of both houses of Congress--strengthened the Republican hand and permitted them to move forward aggressively with their own version of a spending bill. Nonetheless, they needed to pass a few stopgap spending measures (continuing resolutions, or CRs) to keep the government funded at 2002 levels until they could put the 2003 package together. Throughout this process, Democrats pressed to add funding to these CRs. In the vote at issue here, Obey (D-WI) moved to recommit (send back) the CR to the Appropriations Committee with instructions that extra money be added for "first responders"-fire fighters, police officers, and others who arrive first to emergencies-who provide assistance during homeland security emergencies and for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's efforts to screen the World Trade Center emergency personnel for long-term health problems. Progressives supported this motion to recommit, because they felt the CR funding for these elements of homeland security was inadequate. Even with their votes, however, the supporters of extra funding came up short: Obey's motion was defeated, 201-222.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 15
Jan 28, 2003
H J Res 13. Continuing Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) an Effort to Recommit to Committee a Continuing Resolution to Extend Government Funding at Previous Year's Level with Committee Instructions to Increase Funding for Homeland Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In the fall of 2002, Republicans and Democrats were unable to agree on a spending plan for 2003, so instead they passed a series of stopgap spending measures (continuing resolutions, or CRs) that kept the government operating at 2002 levels. Republicans moved forward aggressively with their spending plan after increasing their margin in the House and taking back the Senate in the 2002 elections. Nonetheless, they still needed to pass some CRs to keep the government running. Democrats sought to add money to these CRs, to ensure the government would have enough funds to cope with homeland security needs. On the CR at issue here, Obey (D-WI) moved to recommit (send back) the bill to the Appropriations Committee with instructions that extra money for emergency response efforts be added. The chair in charge of floor debate struck down the motion on the grounds that it violated House rules because it amounted to a new budget authority. Obey appealed the ruling, but Putnam (R-FL) moved to table (kill) this appeal. Progressives supported Obey's attempt to add funding for homeland security, so they opposed the ruling of the chair, supported Obey's attempt to appeal it, and opposed Putnam's motion to table. Despite their opposition and the opposition of all but one Democrat, the motion to table passed 222-196. Obey's appeal was killed and his motion to recommit for more spending was killed with it.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
N N Lost
Roll Call 11
Jan 08, 2003
HR Res 1. Continuing Resolution/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Continuing Resolution to Extend Government Funding at Previous Year's Level with Committee Instructions to Enact More Stringent Guidelines for Private Companies that are Publicly-Chosen to Provide Elements of Homeland Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In the fall of 2002, Republicans and Democrats had been unable to agree on the government's spending bill for 2003. Republicans wanted to cut many programs, while Democrats wanted to fund them more generously. The result was stalemate, and a series of stopgap measures (continuing resolutions, or CRs) that funded the government at the previous year's level. The Republicans increased their margin in the House and took back the Senate after the fall 2002 elections, but their strategy still involved two more CRs. Obey (D-WI) saw the first of these as an opportunity to correct some policy decisions from the previous year that Progressives and many Democrats had disliked. He moved to recommit the CR to a special committee with instructions to make changes related to Homeland Security. The first change would forbid the Homeland Security Department from contracting with companies that incorporated overseas to avoid taxes, and the second would suspend liability protections in the CR for vaccine makers. Progressives supported both measures as a way of preventing corporate irresponsibility, so they favored Obey's motion. Even so, the motion fell 192-220, with only a single member of the House voting across party lines.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Pharmaceutical Industry
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 10
Jan 08, 2003
H J Res 1, H J Res 2. Continuing Resolutions/Vote Table (Kill) an Effort to Recommit to Committee Two Continuing Resolutions to Extend Government Funding at Previous Year's Level with Committee Instructions to Add Funding for Homeland Security Protections and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The end of 2002 was marked by conflict over spending for 2003, with Republicans wanting to cut spending and Progressives--and Democrats generally--wanting to increase it. No agreement was reached, and Congress instead passed a series of stopgap measures (continuing resolutions, or CRs) to keep the government funded at the previous year's levels. Republicans increased their margin in the House and took back the Senate in the 2002 elections. Nevertheless, their strategy called for two more CRs. The first, and most immediately important, of these included a number of cuts that Progressives disliked. As a result, Obey (D-WI) moved to recommit the bill to a special committee, with instructions to add funding for the Securities and Exchange Commissionwhich regulates business corporations and Wall Street-and homeland security. The chair of the floor debate ruled that this motion was an inappropriate allocation of budget authority under the Budget Act of 1974. Frank (D-MA) appealed this ruling, but Gutknecht (R-MN) countered with a motion to table (kill) this appeal. Progressives supported higher spending, so they supported Obey's motion, opposed the ruling of the chair, supported Frank's appeal of that ruling, and opposed Gutknecht's motion to table the appeal. Support for Gutknecht's motion was high among Republicans, however, and the motion passed, 217-192, on an almost perfect party-line vote.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 8
Jan 08, 2003
H J Res 1, H J Res 2. Continuing Resolutions/Vote to Allow Consideration of Two Continuing Resolutions to Extend Government Funding at Previous Year's Level.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Throughout the fall of 2002, Republicans and Democrats battled over how the government's money would be spent in 2003. Republicans wanted large spending cuts, while Progressives--and Democrats generally--wanted higher spending. Unable to agree, they passed a series of stopgap measures (continuing resolutions, or CRs) to keep the government funded at the previous year's levels. After the Republicans increased their margin in the House and took back the Senate in the November 2002 elections, their strategy for final passage of the spending bill still required two more CRs. In the House, bills come with a set of rules for the conduct of debate that must be voted on separately. A common strategy is to try to kill a bill by blocking its corresponding rule. This vote was on the rule for the two CRs. Linder (R-GA) moved to return to the previous question, a way of halting debate and moving the rule to final passage. A "yes" vote on the motion was a vote for the rule, and so for the CRs themselves. Progressives knew that passage of the CRs would allow Republicans to push spending bills that underfunded a wide range of programs they saw as important. As a result, they opposed the CRs, opposed the rule, and opposed the motion to order the previous question. However, the motion passed, 255-198, and the rule later passed on a voice (unrecorded) vote.

N N Lost
Roll Call 6
Jan 08, 2003
S 23. Unemployment Benefits/Vote to Recommit to Committee With Instructions to Extend Unemployment Benefits From Thirteen Weeks to Twenty-Six Weeks.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

At the start of the 108th Congress, Republicans moved quickly to extend unemployment benefits for those whose benefits had run out. Their bill extended the benefits for 13 weeks; Progressives--and Democrats generally--supported the idea of an extension, but wanted to increase it to 26 weeks. McDermott (D-WA) introduced a motion to recommit, or send back, the bill to its committee, with instructions that the extra 13 weeks of benefits be added to the bill. Progressives supported this motion, but it went down to defeat, 202-224.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 5
Jan 08, 2003
S 23. Unemployment Benefits/Vote to Allow Consideration and Adopt Rules of Debate on a Republican-Drafted Bill to Extend Unemployment Benefits for a Limited, Thirteen Week Duration.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the first orders of business in the 108th Congress (2003-2004) was a bill to extend unemployment benefits for workers whose benefits had run out. The bill added 13 weeks to the standard 26 weeks of coverage. Progressives supported the extension in principle, but they felt it did not go far enough. They supported adding still another 13 weeks for a total of 26. In the House, every bill must have a rule attached to it that specifies how debate will proceed. It is common to use the vote on the rule as a way to obstruct a bill itself, for if the rule does not pass, the bill cannot pass either. Progressives-and Democrats generallytried to stop the limited version of unemployment by holding up its rule, but Republicans brought this motion for the previous question to move matters ahead. The motion called for an end to debate about the rule and a vote on its passage, so a vote for the motion was a vote for the rule and for the unemployment bill itself. Because Progressives opposed the limited version of the bill, they voted "no" on this motion. However, the motion passed, 224-196, and the rule was ultimately adopted on a voice (unrecorded) vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
N N Lost
Roll Call 4
Jan 07, 2003
H Res 5. House Rules/Vote to Adopt New House Rules Designed to Empower Republican Leaders and Committee Chairmen in the Policy Process.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House is not a "continuing" body, which means that it must vote after each election on the rules that will govern its behavior until the next election. At the start of the 108th Congress (2003-2004), Republicans took this opportunity to change the rules in their favor. They removed an eightyear term limit for the Speaker of the House and gave committee chairs the power to delay committee votes on bills. The first empowered the Speaker, while the second empowered the chairs of the committees by allowing them to wait on a bill until support was ensured. The new rules also removed some restrictions on lobbyists that the Republicans themselves had put in place in 1995, and required "dynamic scoring" for tax bills. Dynamic scoring shrinks the apparent effect of a tax cut on the deficit by assuming that the tax cut will also boost the economy. Progressives disliked all of these changes because they worked to shut Democrats out of the policy process and to slant that process in favor of conservative supply-side ideas. They voted against it, but passed on a perfect partyline vote, 221-203.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Lobbyists
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 3
Jan 07, 2003
H Res 5. House Rules/Vote to Recommit to a Special Committee New House Rules Designed to Empower Republican Leaders and Committee Chairmen in the Policy Process With Committee Instructions to Remove Provisions Designed to Benefit Republicans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

After every election, the House of Representatives must vote on the rules that will govern its behavior during the coming Congress. For the 108th Congress, this package included several changes that strengthened the Republican majority's power and tilted outcomes in favor of conservative principles. Two changes in particular were at issue in the vote here. The first allowed committee chairs to delay their committees' vote on a bill, giving them the power to hold the bill until circumstances on the committee or in the House at large appeared more advantageous for the bill's passage. The second was a requirement that tax bills use "dynamic scoring" to calculate the effects of tax changes on the deficit. Under dynamic scoring, assumptions about the positive effects of a tax cut on the economy are worked into predictions of the deficit. This makes a tax cut's effect on government revenue and the deficit seem smaller. To Progressives, the first change helped shut them out of decision-making, and the second made large Republican tax cuts seem less damaging to the deficit than they were. They supported a motion by Slaughter (D-NY) to commit the rules package to a special committee of the majority and minority leader, with instructions that these two provisions be eliminated. Progressives voted "yes," but the motion was defeated on an almost perfect party-line vote, 200- 225 (one Republican voted with the Democrats).


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 484
Nov 14, 2002
H.R. 333. Bankruptcy Overhaul/Vote to Pass Bankruptcy Reform Measure Without Compromise Language on Abortion- Related Provision.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In a carefully crafted compromise, the conference committee on bankruptcy reform legislation included language in the conference report that would prevent individuals convicted of committing crimes against abortion clinics or doctors from filing for bankruptcy to cancel their debts. In a previous House vote (Roll Call Vote #478), however, the conference report was defeated because pro-life Republicans (who opposed the abortion-related provision) joined Democrats in voting against the conference report. In a final effort to pass bankruptcy reform legislation, Congressman Gekas (R-PA) resubmitted the conference report without the contentious abortion-related provision. By striking that provision, however, the Gekas bill nullified the compromise crafted by the conference committee and therefore stood little chance of passing the Senate and becoming law. Gekas, however, did not intend for the legislation to pass Congress; rather, his proposal was a demonstration of support for a credit card industry that has lobbied Congress for years to enact bankruptcy reform legislation. The Gekas proposal was adopted by the House on a 244-116 vote. However, because the Gekas bill torpedoed the House-Senate compromise codified in the bankruptcy reform conference report, the bill did not pass the Senate because Senate passage hinged on retaining the abortion-related provision which was not included in the Gekas bill.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
Absent N Lost
Roll Call 481
Nov 14, 2002
H.R. 5708. PAYGO Reduction/Vote to Recommit Bill to Committee As A Way to Hold Republicans Responsible for Revenue Losses Caused by Tax Cuts.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 480
Nov 14, 2002
H.R. 5063. Welfare and Unemployment Benefits/Vote on Rules of Debate to Limit Extension of Welfare and Unemployment Benefits to Current, But Not New, Jobless Workers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before legislation can be considered in the House, a rule must be adopted to govern debate on the matter. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee which acts as a functionary of the majority party leadership. The topic of this vote was a rule governing debate on legislation which would extend welfare benefits through March 31, 2003 and federal unemployment benefits through January 2003. Progressives opposed the rule because, in their view, the underlying legislation failed to provide adequate government assistance for the jobless and the poor. Progressives raised concerns that the bill would only extend unemployment benefits for current recipients and not those whose sixteen-week unemployment benefits have expired. In the view of Progressives, the jobless workers whose unemployment benefits have expired also deserved federal assistance. The rule governing debate was adopted on a 245-137 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
N N Lost
Roll Call 479
Nov 14, 2002
H.R. 5063. Welfare and Unemployment Benefits/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Limit Extension of Welfare and Unemployment Benefits to Current, But Not New, Jobless Workers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

On this vote, Republicans sought to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a rule governing debate on a bill which would extend welfare benefits through March 31, 2003 and allow current recipients of federal unemployment benefits to receive those benefits through January 2003. In the view of Progressives, the underlying legislation provided insufficient government assistance for the jobless and the poor. Progressives pointed out that the bill would only extend unemployment benefits for those workers currently receiving them. In the view of Progressives, the jobless workers whose sixteen-week unemployment benefits have expired also deserved federal assistance. The motion to move the previous question was adopted by a 207-198 vote margin and the bill was therefore allowed to move forward in the legislative process.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
N N Lost
Roll Call 478
Nov 14, 2002
H.R. 333. Bankruptcy Overhaul/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Increase the Difficulty of Filing for Bankruptcy.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Banks/Credit Card Companies
N N Won
Roll Call 477
Nov 13, 2002
H.R. 5710. Homeland Security Department/Final Passage of an Anti-Labor, Executive Power-Enhancing Bill to Create a Department of Homeland Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of legislation that would consolidate twenty-two agencies into a new cabinetlevel Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The mission of the new Department was to protect domestic security. Agencies that were relocated to the new Department were the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service among others. Proposals to create a Department of Homeland Security were originally made by Democrats shortly after the September 11th attacks; President Bush rejected Democrats' initial proposals but later crafted one of his own. Progressives opposed the Bush plan because provisions in the bill would change personnel rules to make it easier for the administration to fire civil servants in the DHS. Another area of contention involved the role of labor unions in the new Department. Under the Bush plan, civil servants in the DHS could be exempt from collective bargaining agreements. In the view of Progressives, the new DHS should not infringe on the labor rights of its employees. More generally, Progressives were concerned that the executive branch would gain more power vis-à-vis Congress in homeland security affairs because the legislation creating the new Department contained restrictions on congressional oversight of DHS actions. Despite Progressives' opposition, the legislation to create the new Department was adopted on a 299-121 vote.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
N N Lost
Roll Call 476
Nov 13, 2002
HR 5710. Homeland Security Department/Vote to Recommit to Committee an Anti-Labor, Executive Power-Enhancing Bill to Create a Department of Homeland Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 475
Nov 13, 2002
HR 5710. Homeland Security Department/Vote on Rules of Debate on an Anti-Labor, Executive Power-Enhancing Bill to Create a Department of Homeland Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The bill to create a Department of Homeland Security out of a wide range of existing government agencies included an extraordinary grant of power to the president: the ability to wave union protections for employees of the new department. This provision of the new law was anathema to Progressives. They felt unions provided critical protections for public employees and saw no need to undermine them in the name of national security. Because Progressives opposed the bill itself, they also opposed the bill's "rule": the set of instructions for debate on the bill. If the rule is voted down, the bill is effectively rejected. However, Progressive opposition to the rule for the Homeland Security bill was not enough to kill it. The rule passed 237-177.


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
N N Lost
Roll Call 474
Nov 13, 2002
H J Res 124. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Final Passage of Bill to Fund Government at Previous Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Throughout 2002, Democrats and Republicans had argued about how much the government should spend in the next fiscal year. Republicans stayed close to the Bush administration's totals, which were generally designed to restrain spending as much as possible. Progressives and Democrats in general believed that the need for stronger homeland security and the weakening of the economy required a more aggressive approach to spending. To postpone the debate until circumstances were more favorable for them, Republicans in the House proposed a number of temporary "continuing resolutions" (CRs) that funded the government at the previous year's levels. The CR at issue here funded the government until the new Congress convened in January, at which time the Republicans, as a result of the November 2002 elections, would assume control of the Senate and have a much better chance of enacting their spending goals into law. Progressives opposed this CR because they wanted to force Republicans to compromise, but they did not have the votes to prevail. The CR passed, 270-143.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 473
Nov 13, 2002
H J Res 124. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Fund Government at Previous Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Veterans
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
HEALTH CARE Veterans and Active Military Personnel
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 472
Nov 13, 2002
H J Res 124, HR 5708. Continuing Appropriations for 2003-Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Fund Government at Previous Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 470
Oct 16, 2002
H J Res 123. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Final Passage of a Bill to Fund Government at Previous Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Republicans and Democrats fought throughout 2002 over government spending for 2003. Republicans wanted to stick with strict spending limits suggested by the Bush administration. Progressives and Democrats in general felt the weakening economy and the need for greater homeland security meant it was better to err on the side of providing too much funding. Rather than pursue compromise on the issue, Republicans in the House proposed a series of "continuing resolutions" (CRs) that kept the government funded at the previous year's levels for short stretches of time. Republicans hoped to make it past the November elections without compromise, because if they took back the Senate in those elections they would be able to pass their spending plan with much less difficulty. The CR at issue here lasted one month, and so gave Republicans cover from the issue until after the November elections. Progressives and Democrats in general wanted to force Republicans into compromising on spending, so they had no desire to postpone the matter until after the elections. They voted "no" on this stopgap spending measure, but it passed 228-172.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 469
Oct 16, 2002
H J Res 123. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Fund Government at Previous Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 468
Oct 16, 2002
H J Res 123. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Fund Government at Previous Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 467
Oct 16, 2002
H J Res 123. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Fund Government at Previous Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 465
Oct 16, 2002
H.R. 2155. Drunk Driving at U.S. Borders/Senate Passage of a Bill to Allow INS to Arrest Drunk Drivers Which Lacked Protections for Motorists Against Racial Profiling.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House adopted legislation on October 16 to allow agents of the Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to arrest drunk drivers intending to cross into the United States. Progressives voiced concerns that the bill included no safeguards against racial profiling and voted in opposition to the measure on those grounds. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) drafted an amendment to the bill which would have required the INS to keep records on motorists detained for drunk driving as a way to guard against racial profiling; GOP leaders, however, opposed the Jackson-Lee amendment and prevented the measure from being debated on the House floor. The legislation allowing the INS to arrest drunk drivers was adopted on a 296-94 vote.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 461
Oct 10, 2002
H J Res 122. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Final Passage of a Bill to Fund Government at Previous Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Throughout 2002, Congress was unable to pass spending bills for 2003 because the Republican House and the Democratic Senate could not agree on the amount that should be spent. House Republicans wanted strict controls on spending that had been advocated by the Bush administration. Progressives and Democrats in general felt these spending levels were unrealistically low and deprived the government of money for needed social programs and homeland security. To keep the government running without compromising on the larger issues, House Republicans proposed this resolution, which funded the government at fiscal 2002 levels for eight days. Republicans hoped to make it past the November elections without compromise, because if they took back the Senate in those elections they would be able to pass their spending plan with much less difficulty. Progressives opposed the resolution because they wanted Republicans to compromise on the spending issue and do so before the elections. They voted "no," but the measure passed, 272-144.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 460
Oct 10, 2002
H J Res 122. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Fund Government at Previous Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 459
Oct 10, 2002
H J Res 122. Continuing Appropriations for 2003/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Fund Government at Previous Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 455
Oct 10, 2002
H.J. Res. 114. Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force in Iraq/Final Passage of Bill to Allow an Unprovoked U.S. Attack Against Iraq.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a bill that would provide the president with congressional authorization to conduct unilateral military operations in Iraq. In the view of Progressives, the congressional grant of authority to the president would weaken the constitutional role of Congress in declaring war, isolate the U.S. from the international community if the military campaign were conducted unilaterally, and establish a dangerous precedent of preemption which would allow the U.S. and other countries as well to unilaterally determine whether another country constitutes enough of a threat to merit an invasion. The use-of-force resolution passed the House on a 296-133 vote.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y N Lost
Roll Call 454
Oct 10, 2002
H.J. Res. 114. Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force in Iraq/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Allow an Unprovoked U.S. Attack Against Iraq.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In the House, opponents of legislation are provided the right to vote on recommitting the bill to committee with instructions to change the measure. During House debate on a use-of-force resolution which would grant congressional approval for the president to initiate a war in Iraq, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) offered a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that would have required the president-prior to any military operations-to submit to Congress an estimate of the impact of the war on the U.S. economy, Iraqi citizens, and international stability. In the view of Progressives, the use of force should be the option of last resort and they supported the Kucinich motion as a way to insure that the costs of the war were adequately considered prior to military action. The motion to recommit the use-of-force resolution to committee was defeated on a 101-325 vote.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 453
Oct 10, 2002
H.J. Res. 114. Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force in Iraq/Vote to Require Congressional Compliance Prior to Military Action in Iraq.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 452
Oct 10, 2002
H.J. Res. 114. Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force in Iraq/Vote to Impel President to Work Through U.N. to Disarm Iraq.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Since Congress returned in early September from its summer recess, the Bush Administration had been focused on passing a use-of-force authorization which would allow the President to undertake unilateral military action against Iraq. Progressives opposed the use-of-force resolution because, in their view, military actions against Iraq should be undertaken with strong international support (such was the case in 1991 when the United Nations backed the U.S.-led Iraqi invasion). Moreover, Progressives worried that establishing a doctrine of preemption-in which the U.S. could attack any country determined by the president to be threatening-would undermine international law and serve to isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world. Moreover, Progressives worried that the doctrine of preemption could be used by other countries to justify unilateral military actions. The consolidation of presidential power was also a concern to Progressives. Progressives pointed out that the U.S. Constitution specifies that Congress, and not the President, is the sole entity responsible for declaring war. During debate on the use-of-force resolution, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) proposed an amendment which would have urged President Bush to work through the United Nations to ensure that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction. Progressives supported Lee's proposal as a way to insure international cooperation in a potential conflict with Iraq. The Lee amendment was defeated on a 72-355 vote.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE Respect for International Law & the United Nations
WAR & PEACE War with Iraq
N Y Lost
Roll Call 441
Oct 03, 2002
Sense of the House Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should Complete Its Work on Funding the Nation's Transportation Infrastructure.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
ENVIRONMENT Rail Transportation
N N Lost
Roll Call 440
Oct 03, 2002
Sense of the House Resolution /Vote to Table (Kill) a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should Repeal Funding Cuts to Hospitals that Serve Low-Income Patients.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HEALTH CARE Funding for Rural Hospitals
N N Lost
Roll Call 438
Oct 03, 2002
H.J. Res. 112. Fiscal 2003 Continuing Appropriations/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Fund Government at Previous Year's Levels Rather than Find Compromise Solution on New Spending Priorities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Every year, Congress must enact thirteen appropriations bill in order to fund government agencies and programs. If agreement cannot be reached among lawmakers on funding levels for the upcoming fiscal year (which begins on October 1st of each calendar year), a continuing resolution (or CR) must be adopted to extend appropriations from the prior fiscal year into the future (under a CR, federal departments and programs are funded at the previous year's level). If agreement cannot be reached on a CR, the government is shut down; this situation occurred in 1995 when congressional Republicans and President Clinton could not reach agreement on the appropriations bills. In late-2002, the legislative calendar was jammed with resolutions to authorize the use of force in Iraq and provide additional funding for homeland security; as a result, only five of the thirteen appropriations bills for 2003 funding had passed the House as of October 3, 2002. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on a continuing resolution which would extend funding for government agencies and programs until October 11, 2002 that were due to expire under a previously adopted CR. During House debate, Progressives raised concerns with the approach of continuously adopting CR's to keep the government functioning because current spending needs (i.e. 2003 and not 2002) are not reflected in the resolutions (those resolutions are based on 2002 funding levels). Moreover, Progressives argued that continuously debating and adopting CR's on a week-to-week basis would hinder Congress's ability to deal with important legislative items such as the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. The motion to move the previous question was passed on a 206-198 vote and the continuing resolution was subsequently adopted by an overwhelming 404-7 vote margin.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 436
Oct 02, 2002
Sense of the House Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should Complete Its Work on the 2003 Labor, Health, and Human Services (Labor/HHS) Spending Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In an effort to castigate the Senate for failing to act on several House-passed bills, House GOP leaders drafted several "sense of the House" resolutions which stated that Congress (i.e. the Senate) should adopt those House-passed bills and thereby allow the measures to be signed into law by President Bush (in contrast to other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law). To counter the GOP's "blame-game" legislative strategy, House Democrats proposed several resolutions of their own to chastise the House for inaction on Senate-passed legislation. On this vote, Congressman LaHood (R-IL) motioned to table (or strike down) a sense of the House resolution drafted by Congressman Obey (D-WI). The Obey resolution would have expressed the sense of the House that Congress should complete its work on the 2003 Labor, Health, and Human Services (Labor/HHS) spending bill. Progressives supported the Obey resolution because, in their view, adopting the Labor/HHS spending bill was of vital importance for insuring adequate government funding for a broad range of human needs. LaHood's motion to strike down the Obey resolution passed on a straight party line vote of 212-202.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Lost
Roll Call 435
Oct 02, 2002
Sense of the House Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should Extend the Farm Bankruptcy Program to Include Family Fishermen.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
N N Lost
Roll Call 434
Oct 02, 2002
Sense of the House Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should Speed the Approval Process of Generic (Less Expensive) Drugs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Frequently, legislation is passed by one legislative body but not the other; in those cases, the measure is defeated for that congressional session. Towards the end of the 2002 congressional session, House GOP leaders drafted several "sense of the House" resolutions which stated that Congress (i.e. the Senate) should act on several House-passed bills. In contrast to other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law. In response to the GOP's "blame-game" legislative strategy, Democrats proposed several resolutions of their own which in turn admonished the House for inaction on Senate-passed legislation. On this vote, Congressman Burr (R-NC) motioned to table (or strike down) a sense of the House resolution proposed by Congressman Brown (D-OH). The Brown resolution would have urged the House to adopt legislation to speed the approval process of generic drugs. Progressives opposed the tabling motion based on their support for Brown's resolution. In the view of Progressives, generic drugs should be available to consumers as quickly as possible as a way to defray the often enormous costs of brand-name prescription drugs. The motion to strike down the Brown resolution was adopted by a 212-204 vote margin.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
N N Lost
Roll Call 433
Oct 02, 2002
Sense of the House Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should Fully-Fund Education as Required By Law.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before legislation can pass Congress, the measure must be adopted by the House and the Senate in identical forms. Frequently, bills are passed by one legislative body but not the other; in those cases, the legislation is defeated. In an effort to admonish the Senate for its failure to act on several House-passed measures, House GOP leaders drafted several "sense of the House" resolutions which stated that the Senate should act on those issues. In contrast to other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law. In response to the GOP's "blame-game" legislative strategy, Democrats proposed several resolutions of their own which would castigate the House for inaction on Senate-passed legislation. The subject of this vote was a motion by Congressman Miller (R-FL) to table (or strike down) a sense of the House resolution drafted by Congressman Visclosky (D-IN). Visclosky's resolution would have urged the House to provide funding on par with Senate levels for the implementation of education overhaul legislation enacted in 2001 (the House provided less funding for that bill than did the Senate). Progressives opposed Miller's motion to table the Visclosky resolution because, in their view, the House provided insufficient funding for states to implement the 2001 education legislation. The motion to strike down the Visclosky's measure was adopted on a 210-200 vote.


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
N N Lost
Roll Call 430
Oct 02, 2002
H. Res. 543. Sense of the House Resolution/Passage of Resolution Expressing the Sense of the House That Republican Tax Relief Bill for Married Couples Should Be Adopted.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In the tax code, married couples receive a smaller deduction than they would had they filed taxes separately. Legislation was considered in the House and Senate which would have provided joint filers with twice the deductible that single filers receive, thereby correcting the so-called "marriage penalty" in the tax code. Differences between the House and Senate bills, however, were unable to be resolved before Congress adjourned for the congressional session. The subject of this vote was a non-binding resolution expressing the "sense of the House" that Congress should pass legislation to permanently extend tax breaks for married couples contained in the 1.35 trillion tax cut measure adopted in 2001 (the tax breaks in the 2001 bill would expire in 2010). In the view of Progressives, the non-binding resolution was a GOP-effort to blame the Senate for failing enact the House-passed marriage penalty tax relief bill ("sense of the House" resolutions do not have the force of law). In the view of Progressives, the Senate bill was a more responsible approach for two reasons. First, the Senate version would apply marriage penalty relief to all married couples (in contrast, the House-passed measure would not extend the marriage tax breaks to low-income married couples). Second, the Senate bill did not make the tax breaks permanent. During the current period of rising federal budget deficits, Progressives felt as though the government was not in a financial position to provide permanent tax cuts. Moreover, Progressives worried that the GOP-drafted marriage breaks would threaten other programs like Social Security. Based on their objections to the House-passed marriage tax break bill and the GOP's political posturing on the issue, Progressives voted in opposition to the sense of the House resolution. Despite objections from Progressives, however, the resolution was adopted by a 285-130 margin.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 429
Oct 02, 2002
H.R. 2357. Churches and Campaign Activities/Passage of Bill to Erode Separation of Church and State By Allowing Religious Groups to Conduct Campaign Activities and Still Retain Their Tax Exempt Status.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
N N Won
Roll Call 421
Sep 26, 2002
H.R. 4600. Medical Malpractice Awards/Passage of Bill to Restrict Patients' Abilities to Bring Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Against Negligent Doctors.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Doctors
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Pharmaceutical Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Doctors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals
N N Lost
Roll Call 420
Sep 26, 2002
H.R. 4600. Medical Malpractice Awards/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Restrict Patients' Abilities to Bring Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Against Negligent Doctors.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Doctors
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Pharmaceutical Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Doctors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 419
Sep 26, 2002
H.R. 4600. Medical Malpractice Awards/Vote on Rules of Debate for a Bill to Restrict Patients' Abilities to Bring Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Against Negligent Doctors.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Doctors
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Pharmaceutical Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Doctors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals
N N Lost
Roll Call 416
Sep 26, 2002
H.R. 2215. Justice Department Reauthorization/Vote to Allow Consideration of Justice Department Reauthorization Bill Which Under-Funded the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The purpose of authorizing legislation is to provide congressional appropriators (those lawmakers who sit on the Appropriations Committee) with a financial blueprint for future spending priorities. The subject of this vote was a motion to move the previous question (thereby ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on legislation to reauthorize spending for Justice Department operations. During debate on the motion, Progressives raised several concerns with the underlying authorization. In their view, the authorization bill failed to provide sufficient funding for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Among other things, the Civil Rights Division is responsible for insuring that law enforcement agents do not infringe upon the rights of citizens. Democrats voted unanimously in opposition to the authorizing legislation but the measure was adopted on a 208-199 vote.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 415
Sep 25, 2002
H. Res. 544. Sense of the House Resolution/Passage of a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should Pass Republican Pension Benefits Legislation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Throughout 2002, Republicans sought to make permanent the various temporary provisions in the $1.3 trillion Bush tax cut of 2001. One provision of the tax cut that the GOP wanted to make permanent involved tax breaks to encourage more pension and retirement contributions. Progressives opposed making pension tax breaks permanent because, in their view, extending such incentives was useless without first addressing corporate corruption because executives could still destroy retirement programs through corporate misbehavior. Progressives were also concerned that the technical complexity of the pension tax breaks under consideration would enable only those individuals with personal tax accountants to take advantage of them (the more affluent people are, the more likely they will use tax accountants). The employee pension tax break did not pass the Senate in 2002 and was not signed into law as a result. In a effort to admonish the Senate for its inaction, House GOP leaders drafted a "sense of the House" resolution which stated that Congress should pass employee pension tax breaks. Unlike all other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law. Progressives opposed passage of the sense of the House resolution based on their objections to the underlying legislation. The resolution was adopted by a 291-118 vote margin.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
N N Lost
Roll Call 414
Sep 25, 2002
H. Res. 540. Sense of the House Resolution/Passage of a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should Pass Republican Pension Benefits Legislation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Pension reform became a hot issue on Capitol Hill after scandals at Enron and other corporations caused employees to lose their retirement pensions. Enron, for instance, prevented its employees from selling their company stock; as Enron's stock value fell in response to the company's fraudulent accounting practices, so too did employee pension funds. In response to this and other corporate misbehavior, Republicans drafted a reform bill that would made it easier for employees to diversify company pension plans and would require employers to provide employees with outside investment advice. Progressives agreed with the goals of the GOP bill but they had problems with specifics of the legislation. Specifically, they worried that outside investment advisors would recommend stocks from the sale of which they would personally benefit. Progressives also opposed a provision in the bill which, in their view, would allow for a less equitable allocation of pension money between executives and employees. The GOP-drafted employee pension bill was not passed by the Senate. In an effort to castigate the Senate for its inaction on the measure, House GOP leaders drafted a "sense of the House" resolution which stated that Congress (i.e. the Senate) should pass the employee pensions bill adopted by the House. Unlike all other legislation, sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law. Progressives opposed passage of the resolution based on their objections to the underlying legislation. The resolution was adopted on a 258-152 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
N N Lost
Roll Call 413
Sep 25, 2002
H. Res. 547. Sense of the House Resolution/Vote to Allow Consideration of Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should Adopt Republican Legislation in Areas of Employee Pensions, Tax Relief for Married Couples, and Pension Benefits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
N N Lost
Roll Call 412
Sep 25, 2002
H.R. 4691. Abortion Service Refusals/Passage of a Bill Which Jeopardizes Abortion Rights By Allowing Both Health Care Providers to Refuse to Perform an Abortion and Insurance Companies to Reject Payment for Abortions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was House passage of legislation that would provide hospitals and other health care providers the right to refuse conducting an abortion and allow insurance companies to reject payment for abortions. Progressives opposed the legislation because, in their estimation, the legislation would compromise a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Many areas of the country have few health care facilities that are able to perform abortions; allowing those facilities to refuse treatment to women seeking an abortion would, Progressives argued, require those women to travel great distances to receive the medical procedure. The legislation was adopted on a 229-189 vote. (Similar legislation did not pass the Senate and the measure was not signed into law.)


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Hospitals
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals
N N Lost
Roll Call 411
Sep 25, 2002
H.R. 4691. Abortion Service Refusals/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Which Jeopardizes Abortion Rights By Allowing Both Health Care Providers to Refuse to Perform an Abortion and Insurance Companies to Reject Payment for Abortions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the few procedural prerogatives extended to opponents of legislation in the House is the motion to recommit. That motion, if successful, recommits the bill to committee and is usually accompanied with instructions to change the legislation. During House debate on a bill that would provide hospitals and other health care providers an exemption from performing abortions and permit insurance companies to reject payment for abortions, Congressman Brown (D-OH) offered a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that would have added language in the bill to: 1) clarify that none of the bill's provisions would authorize a medical institution to withhold from patients medically appropriate information or services; 2) disallow a medical care facility from barring its employees from providing all medically appropriate information or services; and 3) prevent the federal law from preempting state laws and regulations. Progressives supported the motion to recommit because, in their view, the original text of the legislation would hinder the rights of women from choosing whether or not to have an abortion. The motion to recommit was rejected by a 191-230 vote margin.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Hospitals
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 410
Sep 25, 2002
H.R. 4691. Abortion Service Refusals/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Which Jeopardizes Abortion Rights By Allowing Both Health Care Providers to Refuse to Perform an Abortion and Insurance Companies to Reject Payment for Abortions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Prior to floor consideration of legislation, a rule must be adopted to set parameters on House debate. Rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on a bill that would enable hospitals and other health care providers to refuse performing abortions and would also permit insurance companies to reject payment for abortions. In the view of Progressives, the bill would compromise a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and they opposed the rule based on their objections to the underlying legislation. Especially in sparsely populated areas, Progressives argued, there may be a limited number of health care facilities able to perform an abortion; if those facilities were exempt from conducting abortions, women in those areas would likely have to travel great distances to receive the medical procedure. The rule was adopted on a 229-194 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Hospitals
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Accountability of Doctors & Hospitals
N N Lost
Roll Call 401
Sep 19, 2002
H. Res. 524. Sense of the House Resolution/Vote on Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should Repeal the Estate Tax.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In a symbolic gesture endorsing the repeal of the estate tax, House Republicans drafted a resolution that would express the "sense of the House" that before Congress adjourns, it should pass legislation to make permanent the estate tax repeal contained in the $1.35 trillion tax cut bill enacted in 2001 (in that bill, the estate tax would be reinstated in 2011). Progressives opposed the resolution because, in their estimation, the estate tax repeal disproportionately favored wealthy individuals. In a tough economic climate, Progressives argued, assistance should be provided to low and middle income taxpayers rather than high-income individuals. The resolution was adopted on a 242-158 vote.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 400
Sep 19, 2002
H. Res. 525. Sense of the House Resolution/Vote Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should Enact Republican Welfare Overhaul Legislation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Negotiations between the House and Senate over legislation to overhaul the welfare system failed to produce legislative agreement before Congress adjourned. Contentious provisions contained in the House bill would have added eligibility restrictions on welfare recipients and revoked welfare benefits for legal immigrants. Although agreement could not be reached on the welfare bill, Republicans drafted a resolution expressing the "sense of the House" that Congress should present President Bush a welfare reform bill (sense of the House resolutions are non-binding and lack the force of law). Progressives opposed the resolution; in their view, the welfare reforms would adversely impact the welfare system by denying benefits to individuals in need. The resolution was adopted 280-123.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
N N Lost
Roll Call 398
Sep 19, 2002
H. Res. 524, H. Res. 525. Sense of the House Resolutions/Vote Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should Enact Republican Welfare Overhaul Bill and Repeal the Estate Tax.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 397
Sep 19, 2002
H. Res. 524, H. Res. 525. Sense of the House Resolutions/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Measure Expressing the Sense of the House that Congress Should Enact Republican Welfare Overhaul Bill and Repeal the Estate Tax.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 395
Sep 18, 2002
H.R. 1701. Rent-to-Own Contracts/Passage of a Bill to Protect Consumers Against the Rent-To-Own Industry.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a bill to impose federal rules on the rent-to-own industry. Those rules would classify rent-to-own contracts as leases rather than credit payments. Progressives favored the credit payment classification rather than lease payments because consumers would be provided more protections against merchants under such a classification. The Truth in Lending Act, for instance, protects consumers making credit payments but not lease payments. The rent-to-own regulations were adopted on a vote of 215-201.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER "Rent to Own" Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 394
Sep 18, 2002
H.R. 1701. Rent-to-Own Contracts/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Protect Consumers Against the Rent-To- Own Industry.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In House debate, one of the few procedural prerogatives afforded to opponents of legislation considered is a motion to recommit. If successful, the recommit motion sends a measure back to the committee with jurisdiction on the issue and is usually accompanied with specific instructions to change the legislation. During debate on rent-to-own legislation, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) made a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that the committee delete provisions in the bill that would impose federal rules on states that provide strong consumer protections against rent-toown merchants. Progressives voted in favor of the motion; in their view, the federal law classifying all rent-to-own contracts as leases rather than credit payments provided consumers with inadequate consumer protections against merchants. The motion to recommit was rejected 190-227.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER "Rent to Own" Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 393
Sep 18, 2002
H.R. 1701. Rent-to-Own Contracts/Vote to Protect Consumers Against Loss and Damage to Rent-To-Own Merchandise Except In Cases of Intentional or Negligent Conduct.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Current law provides rent-to-own companies great latitude in holding their customers liable for loss, damage, or destruction of property (consumers, for instance, could be held liable for fire damage even if they were not at fault in the fire). During debate on rent-to-own legislation, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) proposed a measure which would have prevented merchants from making consumers liable for damage except in cases of intentional or negligent conduct. Progressives supported the Waters amendment because, in their view, consumers should be protected against rent-to-own merchants for damage that was not their fault. The Waters proposal was defeated on a vote of 157-255.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER "Rent to Own" Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 392
Sep 18, 2002
H.R. 1701. Rent-to-Own Contracts/Vote to Protect Consumers Against the Rent-To-Own Industry by Mandating that Total Cost of Merchandise Cannot Exceed Twice Its Cash Price.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on legislation to impose federal rules on the rent-to-own industry, Congressman LaFalce (D-NY) offered an amendment which would have limited the total cost of a product bought through a rent-to-own contract to twice its cash price. Progressives endorsed LaFalce's proposal as a necessary consumer protection. Moreover, Progressives argued, many rent-to-own customers earn low incomes and are forced to rent because they cannot afford the cash price of the merchandise; those individuals, in the view of Progressives, should not pay an excessive amount before they are conferred ownership. The LaFalce amendment was defeated by a 184-232 margin.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER "Rent to Own" Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 391
Sep 18, 2002
H.R. 1701. Rent-to-Own Contracts/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Protect Consumers Against the Rent-To-Own Industry.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The rent-to-own industry generates an estimated $5.3 billion in sales a year renting furniture, appliances, and other goods to consumers. After a consumer has paid a certain amount in rent-which is usually more than the original cost of the merchandise-they then have an option of buying the merchandise outright. Most states classify rent-to-own transactions as leases rather than credit payments. Classifying the transactions as credit payments, however, would provide consumers greater protections. Four states-Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Vermont-do classify those transactions as credit payments because most customers end up purchasing the merchandise. Legislation was drafted by the GOP to impose federal regulations on the rent-to-own industry. The most contentious provision in the bill would classify all rent-to-own transactions as leases (including transactions in those consumer-friendly states where they are considered credit payments). Progressives opposed the lease classification because it would provide consumers with fewer protections; unlike lease payments, credit payments confer a degree of ownership to the consumer. The subject of this vote was a rule governing debate on the rent-to-own bill (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership). Progressives voted in opposition to the rule based on their opposition to the underlying legislation. The rule was adopted on a 238-178 vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER "Rent to Own" Industry
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Consumer Protection
N N Lost
Roll Call 387
Sep 12, 2002
H.R. 5193. Education Tax Deduction/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Allow Public Funding of Private Schools.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

On this vote, Republicans sought passage of a rule governing debate on a bill which would allow low-income parents to deduct their child's private school education expenses (prior to House floor consideration of legislation, a rule drafted by the House Rules Committee must be adopted). Progressives opposed the rule based on their objections to the underlying legislation. Tax-exemptions for private school expenses, they argued, would essentially transfer taxpayer money to private schools much like a private-school voucher system. In the view of Progressives, taxpayer money should be spent on public schools and not private schools because low-income families rarely can afford a private school education for their children. The rule governing debate was narrowly adopted on a 208-201 vote. Subsequently, GOP leaders pulled the legislation from floor debate because they feared that moderate Republicans would support a Democratic motion to recommit the bill to committee. A motion to recommit, if successful, is usually a deathblow to a piece of legislation.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for Private & Religious Schools
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 371
Sep 04, 2002
H.R. 5203. Education Tax Break/Passage of a Bill to Provide a Public Subsidy to Private Schools.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for Private & Religious Schools
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Separation of Church & State
N N Won
Roll Call 370
Jul 27, 2002
H.R. 3009. Trade Promotion Authority/Final Passage of a Conference Report Enabling the President to Place International Trade Agreements Above Worker and Environmental Protections.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The subject of this vote was final passage of a conference report which would grant the president with trade promotion authority on international trade agreements reached before June 1, 2005. The new executive power would limit congressional influence in international trade agreements to an up-or-down vote; no amendments to those agreements would be allowed during congressional debate on the matter. Progressives opposed the conference report because, in their view, congressional influence in international trade agreements should be preserved; providing the president with added leverage in international bargaining, they argued, would undermine the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. The conference report passed the House by a narrow 215- 212 margin, was later adopted by the Senate, and was signed into law by President Bush.


ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
N N Lost
Roll Call 369
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 3009. Trade Promotion Authority/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Enabling the President to Place International Trade Agreements Above Worker and Environmental Protections.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
N N Lost
Roll Call 368
Jul 26, 2002
H. Res. 507. Waiver of House Rules/Vote to Reduce Procedural Rights of Minority Party by Circumventing House Rules on the Consideration of Legislation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Before legislation can be considered on the House floor, agreement must be reached on a rule that governs the handling of a particular bill on the floor (rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee, an arm of the majority party leadership). However, if the rule is to be adopted by the House on the same day it was reported from the Rules Committee, a two-thirds majority vote on the rule must be obtained (ordinarily, rules can be passed with a simple majority). In a effort to circumvent the two-thirds requirement and allow for same day consideration of three pieces of legislation-which pertained to trade promotion authority, bankruptcy reform, and election reform-Republicans proposed a resolution to waive the twothirds requirement and allow three rules governing debate on those bills to be passed with a simple majority vote. Progressives opposed the resolution because, in their view, the Republican's unorthodox parliamentary maneuvering violated their procedural rights. The motion to adopt the resolution providing for same-day consideration of the three rules was passed 217-207.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 367
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Final Passage of Anti-Labor (Republican) Version of Bill Which Restricts Labor Rights of Public Employees in Department and Limits Congressional Oversight of Department.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In the wake of the September 11th attacks, congressional Democrats sought to consolidate those federal agencies with a role in protecting the U.S. against terrorist attacks into a new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The new Department would include such agencies as the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, among others. The consolidation plan, Democrats argued, would foster information-sharing among the agencies and would offer better protections against possible future attacks. President Bush initially rejected the Democratic plan but later developed a similar proposal of his own. Progressives opposed the Bush proposal for two main reasons. First, the new Department would not be subjected to the same level of congressional oversight as are other executive Departments. The new Department, Progressives worried, would be immune from congressional scrutiny and the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers between Congress and the White House would be undermined as a result. Second, the bill would allow the administration to restrict the ability of DHS employees to join a union and negotiate collective bargaining agreements (those rights which are provided to federal employees in every other executive Department). In the view of Progressives, the limitations on labor rights for DHS employees was unfair; those employees, Progressives argued, should be afforded the same labor rights they enjoyed prior to their transfer to the DHS (most DHS employees would be transferred from other federal agencies). The subject of this vote was final passage of the administration's DHS consolidation plan. Progressives opposed final passage for the two reasons described above. On a vote of 295-132, the legislation creating a new Department of Homeland Security was adopted.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Airports
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
LABOR RIGHTS General Union Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
N N Lost
Roll Call 364
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Allow Congressional Oversight of Department.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
N N Won
Roll Call 363
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Allow Congressional Oversight of Department and Protect the Labor Rights of Public Employees in Department.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was enacted by Congress in 1966 to insure that every citizen has a right, enforceable in court, to access to federal agency records. Provisions in a bill to merge twenty-six federal agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), however, include additional exemptions to FOIA beyond the nine exemptions originally provided for in the 1966 law. During debate on the DHS consolidation bill, Congresswoman Schakowsky (D-IL) proposed legislation that would have deleted those additional FOIA exemptions from the underlying legislation. The amendment Schakowsky would have also allowed additional protections for federal employees who report illegal activities in their agency or department. Progressives supported both provisions of the Schakowsky proposal as a way to insure that any wrongdoing in the new DHS can be exposed; either by the public through its access to declassified DHS information or by DHS employees themselves. The Schakowsky measure was struck down on a 188- 240 vote.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Right to Government Information
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 362
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Retain Deadline For Installation of Airport Bomb Detectors.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One provision in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) consolidation legislation would extend the deadline for airports to install bomb detection equipment by one year to December 31, 2003. During debate on the DHS consolidation plan, Congressman Oberstar (D-MN) proposed an amendment which would have eliminated the deadline extension; had Oberstar's proposal passed, airports would be required to have bomb detection equipment in place by December 31, 2002. Progressives supported the Oberstar amendment because, in their view, bomb detection equipment should be installed as soon as possible to insure the safety of airline passengers. The Oberstar measure was defeated on by a 211-217 vote margin.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Airports
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 361
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Exempt Private Airport Security Screening Companies From Liability for Negligent Actions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Airport Security Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Airport Security Industry
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 360
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Protect the Labor Rights of Employees in Department.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 359
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Hold Private Security Screening Companies Liable for Negligent Actions and Promote the Development of Anti-Terrorism Technologies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

During debate on the Department of Homeland Security consolidation plan, Congressman Turner (D-TX) offered an amendment which would have protected companies that produce anti-terrorism technologies for federal, state, and local governments against lawsuits. Progressives supported the Turner bill because, in their view, the amendment reached a responsible compromise between expediting the implementation of anti-terrorism technologies and protecting the safety of airline passengers from the use of faulty anti-terrorism equipment by airline security employees. Unlike the Armey amendment (see Roll Call Vote #361), the Turner proposal would not provide legal protections for negligent actions by airline security employees unless the anti-terrorism equipment used by those employees-such as bomb detectors and luggage screening devices-was found to be defective. Progressives supported the legal protections for companies that develop anti-terrorism technologies as a way to inspire the development of more and better anti-terrorism equipment to protect airline passengers. In the view of Progressives, however, legal protections should not be extended to airline security companies whose employees misused effective anti-terrorism equipment. Despite the support from Progressives, the Turner amendment was narrowly rejected on a 214-215 vote.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Airport Security Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Airport Security Industry
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 358
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Allow President to Nullify Collective Bargaining Rights of Public Employees in Department

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
N N Lost
Roll Call 357
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote on Compromise Measure to Protect the Labor Rights of Public Employees in Department.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 356
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Allow the President to Revoke the Labor Rights of Public Employees in Department.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
N N Lost
Roll Call 355
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Allow the U.S. Military to Assist in Domestic Law Enforcement.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Since 1878, it has been a crime to deploy Federal troops as enforcers of civilian law. During debate on a bill which would consolidate twenty-six federal agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Congressman Rogers (DKY) proposed legislation which would have authorized the secretary of DHS to establish a Joint Interagency Security Task Force to assist in domestic law enforcement activities. Progressives opposed the Roger's amendment because, in their view, the roles of the military and law enforcement in protecting the U.S. should remain distinct. Allowing military involvement in domestic law enforcement, Progressives worried, would reduce civil liberties because servicemen are not trained to enforce civilian law. Moreover, Progressives voiced concerns that the military could be used for political ends in civilian matters and thereby produce a repressive, totalitarian state. Despite opposition from Progressives, Rogers' amendment was adopted on a 240-188 vote.


WAR & PEACE Arming/Militarizing Civilians as Reaction to Security Threats
N N Lost
Roll Call 354
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Keep the Customs Service Distinct From the Massive (and Potentially Cumbersome) Department of Homeland Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Like other agencies, the Customs Service handles critical homeland security functions (such as border protection) as well as non-homeland security functions (such as regulating currency). During debate on the Department of Homeland (DHS) consolidation plan, Congressman Cardin (D-MD) offered an amendment which would have preserved the Customs Service as a distinct entity within the new Department. Progressives supported the Cardin measure because, in their view, the non-security functions of the Customs Service (which was formerly housed in the Treasury Department) should not be included in the new Department. In the view of Progressives, the grant of executive authority provided in the DHS consolidation should be limited to preserve the constitutionally-mandated balance of power between Congress and the White House. The non-security functions of the Customs Service, Progressives worried, would not be subjected to the same level of congressional oversight if the agency was absorbed by the DHS (the administration's consolidation plan would limit congressional oversight on DHS activities). The Cardin amendment was defeated on a 177-245 vote.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 353
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Keep the Federal Emergency Management Agency Distinct From the Massive (and Potentially Cumbersome) Department of Homeland Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the federal agency responsible for directing and coordinating activities on the ground during an emergency situation. In an effort to streamline the jurisdiction of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during debate on the DHS consolidation bill, Congressman Oberstar (D-MN) proposed an amendment which would have maintained FEMA's status as an independent federal agency. In the view of Progressives, Oberstar's proposal was necessary to insure that FEMA would continue to respond quickly to emergency situations. Including FEMA with numerous other agencies within the DHS, Progressives worried, would require enormous bureaucratic coordination and could hinder FEMA's ability to respond quickly as situations warrant. More generally, Progressives supported Oberstar's amendment as a way to limit the size and scope of the new Department. In contrast to other executive departments, the legislation which would create the DHS limited congressional oversight in DHS affairs. Progressives worried that congressional influence in domestic security activities, which were already limited in the DHS legislation, would be further diminished if the DHS contained agencies that were not directly involved in preventing future terrorist attacks. Despite the support from Progressives, the Oberstar amendment was rejected by a 165-261 vote margin.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 352
Jul 26, 2002
H.R. 5005. Creation of a Department of Homeland Security/Vote to Strengthen Congressional Oversight of Department Activities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, congressional Democrats sought to consolidate those federal agencies which play a role in protecting the U.S. against terrorist attacks into a new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The new Department would include the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service among others. The consolidation plan, Democrats argued, would foster information-sharing among the agencies and would therefore offer better protections against possible future attacks. President Bush initially rejected the idea but later crafted a similar restructuring of his own. One major difference between the Democrats' proposal and the Bush plan involved congressional oversight of the new Department. Under the Democratic plan, DHS activities would be subject to oversight and the director of the DHS would require Senate confirmation. The Bush plan, conversely, contained neither of these provisions. During debate on the administration's proposal, Congressman Waxman (D-CA) proposed an amendment which would have tightened congressional oversight of the new Department. Progressives supported the Waxman amendment because, in their view, the new Department should be subject to the standards of congressional scrutiny faced by other executive agencies. The Bush plan, Progressives worried, would erode Congress's influence in security matters and therefore undermine the constitutional separation of powers. Republicans voted unanimously in opposition to the Waxman proposal and the measure was defeated on a 175-248 vote.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 351
Jul 25, 2002
H.R. 4946. Long-Term Health Care/Motion to Suspend House Rules and Pass a Bill to Provide Tax Breaks to Wealthy Seniors Enrolled in Long-Term Health Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
HEALTH CARE Aid to the Chronically Ill
N N Lost
Roll Call 347
Jul 24, 2002
HR 4628. Authorizing Intelligence Programs for 2003/Vote to Establish an Independent Task Force to Examine Security Failures Involving the September 11th Attacks.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
WAR & PEACE Intelligence Agencies' Oversight
Y Y Won
Roll Call 343
Jul 24, 2002
HR 4965. Ban on "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions/Final Passage of a Bill to Restrict Abortion Rights By Banning "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision prevented most restrictions on a woman's access to abortion. In an attempt to ban as much as possible within the confines of the decision, Republicans focused on a procedure that they called "partial birth" abortion and physicians called "intact dilation and extraction." This type of abortion was used to protect the health of the mother once the pregnancy had passed a certain point. Republicans proposed a ban on dilation and extraction abortions that made an exception only for the life of the mother, not her health, and potentially banned abortions of fetuses that were not viable outside the womb and so could not be considered "alive" according to precedents handed down by Supreme Court. For these reasons, Progressives argued the ban was unconstitutional. They opposed the ban, not simply because they believed in a woman's right to choose, but because it seemed foolish to them to pass a law that would only be struck down by the Supreme Court. The voted "no," but the ban passed 274-151.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
N N Lost
Roll Call 342
Jul 24, 2002
HR 4965. Ban on "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Restrict Abortion Rights By Banning "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Republicans wanted to restrict access to abortion as much as the constitution would permit, so they proposed a bill to ban "intact dilation and extraction" abortions. Republicans called these "partial birth" abortions, but they were performed in rare cases when the health of the mother was in question but the pregnancy had passed a certain point. Progressives argued that this ban still ran afoul of constitutional restrictions because it made no exception for the health of the mother. To try to add such an exemption, Baldwin (D-WI) moved to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that a health exception be added. Progressives voted for this motion because they believed a health exception was essential, but it was rejected 187-241.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 340
Jul 24, 2002
HR 4965. Ban on "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Restrict Abortion Rights By Banning "Dilation and Extraction" Abortions.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Republicans had long sought to ban a rare procedure they called "partial birth" abortion. Physicians called this procedure "intact dilation and extraction," and used it to protect the health of the mother when the abortion was performed past a certain stage in the pregnancy. When Republicans in the House proposed banning the procedure, pro-choice members-including Progressivesargued the ban was unconstitutional because it made no exception for the mother's health and could potentially ban abortions of fetuses that could not survive outside the womb. In the House, most bills come with a set of instructions for the conduct of debate that must be passed before the bill itself can be considered. This "rule" was unusually restrictive for the bill to ban dilation and extraction abortions. In an attempt to prevent pro-choice members from proposing exceptions for the health of the mother, the rule banned any amendments to the bill. Progressives would have opposed the rule one way or the other, but they were particularly angry at being closed out of the debate. Nonetheless, a number of antiabortion Democrats voted for the rule and it passed by a healthy margin 248-177.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
N N Lost
Roll Call 339
Jul 24, 2002
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Restrict Funding to Implement Tax Breaks for Private Companies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y Y Won
Roll Call 338
Jul 24, 2002
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Make Across-the-Board Cuts in All Programs Under the Purview of the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 337
Jul 24, 2002
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Cut Allowances for Ex-Presidents to Prevent Their Participation in Public Life.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
N N Won
Roll Call 336
Jul 24, 2002
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Limit Outsourcing of Public Services Under the Purview of the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
Y Y Won
Roll Call 333
Jul 23, 2002
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Improve Livelihood of Cubans By Restricting Funds to Enforce the Embargo on Cuba.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Opponents of restrictions on relations with Cuba saw an opening with the spending bill to fund the Treasury Department, the Postal Service, and the White House. They proposed a series of amendments to starve the restrictions of the money needed for enforcement, including one amendment by Rangel (D-NY), who proposed forbidding spending on the Cuban economic embargo. Progressives supported Rangel's amendment, because they believed the embargo was ineffective and only hurt the Cuban people. Though two other amendments along these lines had passed, this effort to kill the embargo lost the crucial Republican support it needed. Progressives voted "yes," but the amendment was rejected 204-226.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Relations with Cuba
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 332
Jul 23, 2002
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Improve Livelihood of Cubans By Restricting Funds to Enforce the Embargo on Cuba.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD America's Poor
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Relations with Cuba
Y Y Won
Roll Call 331
Jul 23, 2002
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Restrict Funds to Enforce the Ban on Travel to Cuba.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Relations with Cuba
Y Y Won
Roll Call 330
Jul 23, 2002
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Undermine the Restriction of Funds to Enforce the Ban on Travel to Cuba.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
WAR & PEACE Relations with Cuba
N N Won
Roll Call 323
Jul 18, 2002
HR 5120. Treasury-Postal Appropriations for 2003/Vote on Rules of Debate on Treasury-Postal Appropriations Bill Which Prevented Consideration of an Amendment Designed to Forbid Federal Contracts to Companies that Incorporated Overseas to Avoid Taxes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In terms of federal spending, the Treasury Department, the Postal Service, the White House, and a number of other federal agencies are all considered together on a single bill. It is also typical in the House to require the rules for debate on a bill-commonly referred to as the bill's "rule"-to be passed before the bill itself is considered. The rule for the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill allowed DeLauro (D-CT) to propose an amendment that forbade federal contracts for companies that incorporated overseas to avoid taxes. Progressives approved of this amendment, because they felt this corporate practice was unfair to other taxpayers and should be brought under control. However, the rule for the Treasury-Postal bill also allowed a point of order against this amendment that was sure to kill the amendment itself. Progressives opposed this point of order provision because they supported DeLauro's amendment. As a result, they could not support the rule itself. They voted "no," but the rule was passed 224-188.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
N N Lost
Roll Call 320
Jul 18, 2002
HR 5121. Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Restrict Funding to an Investigation into Incidences In Which Wealth Citizens Renounce Their Citizenship to Avoid Paying Taxes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In 1999, Archer (R-TX) had requested a report on the problem of wealthy U.S. citizens renouncing their citizenship to avoid paying taxes, and Moran (D-VA) suspected it was because Republicans did not agree with the report's conclusions. He proposed an amendment that would have cut $590,000 from the committee's funding until it released the report. Progressives supported the amendment because, like Moran, they suspected the report contained ammunition against Republicans. They voted for the amendment, but it was rejected 206-213.


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 319
Jul 18, 2002
HR 5121. Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2003/Vote on Rules of Debate Which Would Jeopardize Passage of an Amendment to Insure Funding for an Investigation into Incidences In Which Wealth Citizens Renounce Their Citizenship to Avoid Paying Taxes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION More Equitable Distribution of Tax Burden
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
N N Lost
Roll Call 317
Jul 17, 2002
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Cut Funding for Land Conservation.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
N N Won
Roll Call 316
Jul 17, 2002
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Protect Wildlife Refuges in Washington and Oregon.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the many responsibilities of the Department of the Interior is the management of public lands. As a result, a number of amendments relating to land management were proposed during the debate on the bill to fund the Interior Department for 2003. Blumenauer (D-OR) proposed one such amendment: a ban on new leases for agricultural development on the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife refuges in Oregon and Washington. Progressives favored the ban, which was meant to stop overuse of the water in the area so that fish and wildlife there would be protected. They were joined by most other Democrats and even 23 Republicans, but the amendment was still rejected 201-223.


ENVIRONMENT Clean Water/Water Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 315
Jul 17, 2002
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Ban Off-Shore Oil Drilling in California.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Global Warming
ENVIRONMENT Oceanic Conservation
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Won
Roll Call 314
Jul 17, 2002
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Reduce Funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities
N N Won
Roll Call 313
Jul 17, 2002
HR 5093. Regulating Corporate Fraud/Motion to Instruct Conferees to Adopt More Stringent Senate Language When Drafting Conference Report.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Accounting Industry
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Securities/Brokerage Industry
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Individuals in the Workplace
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 312
Jul 17, 2002
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Protect the American Indian Gaming Industry, An Important Source of Revenue to Tribes, From Government Interference.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
Y Y Won
Roll Call 311
Jul 17, 2002
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Eliminate Restrictions on a Review of Money Owed to American Indians.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Native Americans
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
Y Y Won
Roll Call 310
Jul 17, 2002
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Increase Funding to the NEA and NEH to Underwrite the Work of Artists

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities
Y Y Won
Roll Call 308
Jul 16, 2002
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Procedural Vote to Curtail a Stream of Republican Amendments Designed to Cut Funding for Programs Under the Purview of the Interior Appropriations Bill.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Interior Department manages public lands and a wide range of other domestic programs. The bill to fund this department for 2003 received some initial opposition from Progressives for failing to spend enough, but the most serious early challenge came from fiscal conservatives, who felt it spent too much. They proposed a few highly unpopular measures to cut funding to the Bureau of Land Management; when one failed, they would propose the next, in the belief that they could wear down the opposition and slip one of their amendments through. After a few of these measures, Progressives and Democrats in general grew tired of the exercise. Dicks (D-WA) moved to rise to the Committee of the Whole-a procedural motion that would end the fiscal conservatives' amendments and close business for the day. Progressives voted "yes" on this motion because they wanted to move on with the debate. The motion came very close to passing-it was rejected by only one vote, 209-210- which was enough to convince the Republican leadership that the legislative day should be ended. A motion to adjourn was adopted by a voice (unrecorded) vote shortly after.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 303
Jul 16, 2002
HR 4866. Amending the Higher Education Act/Protest Vote Against Republicans' Strong Arm Tactics in Debate On the Higher Education Act.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Won
Roll Call 302
Jul 16, 2002
HR 5093. Interior Appropriations for 2003/Vote on Rules of Debate to Provide Funding for the Management of Public Lands.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS Funding for National Endowments of the Arts and/or Humanities
Y N Lost
Roll Call 292
Jul 10, 2002
HR 4635. Arming Commercial Pilots/Final Passage of Bill Which Would Risk Injury and Hijacking By Arming Commercial Airline Pilots.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

A coalition of Republicans and about half of Democrats favored arming airline pilots in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Progressives disliked this idea, believing that putting guns into airplanes would only increase the risk of injury and possibly even hijacking. The final form of the bill required at least 250 pilots to participate in training within two months of the bill's enactment, and pilots and airlines would be exempt from liability for harm done in the defense of the plane. Progressives could not support such a program, so they voted against the bill. However, is passed on a bipartisan vote of 310-113.


WAR & PEACE Arming/Militarizing Civilians as Reaction to Security Threats
N N Lost
Roll Call 291
Jul 10, 2002
HR 4635. Arming Commercial Pilots/Vote to Limit Scope of Program Which Would Risk Injury and Hijacking By Arming Commercial Airline Pilots.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Most Republicans and many Democrats felt that pilots in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks should be armed to prevent another hijacking. Those who were skeptical but felt the idea had merit wrote a bill that armed a maximum of 2 percent of all pilots on a temporary basis. Progressives supported this more modest approach if they supported anything at all, because they were concerned that pilots with guns would create more dangers than they would prevent. Supporters of a more aggressive program, on the other hand, had proposed an amendment that removed the 2 percent cap and made the program permanent. This amendment had passed, but those who had crafted the original plan called for a vote on the amendment again, in hopes it would not fare as well the second time. Progressives voted against this amendment the second time just as they had before, believing a test program was a wiser first step. However, the vote was largely the same. The amendment was rejected 251-172.


WAR & PEACE Arming/Militarizing Civilians as Reaction to Security Threats
N N Lost
Roll Call 289
Jul 10, 2002
HR 4635. Arming Commercial Pilots/Vote to Broaden Scope and Speed Implementation of Program Which Would Risk Injury and Hijacking By Arming Commercial Airline Pilots.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


WAR & PEACE Arming/Militarizing Civilians as Reaction to Security Threats
N N Won
Roll Call 288
Jul 10, 2002
HR 4635. Arming Commercial Pilots/Vote to Make Permanent a Program Which Would Risk Injury and Hijacking By Arming Commercial Airline Pilots.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Republicans and many Democrats decided after September 11th that commercial pilots needed to carry firearms to defend themselves. A compromise bill was crafted that introduced the idea as a test program, with a maximum of 2 percent of pilots participating. Progressives favored this more limited approach because they did not agree with the idea of giving weapons to those not adequately prepared to use them. DeFazio (D-OR) proposed undoing this deal by submitting an amendment that removed the 2 percent cap and made the program permanent. Progressives voted "no," but the amendment was adopted 250-175.


WAR & PEACE Arming/Militarizing Civilians as Reaction to Security Threats
N N Lost
Roll Call 282
Jun 27, 2002
HR 4954. Prescription Drug Coverage/Final Passage of Bill to Offer Seniors' a Prescription Drug Benefit Through Unregulated Private Insurance Plans Rather than Medicare.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
N N Lost
Roll Call 281
Jun 27, 2002
HR 4954. Prescription Drug Coverage/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Offer Seniors' a Prescription Drug Benefit Through Unregulated Private Insurance Plans Rather than Medicare.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 280
Jun 27, 2002
HR 4954. Prescription Drug Coverage/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Offer Seniors' a Prescription Drug Benefit Through Unregulated Private Insurance Plans Rather than Medicare.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The plan that House Republicans offered to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors relied heavily on private insurance companies. Medicare recipients would pay $33 a month to receive private coverage with a $250 annual deductible. Patients would pay 20 percent of costs between $250 and $1,000, 50 percent of costs between $1,000 and $2,000, and all costs between $2,000 and $3,700. All costs above $3,700 would be paid for in full. Progressives disliked this plan because of the gaps in coverage and because there was no guarantee the private sector would provide the coverage to all seniors who wanted it. Because they opposed the bill, they also opposed the bill's "rule": the set of instructions outlining the procedures for debate. If a bill's rule is voted down, the bill itself cannot be considered. Progressives were joined in opposition by all Democrats, but that was not enough to kill the rule. It passed 218-213.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Insurance Industry
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Pharmaceutical Industry
HEALTH CARE Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs
N N Lost
Roll Call 279
Jun 27, 2002
S 2578. Increasing the Debt Limit/Final Passage of a Bill to Increase the Debt Limit and Thereby Saddle Future Generations With Even Higher Debt Payments.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Progressives and Democrats in general had long claimed that the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001 had contributed directly to the shift from surpluses in the federal budget to large deficits. These deficits began pushing the overall federal debt up against its legal limit. Raising this limit was a matter of voting to increase it, and without the increase the government risked going into default. Toward that end, the Republican leadership proposed a bill that increased the debt limit by $450 billion. But Progressives, Democrats generally, and even a small handful of disgruntled Republicans disapproved of raising this limit. They felt increasing it simply ignored a pressing issue, and that a larger debate about the priorities of government needed to be engaged. They voted against raising the debt limit, but the Republicans managed to pass the increase without a single vote to spare, 215- 214.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 278
Jun 27, 2002
S 2578. Increasing the Debt Limit/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Increase the Debt Limit and Thereby Saddle Future Generations With Even Higher Debt Payments.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 276
Jun 27, 2002
S 2578. Increasing the Debt Limit-Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Increase the Debt Limit and Thereby Saddle Future Generations With Even Higher Debt Payments.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

President Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut from 2001 had arguably contributed to rapidly growing deficits in the federal budget. The debt had increased as a result, and threatened to surpass the established debt limit. If the government was to avoid entering default, this debt limit had to be increased. Progressives and Democrats in general supported increasing the limit, but only after addressing the tax cut as a cause of the budget problems. Republican deficit hawks were also wary of increasing the debt limit, so the Republican leadership knew that a vote on raising the limit was going to be difficult to win. House procedures complicated matters further. In the House, the rules for debate on a bill-commonly referred to as the bill's "rule"-must usually be passed before the bill can be considered. Opponents of a bill will typically oppose the rule as a way to kill the bill itself. Fearing rebellion on the rule for the debt limit bill, the Republican leadership turned to an unusual technique: they attached the debt limit rule to the rule for a popular bill that authorized military programs. Though many Progressives favored the military bill, they opposed the debt limit bill even more. As a result, they voted "no" on the resolution that combined the rules for both bills. But the coupling did what it was intended to do: it encouraged a large number of Democrats to support the rule. The combined rule passed 269-160.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 275
Jun 27, 2002
S 2578. Increasing the Debt Limit/Vote to Combine Unpopular Rule on Debt Limit Increase with Rule on Defense Authorization to Insure Passage of Debt Limit Increase.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The president's $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001 had contributed to a large and growing budget deficit. As the debt increased, Congress needed to raise the debt limit or risk placing the government in default on its loans. Republicans wrote a bill that increased the debt limit by $450 billion, but Progressives and Democrats in general wanted to have a larger debate about budget priorities before they agreed to any long-term increase in the limit. Republicans used a parliamentary maneuver to circumvent this debate. In the House, most bills are proposed with a "rule": a set of instructions for debate on the measure that must be passed before the bill itself can be considered. Rather than propose a rule for the debt limit bill by itself, Republicans proposed amending the rule for an unrelated bill. Because the unrelated bill-authorizing defense programs-was popular, the rule for that bill was likely to pass even with the rule for the debt limit attached. Progressives voted against amending the defense authorization rule with the debt limit rule because they did not want to make it easier for Republicans to pass the latter by coupling it with the former. They voted "no" but the amendment passed anyway, 219-211.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 274
Jun 27, 2002
S 2578. Increasing the Debt Limit/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Increase the Debt Limit and Thereby Saddle Future Generations With Even Higher Debt Payments.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 269
Jun 27, 2002
HR 5010. Defense Appropriations for 2003/Vote to Revoke Funding to the Missile Defense Program.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

President Bush sought to deploy a missile defense system as an alternative to arms control treaties, which he believed did not work. Progressives, on the other hand, felt the missile defense system was expensive and fraught with technical problems, and that even a functional system would fail to protect the country against the most serious threats it currently faced. As proposed by House Republicans, the spending bill for the Defense Department in 2003 included money to deploy a preliminary missile defense system in Alaska. Tierney (D-MA) proposed an amendment that removed this spending from the bill. Progressives supported this amendment because they opposed the missile defense system. However, the amendment was rejected 112-314.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
WAR & PEACE Arms Controls Treaties
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 264
Jun 26, 2002
HR 3009. "Fast Track" Trade Bill/Vote to Allow House Participation In Drafting International Trade Agreements Which Subvert Worker and Environmental Protections.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

One of the administration's top priorities for 2002 was passage of "fast track" authority. Fast track would give the president the power to submit fullynegotiated trade agreements to Congress for an up-or-down vote: no changes would be permitted. Progressives saw fast track as a way for the president to push through liberalized trade agreements that had sometimes dire consequences for American workers and the environment. The Senate had already passed fast track, along with provisions to help workers dislocated by trade agreements. House Republicans wanted to give their representatives power to discuss fast track in negotiations with the Senate on drafting a final bill. They submitted to a vote a resolution that did just that, along with allowing the same negotiators to discuss the dislocated worker provisions in the Senate bill. Progressives did not want to pass fast track, so they did not want to give House negotiators the power to talk about the idea. Together with 14 Republicans and virtually all Democrats, they almost carried the day: the resolution passed by only a single vote, 216-215.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Workers Negatively Impacted Upon by International Trade Agreements
ENVIRONMENT Preventing Weakening of Environmental Protections by International Trade Agreements
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
N N Lost
Roll Call 248
Jun 21, 2002
HR 4931. Pension Tax Incentives/Final Passage of a Bill to Create a Complex Set of Tax Incentives for Pension Contributions that Fails to Address Issues of Corporate Corruption Involving Employee Pension Accounts.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Throughout 2002, House Republicans sought to make permanent the temporary provisions of Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut of 2001. The provisions generally expired in 2010 under the original law. This particular bill made permanent a series of tax incentives to encourage participation in pensions and retirement plans. The incentives increased contribution limits to individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and 401(k) pension plans, and allowed additional "catch-up" payments to IRAs for workers 50 and older. Progressives opposed these tax breaks because they did not address issues of corporate corruption, and because they were complicated enough in their details that only the wealthiest Americans would be likely to take advantage of them. Progressives voted no, but the tax breaks passed by a wide margin, 308-70. The bill faced an uncertain future in the Democratic-controlled Senate.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
N N Lost
Roll Call 247
Jun 21, 2002
HR 4931. Pension Tax Incentives/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Create a Complex Set of Tax Incentives for Pension Contributions that Fails to Address Issues of Corporate Corruption Involving Employee Pension Accounts.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

House Republicans were determined in 2002 to make permanent as much of Bush's tax cuts of 2001 as possible. Most of them had been temporary, with expiration around 2010. One of the provisions they sought to lock in place was a series of incentives to encourage participation in pensions and retirement plans. Progressives saw Republican attempts to extend these pension tax breaks as a perfect opportunity to push corporate reforms in light of the scandals at Enron and other companies. This vote was a motion to recommit, or send back, the bill to the committee that wrote it with specific instructions that language prohibiting "corporate inversion" be added to the bill. Corporate inversion was the practice of escaping taxes by inverting a corporation's structure so that a subsidiary located in a tax-free country becomes the parent company. The motion, supported by Progressives, was defeated, 186-192.


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 246
Jun 21, 2002
HR 4931. Pension Tax Incentives/Vote on Democratic Version of Bill to Install Safeguards Against Corporate Corruption Involving Employee Pension Accounts.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 245
Jun 21, 2002
HR 4931. Pension Tax Incentives/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Create a Complex Set of Tax Incentives for Pension Contributions that Fails to Address Issues of Corporate Corruption Involving Employee Pension Accounts.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y N Lost
Roll Call 243
Jun 20, 2002
HR 1979. Private Airport Control Towers/Final Passage of a Bill to Provide a Retroactive Public Subsidy to Private Companies That Build Air Traffic Control Towers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

House Republicans wanted to reimburse airports for the construction and maintenance costs of privately-run control towers, and to pull money from the federal Airport Improvement Program to do it. Progressives supported this idea in principle, but they disagreed with a provision in the law that reimbursed airports for these costs even if they had constructed their control towers before 1996. They felt this amounted to a handout to private companies running these control towers. Though Progressives voted against it, the bill passed 284-143.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Airports
N N Lost
Roll Call 241
Jun 20, 2002
HR 1979. Private Airport Control Towers/Vote to Revoke a Retroactive Public Subsidy to Small Airports that Used Private Companies to Construct Air Traffic Control Towers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Airports
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 238
Jun 19, 2002
HR 3295. Election Reform/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Stringent Language During Conference Committee to Insure the Future Protection of Voting Rights.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

After the complications of the 2000 presidential vote, Congress struggled to put together an election reform bill to ensure such problems never happened again. As the House version of the bill neared passage, members looked ahead to the negotiations with the Senate-known as the "conference committee"-necessary to produce a final bill. Progressives were concerned that the Senate would try to change the House version in two ways: first, they would try to weaken provisions in the House bill requiring states to meet federal elections standards by November 2004; second, they would try to maintain a Senate provision protecting states receiving funds under the bill from federal prosecution until 2010. Hastings (D-FL) made a motion to require conference committee members from the House to thwart both these Senate changes. Progressives voted for this motion, but it failed nonetheless, 206-210.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Enfranchising the Disenfranchised/Voting Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 229
Jun 13, 2002
HR 4019. Tax Cut for Married Couples/Final Passage of Bill to Extend Tax Breaks During a Period of Financial Uncertainty.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Under Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut from 2001, married couples had received certain tax breaks. These breaks included an increase in their standard deduction, a doubling of the portion of their income subject to the 15 percent rate, and an increase in the maximum income allowed in order to qualify for the earned income tax credit. The breaks were phased in over time, but ended after 2010. Republicans sought to extend them past this end date. Progressives felt this would only jeopardize the solvency of other government programs at a time when the war on terrorism and the state of the economy had already created an uncertain fiscal situation. This vote was for final passage of the tax break extensions. With Progressives voting "no," the measure passed, 271-142.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 228
Jun 13, 2002
HR 4019. Tax Cut for Married Couples/Vote to Insure that the Extension of Tax Breaks for Married Couples Does Not Reduce Funds for Social Security.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 225
Jun 12, 2002
H J Res 96. Constitutional Amendment to Limit Taxes/Final Passage of a Bill Designed to Increase the Difficulty of Raising Taxes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Maintaining Majority Rule (Not 2/3) for Raising Taxes
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Won
Roll Call 224
Jun 12, 2002
HR 4775. Fiscal 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote to Require Maximum Funding for Homeland Security and Military Action in Afghanistan.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

With more spending needed to pay for the war in Afghanistan and for added homeland security, the House and Senate both passed appropriations bills to supplement the original appropriations passed the previous year. Their versions differed: House Republicans favored $1.8 billion more for the military, and Senate Democrats $8.3 billion more for homeland defense. David Obey (D-WI) suggested that the final bill should use the higher of the House and Senate figures for any money related to defense or homeland security, and should not include any money unrelated to those two efforts. Obey proposed that the House instruct its representatives at the House-Senate negotiations to demand these spending restrictions. Progressives supported this idea, because they felt the president's spending restrictions were too draconian and threatened homeland security. Republicans balked, and the motion to issue these instructions went down to defeat, 181-235.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 219
Jun 06, 2002
HR 2143. Repealing the Estate Tax/Final Passage of a Bill to Repeal the Estate Tax Which Targets Wealthy Taxpayers and Comprises an Important Source of Government Revenue.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Repeal of the estate tax had been part of the $1.35 trillion Bush tax cut package of 2001. Because an estate originally had to be worth more than $675,000 to qualify for the tax-which excluded all but two percent of inheritances-repealing it mostly benefited those at the very top of the income scale. But the repeal had been temporary-after 2010 the tax returned in close to its previous form. Republicans were determined to change this fact by repealing the tax permanently, and they proposed legislation in the House to do just that. Progressives opposed permanent repeal because it benefited only the very rich and deprived the federal treasury of a substantial amount of money. However, after a number of procedural attempts to kill or weaken the bill establishing permanent repeal, many Democrats voted with Republicans on final passage. Despite the opposition of Progressives, the bill passed 256-171.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 218
Jun 06, 2002
HR 2143. Repealing the Estate Tax-Motion to Recommit.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 217
Jun 06, 2002
HR 2143. Repealing the Estate Tax/Vote on Democratic Version of Estate Tax Reform Which Maintained the Tax But Capped Its Highest Rate and Reduced Its Incidence on Taxpayers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 216
Jun 06, 2002
HR 2143. Repealing the Estate Tax/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Repeal the Estate Tax Which Targets Wealthy Taxpayers and Comprises an Important Source of Government Revenue.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 215
Jun 06, 2002
HR 2143. Repealing the Estate Tax/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Repeal the Estate Tax Which Targets Wealthy Taxpayers and Comprises an Important Source of Government Revenue.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 214
Jun 06, 2002
Procedural Motion/Vote to Table (Kill) a Requirement that the President Obtain Congressional Approval Before Withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

President Bush had decided in December to pull out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. He did not believe in treaties generally and he felt the ABM Treaty in particular prevented the United States from developing a missile defense system. Progressives disagreed with this move because they believed the treaty had been an effective means of slowing the arms race, and because they felt a missile defense system was a technical impossibility. Kucinich (D-OH) wanted to require the president to obtain congressional approval before withdrawing from the treaty, but he could not get a resolution to that effect past the Republican leadership. He tried to claim privilege for his resolution under the rules of the House, but the chair ruled against him. He then appealed this ruling, but Hyde (R-IL) moved to table (kill) this appeal. Progressives favored Kucinich's resolution because they opposed Bush's approach to arms control and at least wanted to have a vote on the matter. As a result, they also disagreed with the ruling of the chair that Kucinich's resolution did not deserve privilege, agreed with Kucinich's appeal of that ruling, and opposed Hyde's attempt to table the appeal. They voted "no" on the motion to table, but it passed 254-169.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
WAR & PEACE Arms Controls Treaties
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
N N Lost
Roll Call 211
Jun 05, 2002
HR 4664. Reauthorizing the National Science Foundation/Vote to Fund Biosafety Research into Genetically-Modified Organisms.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Woolsey (D-CA) proposed this amendment to the bill reauthorizing the National Science Foundation-a government agency that provided support for scientific research across the country. Woolsey's amendment added funding for a "Biosafety Research" program that would investigate the impact of new organisms on biological systems. "New organisms" could be existing organisms introduced to a new environment, or wholly new organisms created through breeding or genetic manipulation. Progressives supported the amendment because they worried about the impact of such organisms on both humans and the world's ecosystems. However, their position was outvoted by a combination of several Democrats and all but one Republican. The amendment was rejected 165-259.


ENVIRONMENT Genetically Engineered Organisms' Effect on Environment
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Pharmaceutical Industry
WAR & PEACE Control of Genetically Modified Organisms
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 206
May 23, 2002
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Final Passage of a Bill to Impose Strict Caps on Federal Spending and Delay Consideration of Debt Limit Increase.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Most in Congress agreed that the government needed additional funding in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Republicans used this consensus to their advantage, by attaching some controversial provisions to the popular legislation in the hope that they would pass by association alone. Progressives disliked two of these provisions in particular. The first was a cap on the upcoming year's spending that they felt was unrealistically low. The second was language that prevented a vote on raising the country's debt ceiling. Everyone agreed the debt ceiling had to increase or the government would go into default, but Progressives wanted a vote so they could make the argument that the increase was only necessary as a consequence of the Bush administration's enormous tax cuts. They voted "no" on the supplemental appropriations bill for these two reasons and were joined by most Democrats, who were similarly angered at the Republicans' tactics. But the Republicans held firm and a number of Democrats felt compelled to vote for the otherwise popular measure. The bill passed 280-138.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 205
May 23, 2002
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Impose Strict Caps on Federal Spending and Delay Consideration of Debt Limit Increase.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 204
May 23, 2002
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Impose Strict Caps on Federal Spending and Delay Consideration of Debt Limit Increase.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 203
May 23, 2002
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote to Adjourn Congressional Session to Allow Republicans to Devise New Strategy to Impose Strict Caps on Federal Spending and Delay Consideration of Debt Limit Increase.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 202
May 23, 2002
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote to Prevent Colombian Counternarcotics Funding for Use in Colombia's Civil War.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The September 11th terrorist attacks left most on Capitol Hill wanting more spending on the military and homeland security. The House Republican leadership proposed a supplemental appropriations bill that provided this spending along with aid to New York City. But it also included a number of provisions that Progressives disliked. Two in particular angered them. One was a limit on spending for the upcoming 2003 appropriations that Progressives felt was unrealistically low. The second was language that prevented a vote on raising the government's debt ceiling. Everyone agreed that the ceiling had to be raised or the government would become insolvent. But Progressives wanted a vote on the matter so they could argue that the Bush tax cuts had made the increase necessary. Obey (D-WI) tried to force the Republican leadership to relent on this issue by bringing countless procedural motions and minor amendments to a vote. The amendment at issue here was in the spirit of that effort, though it was proposed by McGovern (D-MA) and not Obey. The amendment removed language from the supplemental appropriations bill that permitted using Colombian counternarcotics funds for Colombian counterterrorism. In Colombia, "counterterrorist" meant "counterinsurgent," so Progressives feared the amendment pushed the United States deeper into Colombia's 40-year-old civil war. However, though Progressives agreed with the substance of this amendment, they were even more supportive of the vote as part of a larger effort to slow the legislative process to a virtual stop. The longer the legislative process could be stalled, the more likely it was that Republicans would be forced to permit a separate vote on the debt ceiling. The amendment failed 192-225.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Human Rights Abuses
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
WAR & PEACE Military Aid to Colombia
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 201
May 23, 2002
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote to Curb President's Discretion in Funding the National Guard.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Curbing Presidential Power
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 200
May 23, 2002
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote to Curb President's Discretion in Determining the Salaries of FBI Employees.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Funding for Homeland Security
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 199
May 23, 2002
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Procedural Vote Intended to Force Republican Leaders to Consider Politically-Unpopular Debt Limit Increase As Standalone Measure.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, Congress was eager to increase funding for items such as the military and homeland security. House Republicans proposed such increases in a supplemental appropriations bill, but they used the popularity of the bill to push through a number of unrelated provisions. Two in particular raised the hackles of Progressives. The first adopted a low spending limit for the upcoming 2003 appropriations that Progressives-and even many Republicans-said was inadequate to meet the government's needs. The second provision prevented the House from casting an up-or-down vote on raising the government's debt ceiling. Everyone agreed the debt ceiling had to be raised, but Progressives and all Democrats wanted a vote on that issue alone so they could call attention to what they viewed as the damaging effects of the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001. Obey (D-WI) decided to wage a war of delay in the hope of tying up House business so thoroughly that the Republican leadership would be forced to permit a separate vote on the debt ceiling. This motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole was one of many votes designed to stretch out the debate on the supplemental appropriations bill, possibly into the upcoming week-long recess for lawmakers. Progressives voted for the measure, which served its delaying purpose even though it did not pass. The final vote on the motion was 144-252.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 198
May 23, 2002
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Procedural Vote to Remove Debt Limit Increase from Bill to Force Republican Leaders to Consider Politically-Unpopular Measure Separately.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 197
May 23, 2002
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Procedural Vote Intended to Force Republican Leaders to Consider Politically-Unpopular Debt Limit Increase As Standalone Measure.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

After the September 11th terrorist attacks, Congress debated increasing spending by passing a supplemental appropriations bill. The main text of the bill was popular, but House Republicans took advantage of this popularity to attach a number of unrelated and more contentious provisions. Two of these were particularly galling to Progressives. The first adopted a low spending limit for the upcoming 2003 appropriations that Progressives-and even many Republicans-said was inadequate to meet the government's needs. The second provision prevented the House from casting an up-or-down vote on raising the government's debt ceiling. Everyone agreed the debt ceiling had to be raised, but Progressives and all Democrats wanted a vote on that issue alone so they could call attention to what they viewed as the damaging effects of the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001. Obey (D-WI) decided to wage a war of delay in the hope of tying up House business so thoroughly that the Republican leadership would be forced to permit a separate vote on the debt ceiling. This motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole was one of many votes designed to stretch out the debate on the supplemental appropriations bill, possibly into the upcoming week-long recess for lawmakers. Progressives voted for the measure, which served its delaying purpose even though it did not pass. The final vote on the motion was 99-289.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 196
May 22, 2002
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Procedural Vote Intended to Force Republican Leaders to Consider Politically-Unpopular Debt Limit Increase As Standalone Measure.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The September 11th terrorist attacks left the federal government in need of additional spending, which Congress debated in the form of a supplemental appropriations bill. The main text of the bill was broadly popular, but House Republicans decided to use this popularity to pass a number of unrelated provisions, which they attached to the larger bill. Two of these were particularly galling to Progressives. The first adopted a low spending limit for the upcoming 2003 appropriations that Progressives-and even many Republicans-said was inadequate to meet the government's needs. The second provision prevented the House from casting an up-or-down vote on raising the government's debt ceiling. Everyone agreed the debt ceiling had to be raised, but Progressives and all Democrats wanted a vote on that issue alone so they could call attention to what they viewed as the damaging effects of the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001. Obey (D-WI) decided to wage a war of delay in the hope of tying up House business so thoroughly that the Republican leadership would be forced to permit a separate vote on the debt ceiling. This motion to rise from the Committee of the Whole was one of many votes designed to stretch out the debate on the supplemental appropriations bill, possibly into the upcoming week-long recess for lawmakers. Progressives voted for the measure, which served its delaying purpose even though it did not pass. The final vote on the motion was 134-250.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 195
May 22, 2002
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Procedural Vote Intended to Force Republican Leaders to Consider Politically-Unpopular Debt Limit Increase As Standalone Measure.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The government needed extra spending after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, which Congress debated in the form of a supplemental appropriations bill. The main text of the bill allocated funding mostly to the military, homeland security, and New York City, and was broadly popular. But House Republicans attached a number of unrelated provisions that they hoped would pass on the back of the larger bill's popularity alone. Two of these were particularly galling to Progressives. The first adopted a low spending limit for the upcoming 2003 appropriations that Progressives-and even many Republicans-said was inadequate to meet the government's needs. The second provision prevented the House from casting an up-or-down vote on raising the government's debt ceiling. Everyone agreed the debt ceiling had to be raised, but Progressives and all Democrats wanted a vote on that issue alone so they could call attention to what they viewed as the damaging effects of the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001. Obey (D-WI) decided to wage a war of delay against the supplemental appropriations bill in the hope of tying up House business so thoroughly that the Republican leadership would be forced to permit a separate vote on the debt ceiling. This motion to adjourn was one of many votes designed to stretch out the debate, possibly into the upcoming week-long recess for lawmakers. Progressives voted for the measure, which served its delaying purpose even though it did not pass. The final vote on the measure was 94-300.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 194
May 22, 2002
HR 4775. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Impose Strict Caps on Federal Spending and Delay Consideration of Debt Limit Increase.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The September 11th terrorist attacks left the government needing additional money to combat terrorism and pay for the fallout of the disaster. The House Republican leadership offered a supplemental appropriations bill that provided extra funds for the military, homeland security, and aid to New York. The package was broadly popular, so the Republican leadership added on several highly contentious provisions and then dared opponents of those provisions to vote against the larger package. To Progressives and Democrats in general, the most offensive of these provisions were tight spending caps on 2003 appropriations and language preventing an up-or-down vote on a much-needed increase in the government's debt ceiling. The spending totals were considered too low, even by Republicans on the Appropriations Committee. The debt ceiling provision saved Republicans from a debate on the reasons for the growing deficit, which Progressives pinned to the administration's $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001. In the House, most bills come with a "rule" that establishes the boundaries of debate. Ordinarily, opponents of a bill will also vote against the rule as a way of killing the bill itself. In this case, the rule also included the extra provisions that Progressives found so distasteful, so they were especially opposed to passing it. However, the rule claimed all but three Republicans, and passed 216-209.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 193
May 22, 2002
HR 3129. Reauthorizing the Customs Service/Final Passage of a Bill Which Exempted Customs Agents from Lawsuits for Wrongful Searches.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The House Republican bill to reauthorize the Customs Service included two provisions Progressives felt abridged the civil rights of ordinary Americans. The first made Customs agents immune from lawsuits for wrongful searches as long as they followed departmental procedure when conducting the search. The second allowed Customs agents to search unsealed outbound international mail. A Waters (DCA) amendment to remove these provisions had earlier been rejected (see vote 192), and Progressives could not support a reauthorization bill that included the two measures. Progressives voted against final passage of the bill. However, it passed anyway, and by a large margin 327-101.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 192
May 22, 2002
HR 3129. Reauthorizing the Customs Service/Vote to Hold Customs Agents Liable for Wrongful Searches.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 170
May 16, 2002
HR 4737. Reauthorizing Welfare/Final Passage of a Bill Designed to Further Restrict the Abilities of Poor or Jobless Individuals from Receiving Welfare Benefits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
N N Lost
Roll Call 169
May 16, 2002
HR 4737. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Designed to Further Restrict the Abilities of Poor or Jobless Individuals from Receiving Welfare Benefits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 168
May 16, 2002
HR 4737. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote on Democratic Version of Bill Designed to Ease Restrictions on Welfare Benefits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, & THE ARTS General Education Funding
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 166
May 15, 2002
HR 4737. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Designed to Further Restrict the Abilities of Poor or Jobless Individuals from Receiving Welfare Benefits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In 1996, Republicans had successfully changed welfare from an entitlement to a two-year temporary assistance program that came with a number of strings attached. By 2002 the program needed to be renewed, and Republicans wanted to make the program's restrictions tighter. They sought to increase the work requirement for recipients from 30 hours per week to 40 hours per week and to raise the percentage of recipients a state was required to put to work from 50 to 70. Progressives opposed these changes as unnecessarily harsh and unrealistic in a sour economic climate. In the House, most bills are accompanied by a "rule" that sets restrictions on the coming debate. This rule must be voted on separately before the bill itself can be considered. Progressives opposed the rule for the welfare bill because they opposed the bill itself, but their "no" votes were not enough to carry the day. The rule for the welfare bill passed, 214-205.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
N N Lost
Roll Call 165
May 15, 2002
HR 4737. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Designed to Further Restrict the Abilities of Poor or Jobless Individuals from Receiving Welfare Benefits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The welfare reform law that had passed in 1996 was due for renewal, and House Republicans were determined to use the opportunity to tighten the program's restrictions. In particular, they wanted to increase the number of hours per week a recipient was required to work from 30 to 40, and they wanted to require states to put 70 percent of their recipients to work-up from 50 percent in current law. To pass most important bills in the House, a separate motion must be passed that establishes the ground rules for debate. Usually referred to as the "rule," this separate motion is usually opposed by those opposing the bill itself. Progressives opposed the new welfare law-they felt the original law was unfair to recipients to begin with, so making the requirements more stringent would only make matters worse them-so they were against the bill's rule as well. In the midst of debate on the welfare bill's rule, Republicans moved to order the previous question, a way of ending debate and calling for a vote. Because Progressives opposed the bill itself and its rule, they also opposed holding a vote on either one. They voted "no" on the previous question motion, but it passed anyway, 213-204.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
N N Lost
Roll Call 164
May 15, 2002
HR 4737. Reauthorizing Welfare/Vote to Override House Rules to Allow Consideration of a Bill Designed to Further Restrict the Abilities of Poor or Jobless Individuals from Receiving Welfare Benefits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Children
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Less Affluent Women
N N Lost
Roll Call 158
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Final Passage of a Bill to Authorize Spending on a Missile Defense Program and Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Military from Environmental Regulations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

There were a number of controversial provisions in the military authorization bill that the president and congressional Republicans proposed for 2003. The bill allowed the military to study using small nuclear weapons for "conventional" warfare; it exempted military training exercises from certain environmental regulations; and it established the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives opposed all three changes. They disagreed with using nuclear weapons for any purpose, let alone conventional war; they believed national security could be maintained without carving out a military exception to environmental laws; and they felt that a missile defense system was fraught with technical problems and unlikely to defend the country against its most serious threats even if it worked. But their position failed to attract even a majority of Democrats, and the military authorization bill passed by a wide margin, 359-58.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
N N Lost
Roll Call 157
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Authorize Spending on a Missile Defense Program and Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Military from Environmental Regulations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 155
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Ban U.S. Funding to the International Criminal Court.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Every year, Congress must authorize the military programs that will be allowed to receive funding for the coming year. For the 2003 military authorization proposed by the Republican leadership, Paul (R-TX) proposed an amendment popular with conservatives: a ban on any funds that would support the International Criminal Court. Conservatives disliked the Court because they felt it would provide a forum for pursuing politically motivated trials against American soldiers. Progressives, on the other hand, felt the Court was more likely to empower the U.S. to bring war criminals to justice, and that abandoning the Court damaged U.S. credibility abroad. They voted "no" on Paul's amendment, but it passed nonetheless, 264-152.


HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Support for Independent International Law
N N Lost
Roll Call 154
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Allow the U.S. Military to Engage in Domestic Border Security Activities.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Congress is responsible for authorizing the programs in the federal government that can receive money every year, and the military is no exception to this process. Goode (I-VA, who has since changed to the Republican party) offered an amendment to the version of the 2003 military authorization that had been proposed by the Republicans. His amendment allowed the military to assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service if either the attorney general (in the case of the former) or the secretary of the Treasury (in the case of the latter) asked for it. Progressives disliked this idea because they believed the military and the domestic police force should not mix. But their votes-and the votes of most other Democratswere not enough to stop the amendment. It was adopted 232-183.


WAR & PEACE Arming/Militarizing Civilians as Reaction to Security Threats
N N Lost
Roll Call 153
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Insure that Women Soldiers Have Access to Abortions When Stationed Overseas.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Every year, Congress must authorize the wide range of military programs, making whatever changes they deem necessary. Sanchez (D-CA) proposed an amendment to the Republican version of this authorization that explicitly permitted abortions in U.S. military facilities overseas, so long as a doctor agreed to the procedure and the patient paid for it herself. Progressives supported this amendment as a sensible change that pertained to a constitutionally-protected activity. But most Republicans disliked the notion of abortions at all, let alone in U.S. military clinics, and they voted "no" on the measure. Their votes were enough to kill it: the amendment was rejected 202-215.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 152
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Procedural Vote Intended to Delay Consideration of a Bill to Authorize Spending on a Missile Defense Program and Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Military from Environmental Regulations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Progressives were angered by a number of elements of the Republicans' military authorization bill. It permitted the testing of nuclear weapons for "conventional" war; it gave the military an exemption from certain environmental laws for military training exercises; and it permitted the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives disliked the bill because they opposed nuclear combat of any kind, supported maintaining environmental regulations for everyone, and felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 168- 241, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was the last of many attempts that together had taken debate into the small hours of the morning.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 151
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Progressives could not brook the Republican version of the bill to authorize military programs for 2003. Several elements of the bill angered them: it allowed the military to study using nuclear weapons for "conventional" war; it gave military training exercises an exemption from certain environmental laws; and it permitted the beginnings of a missile defense system. Progressives were against all three: they opposed nuclear combat of any kind, they supported maintaining environmental regulations for everyone, and they felt a missile defense system was dangerous, expensive, and unworkable. Joining them in opposition was Taylor (D-MS), who opposed the bill because he was not allowed to propose an amendment to stop the next round of military base closings. To gum up the works, Taylor moved to rise from the Committee of the Whole-an entirely procedural motion that required the House to spend time casting a vote. Progressives supported the motion because they favored stalling the forward march of the bill. The motion failed, 154-249, but victory was not the object: the object was to bring the House to a standstill in the hope that the Republican majority would be forced to change the bill, or at least to allow Progressives to propose amendments to it. This was only one of many attempts that together took debate into the small hours of the morning.


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 150
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 149
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 148
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 147
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 146
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 145
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Eliminate Funding for a Missile Defense Program.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

As proposed by the president and his allies on Capitol Hill, the bill to authorize military programs for 2003 included a number of controversial provisions. One of these provisions was a missile defense system that Progressives complained was expensive and unworkable, and which they noted required abandoning arms control treaties that had been carefully negotiated over the last several decades. To block this program, Tierney (D-MA) proposed an amendment that would forbid any funding for a space-based missile defense. Though he had support from Progressives for the amendment, Tierney could not muster a majority, and the amendment failed 159-253.


WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 144
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 143
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 142
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Develop "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Bush administration and Republicans in Congress included a number of provisions in their defense authorization bill for 2003 that raised the ire of Progressives. Among those most opposed by Progressives were efforts to make it easier to develop and use "low-yield" (i.e., relatively small impact) nuclear weapons in "conventional" combat. By contrast, Weldon (R-PA) felt the authorization bill did not go far enough to allow these weapons: he proposed an amendment that explicitly allowed for such weapons to be developed. The Weldon amendment did bar actual construction of a "bunker buster" nuclear weapona missile designed to explode underground for the purpose of destroying an underground hideout-but that was not enough to satisfy Progressives. They felt the amendment encouraged a potentially destabilizing policy of nuclear combat, and they disagreed with the use of nuclear weapons for any purpose on principle. They voted "no" on Weldon's amendment, but it passed by a wide margin nonetheless, 362-53.


WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
N N Lost
Roll Call 141
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Eliminate Funding for "Low-Yield" Nuclear Weapons.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

As proposed by the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress, the bill to authorize military programs for 2003 contained a number of controversial provisions. Among the most contentious was a series of measures to make it easier for the military to use nuclear weapons in "conventional" combat. One such use of nuclear weapons was as "bunker busters": missiles designed to penetrate the ground before exploding in order to destroy an underground military hideout. Progressives opposed the use of nuclear weapons for any purpose, but particularly in otherwise conventional warfare. Markey (D-MA) proposed an amendment to the authorization bill that would forbid funding for studying or ever developing such a nuclear weapon. Progressives and virtually all Democrats voted for this amendment, but it was rejected anyway, 172-243.


WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 140
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 139
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 138
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003-Procedural Motion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 136
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Authorize Spending on a Missile Defense Program and Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Military from Environmental Regulations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
N N Lost
Roll Call 135
May 09, 2002
HR 4546. Defense Authorization for 2003/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Authorize Spending on a Missile Defense Program and Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons and Exempt the Military from Environmental Regulations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
WAR & PEACE Military Spending, General
WAR & PEACE Missile Defense Systems
WAR & PEACE Nuclear Weapons
N N Lost
Roll Call 133
May 08, 2002
H J Res 87. Yucca Mountain Nuclear Storage/Final Passage of a Bill Requiring the Transport and Storage of Hazardous Nuclear Waste in Nevada.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The federal government had long struggled to find a location for the radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants. Since 1987, the government had narrowed the list of possible storage sites to one: Yucca Mountain, a location 90 miles outside Las Vegas, Nevada. The Bush administration-strong supporters of nuclear power-decided that enough analysis had been done, and that it was time to formally establish the site as the nation's primary repository for nuclear waste. Progressives opposed this decision because they opposed nuclear power as unsafe, and because they worried that transporting the waste across the country risked catastrophic accident or attack. They voted "no" on the resolution to establish the waste site, but they were outvoted and the resolution passed by a wide margin, 306-117.


ENVIRONMENT Nuclear Energy
N N Lost
Roll Call 132
May 08, 2002
H J Res 87. Nevada Nuclear Waste Dump/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Requiring the Transport and Storage of Hazardous Nuclear Waste in Nevada.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Since the advent of nuclear power, the United States has struggled to find a place to store the radioactive waste that results. Since 1987, the federal government had narrowed consideration of possible storage sites to one: Yucca Mountain, a location 90 miles outside Las Vegas, Nevada. The Bush administration decided that enough study had been done, and it was time to approve the Nevada site as the nation's primary nuclear waste storage facility. Progressives disagreed with this decision. They believed nuclear power was unsafe and that transporting the waste across the country to Nevada exposed it to unacceptable risk of accident or attack. They supported a Gibbons (R-NV) point of order that asserted the resolution establishing the waste site violated the Congressional Budget Act by mandating Nevada to host the site without providing necessary funds to do so. To get around this procedural move, Tauzin (R-LA) moved to consider the resolution under the Nuclear Policy Act of 1982, which negated the Congressional Budget Act and robbed Gibbons of the authority to raise his point of order. Progressives voted "no" on this motion because they opposed the waste site and so did not want to see Gibbons' point of order against the site undermined. But Progressives were in the minority on this issue: the motion passed, 308-105, and the Gibbons point of order fell.


ENVIRONMENT Nuclear Energy
N N Lost
Roll Call 129
May 08, 2002
H.J. Res. 84. Steel Tariffs/Vote to Hide Outcome of Steel Tariffs Issue in Complex Procedural Maneuvering.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Protecting Rights of Congressional Minorities
N N Lost
Roll Call 125
May 02, 2002
H Res 392. Support for Israel/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Which Would Undermine the U.S. Position in Middle- East Peace Negotiations By Expressing Support for Israel.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


WAR & PEACE Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Y N Lost
Roll Call 124
May 02, 2002
H Res 392. Support for Israel/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Which Would Undermine the U.S. Position in Middle- East Peace Negotiations By Expressing Support for Israel.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


WAR & PEACE Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Y N Lost
Roll Call 123
May 02, 2002
HR 2646. Farm Bill/Final Passage of a Bill to Reauthorize a Host of Important Federal Agricultural Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
N N Lost
Roll Call 122
May 02, 2002
HR 2646. Farm Bill/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Reauthorize a Host of Important Federal Agricultural Programs.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The farm bill is a large composite of federal agriculture programs that must be reauthorized every few years. With reauthorization overdue by 2002, lawmakers cobbled together a compromise bill that retreated from the free-market approach Republicans had taken in 1996. However, it also retreated from a number of provisions in the Senate's version of the bill, including both subsidies to farmers to encourage conservation and a loosening of the cap on the maximum subsidy any single farm could receive in a given year. Kind (DWI) tried to reinsert these provisions. He moved to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that the cap be lowered from $360,000 to $275,000, and that extra money be diverted to conservation, nutrition, rural development, and renewable energy programs. Progressives supported this motion because they felt there was too little conservation in the current bill and the large subsidies only benefited large corporate farms. They voted "yes," but the motion failed 172-251.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES Agriculture
ENVIRONMENT Renewable Energy
ENVIRONMENT Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Agriculture
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 120
May 01, 2002
HR 2871. Export-Import Bank/Vote to Eliminate U.S. Subsidies to Large Corporations That Layoff More U.S. Workers than Foreign Workers.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The Export-Import Bank of the United States administered a program that subsidized U.S. companies whose overseas competitors also received subsidies. Progressives disagreed with this program because they could not see the need to provide subsidies to some of America's largest corporations. They had particular difficulty understanding why a company should receive such a subsidy while in the process of shifting its workforce overseas. Sanders (I-VT) proposed an amendment to the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank that would forbid subsidies for corporations that laid off more U.S. employees than overseas employees. This amendment received Progressive support, but was ultimately outvoted by a wide margin, 135-283.


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements
N Y Lost
Roll Call 114
Apr 25, 2002
HR 3231. INS Reform/Vote to Exclude Civil Service Protections to INS Employees.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


LABOR RIGHTS Rights of Public Employees
N N Won
Roll Call 110
Apr 24, 2002
HR 3763. Auditing Regulations/Final Passage of Republican Version of New Accounting Industry Regulations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The scandal at Enron left the confidence many had in the corporate accounting system shaken. Arthur Anderson, Enron's auditor, had ignored improprieties in Enron's books in order to preserve its position as Enron's business consultant. In response to this scandal and others like it, House Republicans proposed a bill that tightened regulatory controls on accounting industry. The bill set up an accounting oversight board at the Security and Exchange Commission, and directed this board to impose accounting standards, including a rule forbidding a firm from auditing and consulting for the same company. The bill also directed companies to report additional information in their financial statements and banned executives from financial transactions that employees' pension funds did not allow them to participate in. Though a step in the right direction, to Progressives the bill was far too small a step. They wanted to see stronger regulations and oversight and stricter accountability. Though they supported reform, they opposed the Republican version of it. However, they were strongly outnumbered, and the bill passed 334-90.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Accounting Industry
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
N N Lost
Roll Call 109
Apr 24, 2002
HR 3763. Auditing Regulations/Vote to Recommit to Committee the Republican Version of New Accounting Industry Regulations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Accounting Industry
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 108
Apr 24, 2002
HR 3763. Auditing Regulations/Vote on Democratic Version of New Accounting Industry Regulations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Accounting Industry
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 107
Apr 24, 2002
HR 3763. Auditing Regulations/Vote to Establish a Federal Bureau of Audits to Examine the Financial Statements of All Publicly-Traded Companies.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Accounting Industry
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
N Y Lost
Roll Call 106
Apr 23, 2002
HR 2646. Farm Bill/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Include Food Stamps for Legal Immigrants During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
Y Y Won
Roll Call 105
Apr 23, 2002
HR 2646. Farm Bill/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Lift Ban on U.S. Agricultural Sales to Cuba During Conference Committee Negotiations with the Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Farmers
WAR & PEACE Relations with Cuba
Y Y Won
Roll Call 103
Apr 18, 2002
HR 586. Making Tax Cuts Permanent/Vote to Make Permanent Tax Cuts Enacted in 2001 Which Heavily Favor Wealthy Individuals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 102
Apr 18, 2002
HR 586. Making Tax Cuts Permanent/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Make Permanent Tax Cuts Enacted in 2001 Which Heavily Favor Wealthy Individuals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 101
Apr 18, 2002
HR 586. Making Tax Cuts Permanent/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Make Permanent Tax Cuts Enacted in 2001 Which Heavily Favor Wealthy Individuals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 97
Apr 17, 2002
HR 476. Transporting Minors for Abortions/Final Passage of a Bill to Criminalize the Transport of Minors Across State Lines to Obtain an Abortion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Many states passed laws requiring minors to obtain parental consent before receiving an abortion. To support these laws, Republicans proposed a bill that made it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion if the intent is to evade a parental consent law. The minor herself was exempt from prosecution under this law, but the transporter would face up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine. Republicans resisted exemptions for family members, clergy members, and cab drivers by forbidding amendments to the bill. Progressives opposed the bill, arguing it was likely to encourage unsafe, back-alley abortions, and that in the case of incest it might require the girl to ask permission from the person who raped her. Though Progressives voted "no," the bill passed 260-161.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
N N Lost
Roll Call 96
Apr 17, 2002
HR 476. Transporting Minors for Abortions/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Criminalize the Transport of Minors Across State Lines to Obtain an Abortion.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Many states had laws on the books requiring minors to obtain parental consent before receiving and abortion. To prevent girls from crossing state lines to evade these laws, Republicans proposed a bill that made it a federal crime to transport a minor for that purpose. Though the law exempted the minor from prosecution, it threatened the transporter with up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine. Progressives argued that this bill would encourage unsafe, back-alley abortions. Furthermore, they argued that in the case of incest it might actually require a girl to seek permission for an abortion from the person who raped her. In an attempt to ease the bill's restrictions, Jackson-Lee (D-TX) moved to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions to add an exemption for a minor's adult siblings, grandparents, or religious leaders. Progressives voted for this motion, but it was rejected 173-246.


FAMILY PLANNING Abortion
HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES Individual Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 92
Apr 11, 2002
HR 3762. Pension Reform/Final Passage of a Bill Which Allowed Executives to Own a Greater Share of Pension Money and Required the Diversification of Employee Pension Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Pension reform became a hot issue on Capitol Hill after scandals at Enron and other corporations. At Enron, employees were prevented from selling their company stock and could only watch as it lost all its value, destroying their retirement with it. In response, Republicans proposed a reform bill that made it easier to diversify company pension plans and required employers to provide employees with outside investment advice. Progressives and Democrats in general agreed with the principle of this bill, but they had problems with several of its specifics. They worried that the outside investment advisors would be just as self-serving as the employer had been, but toward different ends. They also felt the diversification provision was too confusing: it gave employers maximum flexibility by allowing them to decide if stock they contributed to the pension could be sold after three years from the start of the employee's participation in the program or three years from the date the stock was added to the plan. Finally, they disliked a provision that weakened existing law to allow less equitable allocations of pension money between executives and employees. However, despite these complaints Progressives did not have the votes to kill the bill, and it passed 255-163.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
N N Lost
Roll Call 91
Apr 11, 2002
HR 3762. Pension Reform/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Which Allowed Executives to Own a Greater Share of Pension Money and Required the Diversification of Employee Pension Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

After the scandals at Enron and other companieswhere employees locked into pension plans could only watch as their retirement savings disappeared along with the company's stock price-pension reform became popular on Capitol Hill. Republicans proposed a reform bill that made it easier for employees to diversify their portfolios, and that required employers to provide their employees with outside investment advice. Progressives and Democrats in general supported the principle of this bill, but felt it missed opportunities to do more. Miller (D-CA) moved to recommit (send back) the bill to the committee that drafted it with instructions to add a provision making executive pay subject to bankruptcy proceedings. Progressives voted for this motion, but it was rejected 204-212.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 90
Apr 11, 2002
HR 3762. Pension Reform/Vote on Democratic Version of Pension Reform Bill Designed to Provide Employees with More Protections than Republican Measure.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

In the wake of the scandals at Enron and other corporations, lawmakers saw a need for pension reform to save employees from being trapped with company stock as the company collapsed. A Republican reform bill made it easier for employees to diversify their portfolios, and required employers to give employees access to outside investment advisors. Nonetheless, Progressives and Democrats in general felt the bill did not go far enough. They favored a Democratic version that included a number of provisions more favorable to employees. The Democratic bill would have made executive pay subject to bankruptcy procedures, would have required pension boards to include an employee representative, and would have allowed employees to take their company to court if executive misbehavior caused their pension to lose value. But when this version of pension reform was proposed as a substitute to the Republican bill, it could not muster a majority. With Progressives voting "yes," the substitute was rejected 187-232.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 88
Apr 11, 2002
HR 3762. Pension Reform/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill Which Allowed Executives to Own a Greater Share of Pension Money and Required the Diversification of Employee Pension Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The scandals at Enron and other corporations called attention to weaknesses in existing pension law. Executives could diversify their portfolios as a company headed into trouble while employees-restricted from selling by company regulations-would be left holding the bag. The reform bill House Republicans proposed made it easier for employees to diversify earlier, and mandated that employers provide employees with investment advice from outside experts. Progressives and Democrats in general supported reform in principle, but they disagreed with this specific bill for a number of reasons. They pointed to the confusing diversification provisions-which gave employers maximum discretion over how much of an employee's pension would be available to reinvest-and to the likelihood that outside investment advisors would be no less self-serving than the employer had been. They also complained that the bill weakened existing law mandating a certain amount of equity between executive and employee pensions. Because they opposed the bill, Progressives also opposed the "rule": the set of instructions outlining the conduct of debate. The rule must be passed before debate can begin, so a defeat for the rule is a defeat for the bill itself. However, despite unified Democratic opposition to the pension reform bill's rule, it still passed 215-209.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
N N Lost
Roll Call 87
Apr 11, 2002
HR 3762. Pension Reform/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Which Allowed Executives to Own a Greater Share of Pension Money and Required the Diversification of Employee Pension Plans.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The scandals at Enron and other corporations-in which employees were restricted from selling stock and then left holding worthless retirement plansconvinced many on Capitol Hill that reform was necessary. The reform bill drafted by House Republicans gave employees much more flexibility to diversify their portfolios, and mandated that employers provide investment advice to aid that diversification. Progressives and Democrats in general agreed with the principle of the bill, but they had complaints about its specifics. They argued that the diversification provisions were too confusing and tilted toward employers, that provisions to ensure equity between executive and employee pensions were weakened from existing law, and that the mandated investment advisors would be likely to give self-serving advice. In the House, bills come partnered with a "rule," a resolution establishing the rules for debate on that bill. Because the rule must be voted on and passed before the bill can be considered, opponents of a bill will usually block the rule as well. When Linder (R-GA) moved to order the previous question-a way of cutting off debate and calling for a vote on the rule-Progressives voted "no," because they opposed the bill and its rule, and so did not want to see either one come to a vote. But they did not have the votes to prevail, and Linder's previous question motion passed, 218-208.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Seniors
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
LABOR RIGHTS Pension Protections
N N Lost
Roll Call 85
Apr 10, 2002
HR 3991. Changes to the Tax Code/Procedural Vote to Allow Privileged Consideration of a Bill Which Would Exempt Certain Political Groups From Reporting Expenditures and Donors As Required By Current Law.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Won
Roll Call 83
Apr 10, 2002
HR 3925. Technology Workers Exchange Program/Vote to Prevent Private Workers Temporarily Employed in the Public Sector From Stealing Trade Secrets From the Federal Government.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


CORPORATE SUBSIDIES General
GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 79
Mar 20, 2002
H Con Res 353. 2003 Budget Resolution/Final Passage of a Budget Resolution Which Makes Permanent Pervious Year's Temporary Tax Cuts Which Disproportionately Benefit Wealthy Individuals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 78
Mar 20, 2002
H Con Res 353. 2003 Budget Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) an Effort to Reconsider the Rules of Debate to Allow Democrats to Offer Amendments to the Budget Resolution.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The budget resolution is the first step in the process of developing a budget for the federal government. It sets out non-binding spending and revenue totals for the coming year. House Republicans proposed a budget resolution that kept spending within tight limits set by the White House and devoted $353 billion to making the previous year's temporary tax cuts permanent. Progressives opposed this resolution because they felt that spending should be higher and that further tax cuts were unwarranted. House procedures usually require a bill to come with a set of instructions for debate, called the "rule," that must be voted on separately and before the bill itself is considered. The rule that Republicans had offered for debate of this budget resolution prevented any amendments. Progressives opposed the Republicans' budget, so they would have opposed the rule regardless, but the restrictive nature of this rule made them particularly upset. A vote was held on the rule and it passed, but Progressives and Democrats in general wanted another chance. They moved to reconsider the vote, but Goss (R-FL) countered with a motion to table (kill) this motion. Progressives supported a reconsideration of the rule, so they also opposed Goss's attempt to stop it. Even so, Goss's motion to table passed on a perfect party-line vote, 213-206.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 77
Mar 20, 2002
H Con Res 353. 2003 Budget Resolution/Vote on Rules of Debate, Which Disallowed Any Democratic Amendments, on a Budget Resolution Which Makes Permanent Pervious Year's Temporary Tax Cuts Which Disproportionately Benefit Wealthy Individuals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 76
Mar 20, 2002
H Con Res 353. 2003 Budget Resolution/Vote to Table (Kill) an Effort to Prevent Consideration of the Budget Resolution, Which Makes Permanent Pervious Year's Temporary Tax Cuts, Until Democratic Amendments Were Allowed in the Debate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 75
Mar 20, 2002
H Con Res 353. 2003 Budget Resolution/Vote to Allow Consideration of the Budget Resolution Which Makes Permanent Pervious Year's Temporary Tax Cuts Which Disproportionately Benefit Wealthy Individuals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 63
Mar 14, 2002
HR 2146. Mandatory Sentencing for Repeat Sex Offenders/Vote to Commission a Study to Examine the Impact of the "Two Strikes and You're Out" Criteria for Repeat Child Sex Offenders.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Punishment Fitting the Crime
Y Y Won
Roll Call 62
Mar 13, 2002
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Final Passage of a Bill Designed to Curb Class Action Lawsuits (and Opportunities for Justice) by Assigning Original Jurisdiction to Overworked Federal Courts Rather Than State Courts in Those Cases.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
N N Lost
Roll Call 61
Mar 13, 2002
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill Designed to Curb Class Action Lawsuits (and Opportunities for Justice) by Assigning Original Jurisdiction to Overworked Federal Courts Rather Than State Courts in Those Cases.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 60
Mar 13, 2002
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Reaffirm Jurisdiction of State Courts in Class Action Lawsuits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 59
Mar 13, 2002
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Reaffirm Jurisdiction of State Courts in Class Action Lawsuits in Cases Where the Defendant Destroyed, Falsified, or Altered Material Evidence.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Over the years, class-action lawsuits had become a significant means of regulating corporate behavior by suing on behalf of a large number of wronged individuals. Republicans disliked such lawsuits, and they especially disliked how easy it was to bring these suits in state court, where the outcome more often favored the plaintiffs. Accordingly, they drafted a bill to require that more of these suits be filed in federal court. Jackson-Lee (D-TX) proposed an amendment to this bill that would prevent the move to federal court if the request was made by a party that had destroyed, falsified, or otherwise altered material evidence. Progressives favored the amendment as a way to keep more cases in state court and to hold corporations accountable for extra-legal destruction of evidence, but the amendment was rejected 177-248.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 58
Mar 13, 2002
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Reaffirm Jurisdiction of State Courts in Class Action Lawsuits in Cases Where a Company Incorporates Overseas for Purposes of Avoiding Prosecution in State Courts.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 57
Mar 13, 2002
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Allow State Courts to Adjudicate Class Action Lawsuits Involving Antitrust and Consumer Protection Violations.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 56
Mar 13, 2002
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Hold Corporations Accountable for Withholding or Shredding Documents Related to a Class Action Lawsuit.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Republicans had long felt that class action lawsuits were too easy to bring in state courts. They proposed a bill that would move more such cases to federal court, where the chances of a pro-corporate decision were greater. Progressives disliked this change, because they felt class action lawsuits were often the only way to hold a corporation accountable for its behavior. To tip the balance of the bill back in the plaintiffs' direction, Waters (D-CA) proposed an amendment that would encourage corporations to bring forward information required to be handed over in a discovery motion as part of a class-action suit. Any corporation found to have withheld or shredded such documents would be on record as admitting to the facts of the motion. Progressives voted for this amendment, but it was rejected 174-251.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 55
Mar 13, 2002
HR 2341. Class Action Lawsuits/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill Designed to Curb Class Action Lawsuits (and Opportunities for Justice) by Assigning Original Jurisdiction to Overworked Federal Courts Rather Than State Courts in Those Cases.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER General
JUSTICE FOR ALL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Equal Access to Justice
N N Lost
Roll Call 53
Mar 12, 2002
HR 1885. Extension of Residency to Immigrants/Vote to Tighten Border Security and Require the Collection of Additional Information from Immigrants.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Partly in hopes of attracting Latino voters, members of both parties supported a bill to allow immigrants whose visas had expired to remain in the United States while applying for legal residency. Progressives and Democrats in general were particularly supportive of the bill because it adhered to a principle of cultural openness that had long been a cornerstone of the party. Republicans were more conflicted: a majority opposed the measure on the grounds it encouraged visa holders to break the law, but a substantial minority supported it in the hopes it would boost enrollment in the Republican party and soften the party's anti-immigrant image. To make the bill more palatable to House conservatives and members of the Senate, the bill's backers wanted to attach a number of provisions to tighten border security. These included a requirement schools to report when a student with a student visa did not show up for classes, a requirement that passports and visas of other countries include "biometric" information such as fingerprints or retina scans, and a requirement that ships and airplanes traveling to and from the U.S. provide a list of passengers before embarking. Supporters of the bill wanted to add the amendments and pass the bill without risking further changes, so they proposed it under "suspension of the rules": a special status that forbids amendments but requires a two-thirds vote for passage. Despite lacking a majority of Republicans, the bill's supporters still had the 275 votes necessary to win. With Progressives voting in favor, the measure passed 275-137: the residency extensions were bundled with tightened border security and the whole bill was passed on to the Senate.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD Immigrants
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Civil Rights
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Immigration Law Reform
Y Y Won
Roll Call 51
Mar 07, 2002
HR 3090. Federal Unemployment Benefits/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Extend Federal Unemployment Benefits and Provide Numerous Tax Breaks for Businesses.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
N N Lost
Roll Call 49
Mar 06, 2002
H Res 354. Suspension of the Rules/Vote to Allow Privileged Consideration of a Bill to Extend Federal Unemployment Insurance Which Included Numerous Tax Breaks for Businesses.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
N N Lost
Roll Call 45
Feb 27, 2002
HR 1542. Telecommunications Regulation/Final Passage of a Bill to Enable Regional Bell Companies to Enter Broadband Markets Without Demonstrating Their Adherence to Reforms Codified in the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Telecommunications Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 44
Feb 27, 2002
HR 1542. Telecommunications Regulation/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Enable Regional Bell Companies to Enter Broadband Markets Without Demonstrating Their Adherence to Reforms Codified in the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The 1996 telecommunications reform tried to open local phone service to competition by requiring regional Bell phone companies to open their phone lines as a requirement for access to the high-speed Internet and long-distance phone markets. Many Republicans-and many Democrats as well-believed this hampered competition in high-speed Internet access because it held back the Baby Bells even as cable companies were providing broadband services through cable modems. They proposed a bill whose main provision was to remove this requirement altogether. Progressives opposed this change as a handout to the Baby Bells and an admission that competition would never come to the local phone markets. They supported a Markey (D-MA) motion to recommit (send back) the bill to its committee with instructions that essentially removed this deregulatory language from the bill. Supporters of the Markey motion then moved to order the previous question, a way to bring the matter at hand to a vote by ending debate and the possibility of amendment. Progressives voted for this motion, but it failed, 173-256. When a previous question motion fails, the matter it refers to is effectively rejected, so this was the end of Markey's motion to recommit and the end of opponents' attempts to revise the bill.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Telecommunications Industry
Y Y Lost
Roll Call 42
Feb 27, 2002
HR 1542. Telecommunications Regulation/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Allow Regional Bell Companies to Enter Broadband Markets Without Demonstrating Their Adherence to Reforms Codified in the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

The original 1996 telecommunications reform law required regional Bell phone companies to prove they had opened their local phone lines to competition before they would be given permission to participate in high-speed Internet or long-distance service. Many Republicans argued this was a regulatory failure: it made it difficult for the Baby Bells to branch into high-speed Internet, even as cable companies were providing the same service with cable modems. They drafted a bill to remove the requirement that Baby Bells open their phone lines to competitors. Progressives opposed this move as a gift to the Baby Bells and a way to ensure that local phone service would never be competitive. In the House, the rules for debate on a bill must be voted on separately before the bill itself can be considered, so obstructing the rule is a common way to kill the bill itself. Progressives opposed the underlying regulatory bill, so they voted "no" on its rule. Nonetheless, the rule passed by a wide margin, 282-142, and debate on the bill began.


GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON CORPORATE POWER Telecommunications Industry
N N Lost
Roll Call 38
Feb 14, 2002
HR 622. Unemployment Benefits and Economic Stimulus/Vote on a Bill to Extend Federal Unemployment Benefits and Provide Numerous Tax Breaks for Businesses.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
N N Lost
Roll Call 37
Feb 14, 2002
HR 622. Extending Unemployment Benefits/Vote on Rules of Debate on a Bill to Extend Federal Unemployment Benefits and Provide Numerous Tax Breaks for Businesses.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

With a stagnating economy, everyone on Capitol Hill agreed that unemployment benefits should be extended. House Republicans felt that a "stimulus" package of tax breaks for businesses and individuals should also be a part of the unemployment extension. Democrats, Progressives, and even Senate Republicans felt that adding an economic stimulus plan simply confused the issue and risked sinking the bill in the Senate. In the House, most bills come with a set of rules for debate that must be voted on separately. Obstructing the rules for a bill will kill the bill itself, so a bill's opponents will commonly vote against the rule. Progressives opposed the bill because they were upset about the attached stimulus plan and what they saw as its dismal prospects in the Senate, so they opposed its corresponding rule. With their votes against, the rule still passed 213-206 on a perfect party-line vote.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
N N Lost
Roll Call 36
Feb 14, 2002
HR 622. Extending Unemployment Benefits/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Extend Federal Unemployment Benefits and Provide Numerous Tax Breaks for Businesses.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

As the economy continued to stagnate, Congress debated how best to address the problem. All were agreed that unemployment benefits needed to be extended, but House Republicans differed from their Senate colleagues, as well as virtually all Democrats, about whether and what sort of stimulus package needed to be included with the extension. Progressives and Democrats in general did not like the sort of business incentives House Republicans were proposing for "stimulus," and they believed that attaching such incentives to unemployment benefits was dooming those benefits to die in the Senate. In the House, the rules for debate on a given bill must be voted on separately, and if the rule is voted down, the bill cannot be considered. Opposing the rule is therefore a common way for a bill's opponents to fight the bill itself. For this reason, Progressives opposed the rule for the Republican unemployment bill when it was proposed. Republicans made a push in favor of the rule by moving to order the previous question, a way of ending debate and bringing the rule up for a vote. Progressives voted "no" on this motion because they opposed the rule and so did not want it to come to a vote. However, the motion passed, 216-207. This opened the way to a vote on the rule, and ultimately to consideration of the Republican package of unemployment benefits and business tax breaks.


AID TO LESS ADVANTAGED PEOPLE, AT HOME & ABROAD The Unemployed
FAIR TAXATION Corporate Tax Breaks, General
N N Lost
Roll Call 34
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Final Passage of Bill to Close "Soft" Money Loophole on Donations to National Parties and Reduce the Role of Money in the Political System.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
Y Y Won
Roll Call 33
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote on Republican Version of Bill Which Would Retain "Soft" Money Loophole to Allow Unlimited Flow of Money to National Parties.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Won
Roll Call 32
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote to Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Preventing National Parties From Using Funds to Construct Office Buildings.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Lost
Roll Call 31
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote to Intended Complicate Implementation of Reform By Requiring Mid-Election Cycle Adherence to Law Changes.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Won
Roll Call 30
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Requiring a Difficult-to- Enforce Ban on Donations By Non-Citizens.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Won
Roll Call 29
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Requiring Total Ban on Soft Money Which Would Adversely Impact State Political Parties and Stand Little Change of Passage in Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Won
Roll Call 28
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote to Double Individual Contribution Limits.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Progressives and others had long complained that corporations and wealthy individuals could skirt restrictions on the size of donations to political campaigns by giving "soft money" to the political parties. The parties were supposed to use the money for "party-building" activities, but they had found ways to use it to support individual candidates while staying within the letter of the law. Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) pushed a reform bill that closed this loophole. In a late change they felt was necessary to pass the bill in both the House and the Senate, they strove to add a provision doubling the limit for individual donations from $1000 to $2000. This was meant to offset the elimination of the soft money option. Progressives wanted campaign finance reform to pass, but they felt doubling the amount wealthy donors could give was beyond their ability to compromise. When the amendment was proposed, Progressives voted against. The amendment passed anyway, 218-211, and the doubled limit was added to the final bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Lost
Roll Call 27
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Introducing Exemptions to Advertising Restrictions for Workers, Farmers, and Families.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Won
Roll Call 26
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Introducing Exemptions to Advertising Restrictions for Veterans and Seniors.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Won
Roll Call 25
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Introducing Exemptions to Advertising Restrictions for Civil Rights Groups.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Won
Roll Call 24
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Introducing Exemptions to Advertising Restrictions for Pro-Gun Groups.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Won
Roll Call 23
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote to Strip a Provision That Reduced TV Advertising Rates to Candidates and Parties.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

After years of growing "soft money" donations of unregulated size to parties-those concerned about the influence of money in politics looked like they were going to get the reform they desired. Soft money was supposed to be used for "party-building" activities, but parties had discovered ways to support individual campaigns with the money while staying within the letter of the law. Shays (R-CT) and Meehan (D-MA) had proposed a bill that addressed this problem by banning soft money donations entirely, and making a number of other changes to the system. The amendment at issue here was proposed by supporters of the bill to add to the majority coalition and make the bill coincide with the Senate version for easier passage there. It stripped the existing reform bill of a provision that ensured candidates and parties would get a TV station's lowest advertising rates. Though the amendment was a good-faith effort to shepherd the bill along, Progressives could not back it. They supported the overall bill, but they also supported the lower ad rates, so they opposed this particular amendment. However, their opposition was not enough, and the amendment passed, 327-101, thus removing the ad rate provision from the bill.


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Lost
Roll Call 22
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote Intended to Complicate Passage of Reform By Requiring Bill's Adherence to First Amendment to Provide Opponents with Ammunition for a Future Court Challenge.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Won
Roll Call 21
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote on Shays-Meehan Bill to Close "Soft" Money Loophole on Donations to National Parties and Reduce the Role of Money in the Political System.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
Y Y Won
Roll Call 19
Feb 13, 2002
HR 2356. Campaign Finance Reform/Vote on Republican Version of Bill Designed to Complicate Passage of Reform By Requiring Total Ban on Soft Money Which Would Adversely Impact State Political Parties and Stand Little Change of Passage in Senate.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Campaign Finance Reform
N N Won
Roll Call 10
Feb 06, 2002
H Res 5. Sense of the House Resolution/Vote Expressing the Sense of the House that the $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut Enacted in 2001 Which Disproportionately Benefits Wealthy Individuals Should Not Be Repealed.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

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


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Won
Roll Call 8
Feb 06, 2002
H Res 342. Rules Suspension/Procedural Vote to Suspend House Rules to Allow Privileged Consideration of a Sense of the House Resolution Expressing Support for the $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut Enacted in 2001 Which Disproportionately Benefits Wealthy Individuals.

The following roll call description was written by the fine folks at ProgressivePunch.

Most bills that travel through the House have an accompanying set of rules that govern debate and that must be voted on separately. Sometimes the rules will be suspended, which means no amendments can be offered to the bill, debate is limited, and passage requires two-thirds of the members present. Republicans in the House offered a special bill that suspended the rules for three measures that day. Progressives opposed this suspension because they opposed one of these motions in particular: a measure to express support for the president's tax cut. To them, the suspension of the rules was designed to push through this measure without allowing changes and with little debate. When Hastings (R-WA) moved to order the previous question-a parliamentary maneuver that would end debate and force a vote on the rules suspension resolution-Progressives voted "no" because they did not want to see the resolution come to a vote at all. The motion was passed, 212-204, on a perfect partyline vote, and the suspension of the rules was subsequently passed on a voice (unrecorded) vote.


FAIR TAXATION Tax Breaks for the Rich
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL Insuring Government Has Adequate Financing to Function
N N Lost
Roll Call 512
Dec 20, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 1762 To establish fixed interest rates for student and parent borrowers, and for other purposes.
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 509
Dec 20, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3529 Economic Security and Worker Assistance Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 508
Dec 20, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3529 Economic Security and Worker Assistance Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 507
Dec 19, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 320 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3529; to provide tax incentives for economic recovery and assistance to displaced workers
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 506
Dec 19, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 319 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 498
Dec 13, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 314 Providing for the Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 488
Dec 12, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3295 Help America Vote Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 487
Dec 12, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 311 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3295; Help America Vote Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 481
Dec 06, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3005 Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 480
Dec 06, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3005 Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 479
Dec 06, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 306 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 3005, Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 478
Dec 06, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3129 Customs Border Security Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 476
Dec 06, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 305 Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 475
Dec 05, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Hour of Meeting: MOTION
On Hour of Meeting

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 464
Nov 29, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3210 Terrorism Risk Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 463
Nov 29, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3210 Terrorism Risk Protection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 462
Nov 29, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3210
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 461
Nov 29, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 297 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3210, Terrorism Risk Protection Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 460
Nov 29, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 297 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3210, Terrorism Risk Protection Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 457
Nov 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 3338
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 456
Nov 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair: H R 3338 Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002
On Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 454
Nov 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 296 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3338; Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 447
Nov 16, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3009 Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 446
Nov 16, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 289 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3009; Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 445
Nov 15, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H CON RES 239 Expressing the sense of Congress that schools in the US should set aside a sufficient period of time to allow children to pray for, or quietly reflect on behalf of, the Nation during this time of struggle against the forces of international terrorism.
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree

N N Lost
Roll Call 444
Nov 15, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 2887 Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 442
Nov 15, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2269 Retirement Security Advice Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 441
Nov 15, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2269
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 425
Nov 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3150 Secure Transportation for America Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 424
Nov 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3150 Secure Transportation for America Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 423
Nov 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3150
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 421
Nov 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3150
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 419
Nov 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 274 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3150; Aviation Security Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 404
Oct 24, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3090 To Provide Tax Incentives for Economic Recovery
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 403
Oct 24, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3090 To Provide Tax Incentives for Economic Recovery
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 402
Oct 24, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3090
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 401
Oct 24, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 270 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3090; To provide tax incentives for economic recovery
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 400
Oct 24, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 270 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3090; To provide tax incentives for economic recovery
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 398
Oct 24, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 3162 To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y N Lost
Roll Call 386
Oct 12, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2975 To Combat Terrorism
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 385
Oct 12, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2975 To Combat Terrorism
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N Y Lost
Roll Call 384
Oct 12, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 264 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2975; To Combat Terrorism
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 383
Oct 12, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 264 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2975; To Combat Terrorism
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 382
Oct 12, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 263 Waiving the Requirement of Clause 6(e) of Rule XIII with Respect to Consideration of Certain Resolutions Reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 380
Oct 11, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3061
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 375
Oct 10, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1992 Internet Equity and Education Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 374
Oct 10, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1992
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 369
Oct 04, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 2646
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 368
Oct 04, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 2646
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 366
Oct 04, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2646
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 365
Oct 03, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2646
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 363
Oct 03, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2646
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 358
Sep 25, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2586 Department of Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2002
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 357
Sep 25, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2586
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 356
Sep 25, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2586
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 354
Sep 25, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2944
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 353
Sep 25, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2944
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 352
Sep 25, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2944
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 351
Sep 25, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 245 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2944; District of Columbia Appropriations for F.Y. 2002
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 348
Sep 21, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2926 Air Transportaion Safety and System Stabilization Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 347
Sep 21, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2926 Air Transportaion Safety and System Stabilization Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 346
Sep 21, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 244 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 2926, Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 345
Sep 21, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 242 Waiving a Requirement of Clause 6(a) of Rule XIII with Respect to Consideration of Certain Resolutions Reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 332
Aug 02, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2563 Bipartisan Patient Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 331
Aug 02, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2563 Bipartisan Patient Protection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 330
Aug 02, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2563
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent N Won
Roll Call 329
Aug 02, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2563
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 328
Aug 02, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2563
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 326
Aug 02, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 219 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2563; Bipartisan Patient Protection Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 325
Aug 02, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 219 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2563; Bipartisan Patient Protection Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 320
Aug 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4 Securing America?s Future Energy Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 319
Aug 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4 Securing America?s Future Energy Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 317
Aug 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 316
Aug 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 315
Aug 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 314
Aug 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 313
Aug 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 312
Aug 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 311
Aug 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 309
Aug 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 307
Aug 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 216 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4; Securing America?s Future Energy Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 306
Aug 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 216 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4; Securing America?s Future Energy Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 304
Jul 31, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2505 Human Cloning Prohibition Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 303
Jul 31, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2505 Human Cloning Prohibition Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 302
Jul 31, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2505
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 300
Jul 31, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 214 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2505; Human Cloning Prohibition Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 297
Jul 30, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2620 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations for FY 2002
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 296
Jul 30, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2620 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations for FY 2002
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 295
Jul 30, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 2620
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 294
Jul 30, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2620
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 289
Jul 27, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2620
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 288
Jul 27, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2620
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 287
Jul 27, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2620
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 286
Jul 27, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2620
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 285
Jul 26, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2620
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 284
Jul 26, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2620
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 282
Jul 26, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2620
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 280
Jul 26, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 279
Jul 26, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 210 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2620; Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 278
Jul 26, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 210 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2620; Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 277
Jul 26, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 209 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 273
Jul 25, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2590
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 271
Jul 25, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2590
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 270
Jul 25, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2590
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 269
Jul 25, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2590
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 268
Jul 25, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2590
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 264
Jul 24, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2506
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 263
Jul 24, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2506
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 262
Jul 24, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2506
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 260
Jul 24, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2506
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 255
Jul 19, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 50 Disapproving Normal Trade Relations for China
On Passage

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 254
Jul 19, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 7 The Community Solutions Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 253
Jul 19, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 7 The Community Solutions Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 252
Jul 19, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 7
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 251
Jul 19, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 196 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7; The Community Solutions Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 250
Jul 19, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 196 Providing for consideration of H.R. 7; The Community Solutions Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 247
Jul 18, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 2500
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 244
Jul 18, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 2500
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 242
Jul 18, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2500
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 240
Jul 18, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2500
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 239
Jul 18, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2500
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 238
Jul 18, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1 No Child Left Behind Act
Table Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 235
Jul 17, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2500
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 234
Jul 17, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2500
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 232
Jul 17, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 36 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 231
Jul 17, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H J RES 36
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 230
Jul 17, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H RES 195 Commending the United States military and defense contractor personnel responsible for a successful in-flight ballistic missile defense interceptor test on July 14, 2001
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree

N N Lost
Roll Call 229
Jul 17, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 360 To honor Paul D. Coverdell
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Lost
Roll Call 228
Jul 12, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 188 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2356; Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Won
Roll Call 225
Jul 12, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2216 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 218
Jul 11, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2330
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 216
Jul 11, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2330
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 210
Jun 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2330
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 209
Jun 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2330
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 207
Jun 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 183 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2330; Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 2002
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 205
Jun 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2311
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 204
Jun 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2311
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 203
Jun 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2311
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 202
Jun 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2311
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 201
Jun 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2311
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 193
Jun 26, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2299
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 191
Jun 26, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 178 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2299, Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2002
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 190
Jun 26, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On the Question of Consideration: H RES 178 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2299, Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2002
On the Question of Consideration

N N Lost
Roll Call 184
Jun 21, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 183
Jun 21, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 182
Jun 21, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 181
Jun 21, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 180
Jun 21, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 179
Jun 21, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 178
Jun 21, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 177
Jun 21, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 176
Jun 20, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2216 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 175
Jun 20, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2216 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 173
Jun 20, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2216
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 172
Jun 20, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2216
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 170
Jun 20, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 171 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2216; 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 169
Jun 20, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 171 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2216; 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 164
Jun 14, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1088
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 149
May 26, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1836 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 148
May 26, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 153 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1836, Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 146
May 23, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1836 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 144
May 23, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1 No Child Left Behind Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 141
May 23, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 138
May 23, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 137
May 23, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 136
May 23, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 135
May 23, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 133
May 22, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 132
May 22, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 130
May 22, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 125
May 17, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 143 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 1, No Child Left Behind Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 120
May 16, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1646 Foreign Relations Authorization Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 118
May 16, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1836 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 117
May 16, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1836
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 116
May 16, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 142 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 1836, Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 115
May 16, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1646
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 108
May 10, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1646
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 107
May 10, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1646
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 106
May 10, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1646
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 105
May 10, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 138 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1646; Foreign Relations Authorization Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 104
May 09, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 83 Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 2002
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 103
May 09, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 136 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H. Con. Res. 83, Congressional Budget for FY 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 100
May 08, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 131 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 98
May 03, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 97
May 03, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 95
May 02, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 10 Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 94
May 02, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 89
Apr 26, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 503 Unborn Victims of Violence Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 88
Apr 26, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Lofgren Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 503
Lofgren Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 87
Apr 25, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 41 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitations
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 85
Apr 24, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H CON RES 83 Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 2002
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 84
Apr 04, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 8 Death Tax Elimination Act of 2001
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 83
Apr 04, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 8 Death Tax Elimination Act of 2001
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 82
Apr 04, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Rangel Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 8
Rangel Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 77
Apr 03, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H RES 91 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the human rights situation in Cuba
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree

Y N Lost
Roll Call 75
Mar 29, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6 Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 74
Mar 29, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6 Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 73
Mar 29, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Rangel Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 6
Rangel Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 71
Mar 29, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 104 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6; Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 70
Mar 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 83 Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 2002
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 69
Mar 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Spratt Substitute Amendment: Amendment 4 to H CON RES 83
Spratt Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 67
Mar 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Stenholm Substitute Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 83
Stenholm Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 66
Mar 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Kucinich Substitute Amendment: H CON RES 83 Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 2002
Kucinich Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 65
Mar 28, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 100 Providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 83; Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 2002
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 57
Mar 22, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 93 Providing for consideration of H.R. 247; Tornado Shelters Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 45
Mar 08, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 44
Mar 08, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 43
Mar 08, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: Amendment 1 to H R 3
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 42
Mar 08, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Rangel of New York Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3
Rangel of New York Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 41
Mar 08, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 40
Mar 08, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 83 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3; Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 39
Mar 08, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 83 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3; Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 38
Mar 08, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 83 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3; Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 37
Mar 08, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 83 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3; Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 36
Mar 08, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 35
Mar 08, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 33
Mar 07, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S J RES 6 Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Department of Labor Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, Relating to Ergonomics
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 29
Mar 07, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 79 Providing for consideration of S.J.Res. 6; Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Relating to Ergonomics
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 25
Mar 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 333 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 24
Mar 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 333 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 23
Mar 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Jackson-Lee of Texas Amendment Number 6: Amendment 5 to H R 333
Jackson-Lee of Texas Amendment Number 6

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 22
Mar 01, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 71 Providing for consideration of H.R. 333; Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 4
Jan 03, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 5 Adopting Rules for the One Hundred Seventh Congress
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 3
Jan 03, 2001

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Commit: H RES 5 Adopting Rules for the One Hundred Seventh Congress
On Motion to Commit

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 597
Nov 14, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the Rules and Agree to Senate Amendment: H R 4986 Foreign Sales Corporation (FCS) Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act
Suspend the Rules and Agree to Senate Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 596
Nov 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 1972 Conveyance of Joe Rowell Park, Dolores, Colorado
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 595
Nov 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2594 Carriage of Nonproject Water by the Mancos Project, Colorado
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 591
Nov 01, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 590
Nov 01, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 588
Nov 01, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On hour of meeting: MOTION
On hour of meeting

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 582
Oct 30, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 663 Providing for consideration of S.2485; and Corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 2614
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 581
Oct 30, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 662 Providing for consideration of certain joint resolutions making further continuing appropriations for FY 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 580
Oct 30, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 662 Providing for consideration of certain joint resolutions making further continuing appropriations for FY 2001
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y N Lost
Roll Call 579
Oct 30, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On hour of meeting: MOTION
On hour of meeting

N N Lost
Roll Call 576
Oct 29, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 573
Oct 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 562
Oct 26, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4942 District of Columbia Appropriations for F.Y. 2001
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 560
Oct 26, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2614 Small Business Investment Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 559
Oct 26, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 651 Providing for the consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 558
Oct 26, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 653 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 4942; D.C. Appropriations for F.Y. 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 557
Oct 26, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 653 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 4942; D.C. Appropriations for F.Y. 2001
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 556
Oct 26, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 652 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2614 to amend the Small Business Investment Act to make improvements to the certified development company program, and for other purposes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 555
Oct 26, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 652 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2614 to amend the Small Business Investment Act to make improvements to the certified development company program, and for other purposes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 551
Oct 25, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 646 Providing for consideration of certain joint resolutions making further continuing appropriations for F.Y. 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 548
Oct 25, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5375 Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 545
Oct 25, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 647 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany HR 4811 making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for FY 2001
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 543
Oct 24, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 4271 National Science Education Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 541
Oct 24, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 634 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4656, Lake Tahoe Basin School Site Land Conveyance Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 539
Oct 19, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 114 Making further continuing appropriations for FY 2001, and for other purposes
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 538
Oct 19, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 637 Providing for consideration of the joint resolution H.J. Res 114 making further continuing appropriations for FY 2001, and for other purposes.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 537
Oct 19, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 637 Providing for consideration of the joint resolution H.J. Res 114 making further continuing appropriations for FY 2001, and for other purposes.
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 529
Oct 12, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 4656 Conveyance of Certain Forest Service Land in the Lake Tahoe Basin
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 528
Oct 12, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 5174 To remove the uncertainty regarding the authority of the Department of Defense to permit buildings located on military installations and reserve component facilities to be used as polling places in Federal, State, and local elections
Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Lost
Roll Call 525
Oct 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4461 Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations for FY 2001
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 524
Oct 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 617 Waiving points of order against the conference report to H.R. 4461 making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 523
Oct 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 4733 Making Appropriations for Energy and Water for F.Y. 2001
Passage, objections of the President Notwithstanding

N N Lost
Roll Call 522
Oct 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4205 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 519
Oct 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2438 Pipeline Safety Improvement Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 515
Oct 06, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 612 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H.R. 4475, Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 510
Oct 04, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4942 District of Columbia Appropriations for F.Y. 2001
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 503
Oct 02, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 4049 Privacy Commission Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 501
Sep 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4733 Making Appropriations for Energy and Water for F.Y. 2001
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 500
Sep 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 598 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 4733 making appropriations for Energy and Water for Fiscal Year 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 494
Sep 26, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 5175 Small Business Liability Relief Act
Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 484
Sep 20, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Instruct Conferees, On Divided Portion No. 2: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001
Motion to Instruct Conferees, On Divided Portion No. 2

Y Y Won
Roll Call 481
Sep 19, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 480
Sep 19, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, As Amended: H R 3986 Prosser Diversion Dam Study Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, As Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 476
Sep 14, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4516 Legislative Branch Appropriations for F.Y. 2001
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 474
Sep 14, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4942 District of Columbia Appropriations for F.Y. 2001
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 473
Sep 14, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4942
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 472
Sep 14, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4942
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 471
Sep 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4205 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 470
Sep 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4205 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Won
Roll Call 467
Sep 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 4986 Foreign Sales Corporation (FCS) Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act
Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 466
Sep 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 4810 Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act
Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding

N N Won
Roll Call 458
Sep 07, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 8 Death Tax Elimination Act
Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding

N N Won
Roll Call 456
Sep 07, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4678 Child Support Distribution Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 455
Sep 07, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4678
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 450
Jul 27, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4865 Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 449
Jul 27, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4865
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 448
Jul 27, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 565 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H.R. 4516, Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 447
Jul 27, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 564 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4865; Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 446
Jul 27, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 568 Raising a question of the privileges of the House pursuant to Article I, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 442
Jul 26, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 563 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4942; Making Appropriations for the District of Columbia for F.Y. 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 428
Jul 20, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4871 Treasury - Postal Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 427
Jul 20, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4871
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 425
Jul 20, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 4871
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 424
Jul 20, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4871
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 423
Jul 20, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4871
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 422
Jul 20, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4871
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 421
Jul 20, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4871
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 418
Jul 20, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4810 Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 417
Jul 20, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 559 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H.R. 4810, Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 415
Jul 19, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 414
Jul 19, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4118 Russian-American Trust and Cooperation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 413
Jul 19, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4576 Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2001
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 411
Jul 19, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1102 Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 410
Jul 19, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1102
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 408
Jul 18, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4810 Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 405
Jul 18, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 103 Disapproving the Extension of the Waiver Authority Contained in Section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with Respect to the People?s Republic of China
On Passage

N Y Lost
Roll Call 404
Jul 17, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3125 Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Absent N Won
Roll Call 400
Jul 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4811 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 2001
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 399
Jul 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4811
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 398
Jul 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4811
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 397
Jul 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4811
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 396
Jul 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4811
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 394
Jul 12, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 546 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4811, Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 392
Jul 12, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4810 Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 391
Jul 12, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4810 Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 390
Jul 12, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4810
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 385
Jul 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4461 Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations for FY 2001
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 384
Jul 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 4461
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 383
Jul 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 4461
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 382
Jul 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 4461
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 373
Jul 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4461
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 371
Jun 29, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1304
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 369
Jun 29, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1304
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent N Won
Roll Call 365
Jun 29, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 542 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 1304, Quality Health-Care Coalition Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 364
Jun 29, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 542 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 1304, Quality Health-Care Coalition Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 362
Jun 29, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4425 Military Construction Appropriations for F.Y. 2001
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 358
Jun 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 538 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 4461, Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations for FY 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 357
Jun 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4680 The Medicare RX 2000 Act
On Passage

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 356
Jun 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4680 The Medicare RX 2000 Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 355
Jun 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 4680 The Medicare RX 2000 Act
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 354
Jun 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

shall the use of an exhibit be permitted: H R 4680 The Medicare RX 2000 Act
shall the use of an exhibit be permitted

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 351
Jun 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 350
Jun 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H RES 539 Providing for consideration of H.R.4680; Medicare Rx 2000 Act
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 349
Jun 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 539 Providing for consideration of H.R.4680; Medicare Rx 2000 Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 348
Jun 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H RES 539 Providing for consideration of H.R.4680; Medicare Rx 2000 Act
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 347
Jun 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 539 Providing for consideration of H.R.4680; Medicare Rx 2000 Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 346
Jun 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 345
Jun 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 539 Providing for consideration of H.R.4680; Medicare Rx 2000 Act
On Motion to Table

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 344
Jun 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Will the House now Consider the Resolution: H RES 539 Providing for consideration of H.R.4680; Medicare Rx 2000 Act
Will the House now Consider the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 343
Jun 28, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 340
Jun 27, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4733
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 338
Jun 27, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4733
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 337
Jun 27, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4733
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 336
Jun 27, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4733
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 335
Jun 27, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4733
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 326
Jun 26, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4690 Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations for FY 2001
On Passage

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 324
Jun 26, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 4690
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent N Won
Roll Call 323
Jun 26, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 4690
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 321
Jun 23, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4690
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 320
Jun 23, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4690
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 319
Jun 23, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4690
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 318
Jun 22, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4690
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 317
Jun 22, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4690
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 316
Jun 22, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4690
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 315
Jun 22, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4690
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 314
Jun 22, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 529 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4690, Departments of Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations for FY 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 312
Jun 22, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4516
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 311
Jun 22, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 530 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4516; Legislative Branch Appropriations for F.Y. 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 309
Jun 21, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4635 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations for FY 2001
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 308
Jun 21, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 4635
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 307
Jun 21, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 4635
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 306
Jun 21, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 4635
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 305
Jun 21, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 4635
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 304
Jun 21, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 4635
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 303
Jun 21, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 4635
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 300
Jun 21, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4635
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 299
Jun 21, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4635
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 298
Jun 21, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 528 Providing for consideration of H.J. Res 90; Withdrawing the Approval of the Congress from the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 295
Jun 20, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4201 Noncommercial Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 294
Jun 20, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4201
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 293
Jun 19, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4635
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 292
Jun 19, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 4635 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations for FY 2001
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 291
Jun 15, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4578 Department of the Interior Appropriations for FY 2001
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 290
Jun 15, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4578 Department of the Interior Appropriations for FY 2001
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 289
Jun 15, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 4578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 288
Jun 15, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 4578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 287
Jun 15, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 4578 Department of the Interior Appropriations for FY 2001
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 286
Jun 15, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 4578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 284
Jun 15, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 4578 Department of the Interior Appropriations for FY 2001
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 283
Jun 15, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 282
Jun 15, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 281
Jun 15, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 280
Jun 15, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 279
Jun 15, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 4578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 278
Jun 15, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 525 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4635, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations, FY2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 277
Jun 14, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 276
Jun 14, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 273
Jun 14, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 272
Jun 14, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 269
Jun 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 4577
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 267
Jun 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 4577
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 266
Jun 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 4577
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 265
Jun 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 4577
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 263
Jun 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4577
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 262
Jun 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 4577
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 261
Jun 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4577
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 260
Jun 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4577
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 256
Jun 12, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 255
Jun 12, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion That Committee Rise: H R 4577 Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 2001
On Motion That Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 254
Jun 09, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 8 Death Tax Elimination Act
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 253
Jun 09, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 8 Death Tax Elimination Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 252
Jun 09, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 8
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 250
Jun 08, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4577
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 249
Jun 08, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 519 Providing consideration of H.R 8; To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phaseout the estate and gift Taxes over a 10-year period
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 248
Jun 08, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 519 Providing consideration of H.R 8; To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phaseout the estate and gift Taxes over a 10-year period
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 247
Jun 08, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 518 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4577; Making Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services for F.Y. 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 241
Jun 07, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4576 Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2001
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 240
Jun 07, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3605
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent N Won
Roll Call 239
Jun 07, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3605
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 238
Jun 07, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3605
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 232
May 25, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3916 To Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Repeal the Excise Tax on Telephone and Other Communication Services
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 229
May 25, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 511 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 3916, to Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Repeal the Excise Tax on Telephone and Other Communication Services
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 228
May 24, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4444 To Authorize Extension of Nondiscriminatory Treatment (Normal Trade Relations Treatment) to the People?s Republic of China
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 227
May 24, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4444 To Authorize Extension of Nondiscriminatory Treatment (Normal Trade Relations Treatment) to the People?s Republic of China
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 225
May 24, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 510 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 4444, to authorize extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the People?s Republic of China
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 214
May 23, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4392
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 209
May 19, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4475
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 208
May 18, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4205 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 205
May 18, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4205
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 204
May 18, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4205
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 203
May 18, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4205
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 202
May 18, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4205
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 201
May 18, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 504 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 4205, Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 200
May 18, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 504 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 4205, Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 197
May 18, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4205
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 196
May 18, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4205
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 194
May 18, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4205
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 193
May 17, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4205
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 192
May 17, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 4205 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 191
May 17, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 4205 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 190
May 17, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 503 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4205; Defense Authorization for F.Y. 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 189
May 16, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 853 Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 188
May 16, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 853
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 187
May 16, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 853
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 186
May 16, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 853
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 185
May 16, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 499 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 853, Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 177
May 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 701
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 175
May 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 701
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 174
May 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 701
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 172
May 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 701
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 171
May 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 701
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 170
May 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 701
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 169
May 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 701
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 168
May 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 701
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 167
May 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 701
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 165
May 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 701
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 164
May 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 701
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 163
May 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 701
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 161
May 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 701
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 159
May 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3709 Internet Nondiscrimination Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 158
May 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3709 Internet Nondiscrimination Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 157
May 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3709
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 156
May 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3709
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 154
May 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Will the House now consider the bill: H R 3709 Internet Nondiscrimination Act
Will the House now consider the bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 146
May 08, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H CON RES 296 Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the necessity to expedite the settlement process for discrimination claims against the Department of Agriculture brought by African-American farmers
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree

N N Won
Roll Call 145
May 04, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 434 Trade and Development Act of 2000
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 144
May 04, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 488 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 130
Apr 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3439 Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 129
Apr 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3439
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 127
Apr 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4199 Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 126
Apr 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4199 Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 125
Apr 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 290 Budget Resolution for F.Y. 2001
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 124
Apr 13, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 474 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.Con.Res. 290; The Budget Resolution for F.Y. 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 119
Apr 12, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 94 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitations
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 115
Apr 11, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass: H R 4051 Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act of 2000
Suspend the rules and pass

N N Lost
Roll Call 114
Apr 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H CON RES 290 Budget Resolution for F.Y. 2001
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 109
Apr 06, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1776
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 108
Apr 06, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1776
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 104
Apr 05, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3660 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 103
Apr 05, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3660 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 102
Apr 05, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 457 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3660; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 101
Apr 04, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2418 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Amendments of 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 100
Apr 04, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2418
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 98
Apr 04, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2418
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 95
Mar 30, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3908 Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for F.Y. 2000
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 94
Mar 30, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3908 Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for F.Y. 2000
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 93
Mar 30, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 3908
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 89
Mar 30, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 3908
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Won
Roll Call 88
Mar 29, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3908
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 86
Mar 29, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3908
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 85
Mar 29, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3908
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 84
Mar 29, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3908
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 81
Mar 29, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 450 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3908; Making emergency supplemental appropriations for F.Y. 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 75
Mar 23, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 290 Budget Resolution for F.Y. 2001
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 74
Mar 23, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H CON RES 290
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 71
Mar 23, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 290
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 70
Mar 23, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 290
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 69
Mar 23, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H CON RES 290 Budget Resolution for F.Y. 2001
On Motion that the Committee Rise

N N Lost
Roll Call 68
Mar 23, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the resolution, as amended: H RES 446 Providing for consideration of H. Con Res. 290 establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for FY 2001
On agreeing to the resolution, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 67
Mar 23, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 446 Providing for consideration of H. Con Res. 290 establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for FY 2001
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 64
Mar 22, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 445 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3822; Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 63
Mar 22, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 1287 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 62
Mar 22, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Commit with Instructions: S 1287 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000
Commit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 61
Mar 22, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Will the House Consider the Bill: S 1287 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000
Will the House Consider the Bill

N N Lost
Roll Call 60
Mar 22, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 444 Providing for consideration of S. 1287; Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 59
Mar 22, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 444 Providing for consideration of S. 1287; Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 55
Mar 16, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2372 Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 54
Mar 16, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2372 Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 53
Mar 16, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2372
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 52
Mar 16, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2372
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 51
Mar 16, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 441 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2372; Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 50
Mar 15, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1501 Juvenile Justice Reform Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 45
Mar 09, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3846 To Amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to Increase the Minimum Wage, and for other purposes
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 44
Mar 09, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3846 To Amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to Increase the Minimum Wage, and for other purposes
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 43
Mar 09, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3846
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 42
Mar 09, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Will The House Now Consider The Bill: H R 3846 To Amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to Increase the Minimum Wage, and for other purposes
Will The House Now Consider The Bill

Y Y Won
Roll Call 41
Mar 09, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3081 Wage and Employment Growth Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 40
Mar 09, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3081 Wage and Employment Growth Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 39
Mar 09, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution as Amended: H RES 434 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3081 and H.R. 3846
On Agreeing to the Resolution as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 38
Mar 09, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering Previous Question on Resolution as Amended: H RES 434 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3081 and H.R. 3846
On Ordering Previous Question on Resolution as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 25
Feb 16, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2366 Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2000
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 24
Feb 16, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2366
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 23
Feb 16, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 423 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2366; Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 15
Feb 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6 Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 14
Feb 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 6 Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 13
Feb 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 12
Feb 10, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 419 Providing for consideration of H.R. 6; Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 7
Feb 02, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2005 Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 6
Feb 01, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2990 Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act of 1999
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 5
Feb 01, 2000

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1838 Taiwan Security Enhancement Act
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 609
Nov 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit Conference Report: H R 3194 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000
On Motion to Recommit Conference Report

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 608
Nov 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 386 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 3194, D.C. Appropriations, FY 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 602
Nov 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: MOTION Providing for consideration of H.J. Res 82; making further continuing appropriations for FY 2000
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 600
Nov 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 385 Providing for consideration of H.J. Res 82; making further continuing appropriations for FY 2000
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 590
Nov 16, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 374 Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 586
Nov 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3073 Fathers Count Act of 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 585
Nov 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3073 Fathers Count Act of 1999
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 584
Nov 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3073
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 583
Nov 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3073
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 582
Nov 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 367 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3073; Fathers Count Act of 1999
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 579
Nov 09, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1714 Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 578
Nov 09, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1714
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 570
Nov 04, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 900 Financial Services Modernization Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 569
Nov 04, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 355 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany S.900; Financial Services Modernization Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 568
Nov 04, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table appeal from ruling of the chair: MOTION
Table appeal from ruling of the chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 567
Nov 04, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

table appeal from ruling of the chair: MOTION
table appeal from ruling of the chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 566
Nov 04, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table appeal from ruling of chair: MOTION
Table appeal from ruling of chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 564
Nov 04, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: H CON RES 214 Expressing the Sense of Congress that Direct Systematic Phonics Instruction Should be Used in All Schools
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 562
Nov 03, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3194 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 561
Nov 03, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 353 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 560
Nov 03, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2389 County Schools Revitalization Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 559
Nov 03, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2389
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 558
Nov 03, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2990 Quality Care for the Uninsured Act of 1999
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 552
Nov 01, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1714 Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act
Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 549
Oct 28, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3064 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 547
Oct 28, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 345 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 3064; District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 544
Oct 27, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2260 Pain Relief Promotion Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 543
Oct 27, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2260
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 542
Oct 27, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2260
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 538
Oct 26, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H CON RES 208 Expressing the sense of Congress that there should be no increase in Federal taxes in order to fund additional Government spending.
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree

N N Lost
Roll Call 532
Oct 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2300 Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A?s Act)
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 531
Oct 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2300 Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A?s Act)
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 530
Oct 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2300
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 529
Oct 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 338 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2300; Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A?s Act)
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 528
Oct 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2466 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 527
Oct 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 337 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2466; Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 524
Oct 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 523
Oct 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 522
Oct 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 521
Oct 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 519
Oct 20, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 518
Oct 20, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2670 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2000
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 517
Oct 20, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 335 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2670; Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations for F.Y. 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 516
Oct 20, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 335 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2670; Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations for F.Y. 2000
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 512
Oct 19, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Discharge Committee: H R 2488 Financial Freedom Act of 1999
Table Motion to Discharge Committee

N N Lost
Roll Call 504
Oct 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3064 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 503
Oct 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 330 Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3064; District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 502
Oct 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1501 Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 498
Oct 13, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1993
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 497
Oct 13, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1993
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 494
Oct 13, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2561 Department of Defense Appropriations for F.Y. 2000
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 490
Oct 07, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2723 Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 489
Oct 07, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2723
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 488
Oct 07, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2723
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 487
Oct 07, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2723
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 485
Oct 06, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2990 Quality Care for the Uninsured Act of 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 484
Oct 06, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2990 Quality Care for the Uninsured Act of 1999
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 483
Oct 06, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 323 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2990; Quality Care for the Uninsured Act of 1999
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 480
Oct 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2606 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, FY 2000
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 473
Oct 04, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2466 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 469
Oct 01, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1906 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2000
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 468
Oct 01, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Recommit the Conference Report: H R 1906 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2000
Motion to Recommit the Conference Report

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 467
Oct 01, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 317 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H.R. 1906, Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 465
Sep 30, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2436 Unborn Victims of Violence Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 464
Sep 30, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2436
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 463
Sep 30, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2436
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 447
Sep 24, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1501 Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 446
Sep 24, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1501 Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 445
Sep 24, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1501 Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 443
Sep 23, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1875 Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 442
Sep 23, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1875
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 441
Sep 23, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1875
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 440
Sep 23, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1875
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 439
Sep 23, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1875
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 437
Sep 23, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 295 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1875; Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 436
Sep 22, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1402 Consolidation of Federal Milk Marketing Orders
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 428
Sep 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1431 Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 424
Sep 15, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 1059 DOD Authorization for FY 2000
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 423
Sep 15, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit the Conference Report: S 1059 DOD Authorization for FY 2000
On Motion to Recommit the Conference Report

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 422
Sep 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 417 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 421
Sep 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 417
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 419
Sep 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 417
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 418
Sep 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 417
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 417
Sep 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 417
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 416
Sep 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 417
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 415
Sep 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 417
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 414
Sep 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 417
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 413
Sep 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 417
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 412
Sep 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 417
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 411
Sep 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 417
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 404
Sep 09, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2587 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 403
Sep 09, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2684 Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 402
Sep 09, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2684 Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 400
Sep 09, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2684
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 397
Sep 09, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 281 Providing for consideration of a motion to suspend the rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 396
Sep 08, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2684
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 395
Sep 08, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2684
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 394
Sep 08, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2684
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 393
Sep 08, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2684
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 391
Sep 08, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2684
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 390
Sep 08, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Sustaining Ruling of the Chair: MOTION
Sustaining Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 388
Aug 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 275 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2684; V.A., HUD Appropriations for F.Y. 2000
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 387
Aug 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2670 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2000
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 386
Aug 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2670 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2000
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 385
Aug 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 2670
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 383
Aug 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2670
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 382
Aug 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2670
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 381
Aug 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2670
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 380
Aug 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2670
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 379
Aug 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2488 Financial Freedom Act of 1999
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 378
Aug 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2488 Financial Freedom Act of 1999
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 377
Aug 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 274 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2488; Financial Freedom Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 375
Aug 04, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Senate Amendments: H R 1664 Kosovo and Southwest Asia Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendments

N Y Won
Roll Call 373
Aug 04, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2670
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 372
Aug 04, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2670
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 371
Aug 04, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2670 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2000
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 370
Aug 04, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2670
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 369
Aug 04, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 273 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2670; Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 366
Aug 03, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 987 Workplace Preservation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 364
Aug 03, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2031 Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 363
Aug 03, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Engrossment and Third Reading: H R 2031 Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act
On Engrossment and Third Reading

Y N Lost
Roll Call 360
Aug 03, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 356
Aug 02, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2488 Financial Freedom Act of 1999
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 355
Jul 30, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: S 900 Financial Services Modernization Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 353
Jul 29, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 352
Jul 29, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 350
Jul 29, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 349
Jul 29, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 348
Jul 29, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 263 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2606; Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 346
Jul 29, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2587
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 345
Jul 29, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2587
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 344
Jul 29, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2587
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 341
Jul 27, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2605
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 339
Jul 27, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 260 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2587; District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 338
Jul 27, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 57 Disapprove Normal Trade Relations with China
On Passage

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 336
Jul 26, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1074 Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 335
Jul 26, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1074
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 334
Jul 22, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2561 Department of Defense Appropriations for F.Y. 2000
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 333
Jul 22, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2488 Financial Freedom Act of 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 332
Jul 22, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2488 Financial Freedom Act of 1999
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 331
Jul 22, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2488
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 330
Jul 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended: H RES 256 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2488; Financial Freedom Act of 1999
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 326
Jul 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2415
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 325
Jul 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2415
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 324
Jul 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2415
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 322
Jul 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2415
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 321
Jul 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2415
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 320
Jul 20, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1995 Teacher Empowerment Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 319
Jul 20, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1995
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 317
Jul 20, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1995
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 315
Jul 20, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 253 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1995; Teacher Empowerment Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 313
Jul 20, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2415
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 312
Jul 20, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2415
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 307
Jul 16, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 434 African Growth and Opportunity Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 306
Jul 16, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 250 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 434, African Growth and Opportunity Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 305
Jul 15, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2490 Treasury and General Appropriations Act, FY 2000
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 304
Jul 15, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2490
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 303
Jul 15, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2490
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 301
Jul 15, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2490
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 299
Jul 15, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1691 Religious Liberty Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 298
Jul 15, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1691
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 295
Jul 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2466 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 294
Jul 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2466
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 293
Jul 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 2466
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 292
Jul 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2466
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 291
Jul 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2466
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 290
Jul 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2466
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 289
Jul 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2466
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 288
Jul 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2466
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 287
Jul 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2466
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 286
Jul 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2466
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 285
Jul 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2466
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 284
Jul 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2466
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 283
Jul 13, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2466
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 281
Jul 13, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2466
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 276
Jul 01, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 10 Financial Services Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 275
Jul 01, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 10 Financial Services Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 273
Jul 01, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 272
Jul 01, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 10 Financial Services Act
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 269
Jul 01, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 268
Jul 01, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 266
Jul 01, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: S 1059 DOD Authorization for FY 2000
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 264
Jul 01, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 235 Providing for consideration of H.R. 10; Financial Services Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 261
Jun 30, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1218 Child Custody Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 260
Jun 30, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1218 Child Custody Protection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 259
Jun 29, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H CON RES 94 Recognizing the Need for Reconciliation and Healing and Prayer
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree

N N Won
Roll Call 252
Jun 24, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 33 Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the United States Flag
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 251
Jun 24, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H J RES 33
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 249
Jun 23, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2084
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 248
Jun 23, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2084
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 244
Jun 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2122 Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 243
Jun 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2122
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 241
Jun 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2122
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 240
Jun 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2122
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 239
Jun 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2122
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 237
Jun 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2122
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 235
Jun 17, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2122
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 234
Jun 17, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2122
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 233
Jun 17, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1501 Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 232
Jun 17, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1501 Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 231
Jun 17, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 230
Jun 17, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 229
Jun 17, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 39 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 227
Jun 17, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 224
Jun 17, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 223
Jun 17, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 222
Jun 17, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 221
Jun 17, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 220
Jun 16, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 219
Jun 16, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 218
Jun 16, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 216
Jun 16, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 215
Jun 16, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 213
Jun 16, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 211
Jun 16, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1501
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 210
Jun 16, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 209 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1501, Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act, and H.R. 2122, Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 208
Jun 15, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1000
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 207
Jun 15, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1000
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 203
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1905 Legislative Branch Approriations Act for FY 2000
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 202
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1905 Legislative Branch Approriations Act for FY 2000
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 201
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 1905 Legislative Branch Approriations Act for FY 2000
On Motion that the Committee Rise

N Y Lost
Roll Call 199
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

table motion to reconsider: MOTION
table motion to reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 198
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended: H RES 190 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1905; Legislative Appropriations for F.Y. 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 197
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

table motion to reconsider: MOTION
table motion to reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 196
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 190
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 195
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

table motion to reconsider: MOTION
table motion to reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 194
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 190 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1905; Legislative Appropriations for F.Y. 2000
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 193
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 192
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 191
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1401 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 190
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 1401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 189
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 186
Jun 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 1401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 184
Jun 09, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 183
Jun 09, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 182
Jun 09, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 181
Jun 09, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 179
Jun 09, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 200 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1401; National Defense Authorization Act for F.Y. 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 177
Jun 08, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1906 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2000
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 176
Jun 08, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1906 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2000
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 175
Jun 08, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 1906
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 173
Jun 08, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 1906 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2000
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 172
Jun 08, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1906
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 165
May 26, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: S CON RES 35 Adjournment of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 163
May 26, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1259 Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 162
May 26, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 186 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1259, Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 156
May 25, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1906
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 153
May 25, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1906
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 152
May 25, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1906
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 144
May 20, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment: H R 4 National Missile Defense System
On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 142
May 20, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 883
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 141
May 20, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 883
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 140
May 20, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 180 Providing for consideration of H.R. 883; American Land Sovereignty Protection Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 139
May 19, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1654 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 138
May 19, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1654
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 134
May 19, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1654
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 133
May 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1141 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY 1999
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 132
May 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit the Conference Report: H R 1141 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY 1999
On Motion to Recommit the Conference Report

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 131
May 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 173 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1141; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations FY 1999
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 129
May 13, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1555
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 128
May 12, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 775 Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 127
May 12, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 775 Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 126
May 12, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 775
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 125
May 12, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 775
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 124
May 12, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 775
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 123
May 12, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 166 Providing for consideration of H.R. 775; Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 120
May 06, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1664 Kosovo and Southwest Asia Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 118
May 06, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1664
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 116
May 06, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 159 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1664; Making emergency supplemental appropriations relating to the conflict in Kosovo
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 115
May 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 833 Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 114
May 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 833
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 113
May 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 833
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 112
May 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 833
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 110
May 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 833
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 109
May 05, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 158 Providing for Consideration of the Bill H.R. 833, Bankruptcy Reform Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 103
Apr 28, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: S CON RES 21 Authorizing the President of the United States to Conduct Military Air Operations and Missile Strikes Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 101
Apr 28, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 82 Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove U.S. Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Won
Roll Call 100
Apr 28, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1569 Military Operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Limitation Act
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 99
Apr 28, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 151 Providing for Consideration of Certain Bills and Resolutions Concerning the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 94
Apr 21, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 800 Education Flexibility Partnership Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 90
Apr 15, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 37 Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States With Respect to Tax Limitations
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 89
Apr 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 472 Local Census Quality Control Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 88
Apr 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 472
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 87
Apr 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 138 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 472, Local Census Quality Control Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 86
Apr 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 138 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 472, Local Census Quality Control Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 85
Apr 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 68 Congressional Budget for U.S. Government for FY 2000
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 84
Apr 14, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 137 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report H. Con. Res 68, Congressional Budget for U.S.Government for FY 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 77
Mar 25, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 68 Congressional Budget for U.S. Government for FY 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 76
Mar 25, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 68
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 73
Mar 25, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 131 Providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 68, Congressional Budget for U.S. Government for FY 2000
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 72
Mar 25, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 131 Providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 68, Congressional Budget for U.S. Government for FY 2000
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 70
Mar 24, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1141 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 69
Mar 24, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1141
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 68
Mar 24, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1141 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY 1999
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 66
Mar 23, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 101 Committee Funding Resolution for the 106th Congress
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 65
Mar 23, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 101 Committee Funding Resolution for the 106th Congress
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 64
Mar 23, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 800 Education Flexibility Partnership Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 60
Mar 23, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H RES 121 Affirming the Congress? Opposition to All Forms of Racism and Bigotry
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree

N N Won
Roll Call 59
Mar 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4 National Missile Defense System
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 58
Mar 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4 National Missile Defense System
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 57
Mar 18, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 120 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4; National Missile Defense System
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 56
Mar 17, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 975 Provide for a Reduction in the Volume of Steel Imports
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 49
Mar 11, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 42 Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 48
Mar 11, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 42
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 47
Mar 11, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Sustain the ruling of the chair: MOTION
Sustain the ruling of the chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 46
Mar 11, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 103 Providing for consideration of H.Con.Res. 42; Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 45
Mar 11, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 103 Providing for consideration of H.Con.Res. 42; Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 41
Mar 11, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 800 Education Flexibility Partnership Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 40
Mar 11, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 800
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 39
Mar 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 800
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 37
Mar 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 800
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 36
Mar 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 100 Providing for consideration of H.R. 800; Education Flexibility Partnership Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 20
Feb 11, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 391 Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 19
Feb 11, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 391
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 17
Feb 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 350 Mandates Information Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 16
Feb 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 350
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 15
Feb 10, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 350
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 6
Jan 06, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 10 Appointment of Managers to Conduct an Impeachment Trial
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 5
Jan 06, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 5 Adopting rules for the One Hundred Sixth Congress
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 4
Jan 06, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Commit with Instructions: H RES 5 Adopting rules for the One Hundred Sixth Congress
On Motion to Commit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 3
Jan 06, 1999

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 5 Adopting rules for the One Hundred Sixth Congress
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 547
Dec 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 614 Appointment of Managers
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 546
Dec 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Adopting the Fourth Article: Amendment 4 to H RES 611
Adopting the Fourth Article

N N Won
Roll Call 545
Dec 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Adopting the Third Article: Amendment 3 to H RES 611
Adopting the Third Article

N N Lost
Roll Call 544
Dec 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Adopting the Second Article: Amendment 2 to H RES 611
Adopting the Second Article

N N Won
Roll Call 543
Dec 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Adopting the First Article: Amendment 1 to H RES 611
Adopting the First Article

N N Lost
Roll Call 542
Dec 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table appeal from ruling of the chair: MOTION
Table appeal from ruling of the chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 537
Oct 20, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 604 Providing for the consideration of S. 1132 and S. 2133
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 536
Oct 20, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 605 Waiving points of order against the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4328
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 535
Oct 15, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 1132 Bandelier National Monument Administrative Improvement and Watershed Protection Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 534
Oct 15, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 2133 To preserve the cultural resources of the Route 66 corridor
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 530
Oct 14, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3963 Sell Canyon Ferry Reservoir Cabins
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 528
Oct 13, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the Rules and Agree to Conference Report: S 1260 Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
Suspend the Rules and Agree to Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 523
Oct 12, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: S 2095 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 522
Oct 12, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H CON RES 350 Calling Upon the President to Respond to the Significant Increase of Steel Imports
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree

N N Won
Roll Call 520
Oct 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: S 852 National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 514
Oct 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 588 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4761; Uruguay Round Agreements Compliance Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 513
Oct 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 589 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 512
Oct 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table appeal from ruling of the chair: MOTION
Table appeal from ruling of the chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 508
Oct 09, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H CON RES 331 Expressing the sense of Congress Concerning the Inadequacy of Sewage Infrastructute Facilities in Tijuana, Mexico
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree

N N Won
Roll Call 506
Oct 09, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3150 Bankruptcy Reform Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 505
Oct 09, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 3150 Bankruptcy Reform Act
Recommit Conference Report with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 504
Oct 08, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4274
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 503
Oct 08, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

table motion to reconsider: H RES 584 Further providing for the consideration of H.R. 4274
table motion to reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 502
Oct 08, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 584 Further providing for the consideration of H.R. 4274
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 501
Oct 08, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

table motion to reconsider: H RES 584 Further providing for the consideration of H.R. 4274
table motion to reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 500
Oct 08, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 584 Further providing for the consideration of H.R. 4274
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 498
Oct 08, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 581 Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 497
Oct 08, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 581 Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 494
Oct 07, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4104 Treasury, Postal Service, Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY 1999
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 493
Oct 07, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 4104 Treasury, Postal Service, Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY 1999
Recommit Conference Report with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 490
Oct 07, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 579 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 4104
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 489
Oct 07, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4570 Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 488
Oct 07, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 573 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4570; Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 487
Oct 07, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3694 FY 1999 Intelligence Authorization
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y N Lost
Roll Call 486
Oct 07, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 3694 FY 1999 Intelligence Authorization
Recommit Conference Report with Instructions

N Y Lost
Roll Call 485
Oct 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4259
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 484
Oct 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 575 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committtee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 481
Oct 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1154 Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1997
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 480
Oct 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 4614 New Hampshire Land Conveyance
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 478
Oct 02, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit the Conference Report with Instructions: H R 4101 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999
Recommit the Conference Report with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 476
Oct 02, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 564 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4274; Labor, Health, and Human Services Appropriations for F.Y. 1999
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 474
Oct 01, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Go to Conference: S 2073 Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act
On Motion to Go to Conference

Y N Lost
Roll Call 473
Sep 28, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3150 Bankruptcy Reform Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 470
Sep 28, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 3891 Trademark Anticounterfeiting Act
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended

N N Won
Roll Call 469
Sep 26, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4579 Taxpayer Relief Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 468
Sep 26, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4579
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 466
Sep 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2621 Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities Act
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 465
Sep 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 553 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2621
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 464
Sep 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4578 Protect Social Security Account
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 463
Sep 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 462
Sep 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 552 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4578 and H.R. 4579
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 461
Sep 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 552 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4578 and H.R. 4579
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 460
Sep 24, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3736 Workforce Improvement and Protection Act
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 459
Sep 24, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3736
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 458
Sep 24, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3616 National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 1999
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y N Lost
Roll Call 453
Sep 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Resolution: H RES 545 Impeachment of Kenneth W. Starr
On Motion to Table the Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 452
Sep 18, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3248 To Provide Dollars to the Classroom
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 451
Sep 18, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3248
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 450
Sep 18, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3248
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 449
Sep 17, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4569 Foreign Operations Appropriations for F.Y. 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 448
Sep 17, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4569
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 447
Sep 17, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4569
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 446
Sep 17, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 542 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4569; Foreign Operations Appropriations for F.Y. 1999
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 443
Sep 16, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4550
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 442
Sep 16, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4300 Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 441
Sep 16, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4300
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 440
Sep 16, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4300
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 439
Sep 16, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4300
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 438
Sep 16, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4300
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 436
Sep 15, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: S 2073 Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 435
Sep 15, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H J RES 117 Expressing the Sense of Congress that Marijuana is a Dangerous and Addictive Drug and Should not be Legalized for Medicinal Use
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 433
Sep 15, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 4328 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 1999
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 425
Sep 11, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 525 Providing for a deliberative review by the Committee on the Judiciary of a communication from an independent counsel, and for the release thereof
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 424
Sep 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3892 English Language Fluency Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 423
Sep 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3892
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 422
Sep 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3892
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 421
Sep 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2538 Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims of 1998
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 420
Sep 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2863 Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 416
Aug 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4380 District of Columbia Appropriations for FY 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 415
Aug 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4380
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 414
Aug 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4380
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 413
Aug 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4380
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 412
Aug 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4380
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 411
Aug 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4380
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 410
Aug 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4380
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 409
Aug 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4380
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 408
Aug 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4380
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 407
Aug 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4380
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 406
Aug 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 517 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4380, District of Columbia Appropriations for FY 1999
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 405
Aug 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2183 Campaign Finance Reform
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 404
Aug 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 403
Aug 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 46 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 402
Aug 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4276 Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 401
Aug 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 400
Aug 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 398
Aug 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 396
Aug 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 395
Aug 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 394
Aug 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 393
Aug 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 392
Aug 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 391
Aug 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 390
Aug 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 389
Aug 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 388
Aug 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 387
Aug 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 386
Aug 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 385
Aug 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 384
Aug 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 382
Aug 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 381
Aug 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4276
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 379
Aug 03, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment, as amended: Amendment 2 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment, as amended

Y Y Won
Roll Call 376
Jul 31, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 375
Jul 31, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 41 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 370
Jul 31, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 368
Jul 31, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 367
Jul 31, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 366
Jul 30, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 365
Jul 30, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 362
Jul 30, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 360
Jul 30, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 359
Jul 30, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 358
Jul 30, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 357
Jul 30, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the resolution, as amended: H RES 507 Providing special investigative authority for the Committee on Education and the Workforce
On agreeing to the resolution, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 356
Jul 30, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 120 Disapproval of Presidential Waiver for Vietnam
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 352
Jul 29, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4194 VA-HUD Appropriations Act for FY 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 351
Jul 29, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4194 VA-HUD Appropriations Act for FY 1999
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 350
Jul 29, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4194
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 349
Jul 29, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4194
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 347
Jul 29, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4194
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 346
Jul 29, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4194
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 344
Jul 29, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 629 Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 343
Jul 29, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 511 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 629
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 339
Jul 24, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4250 Patient Protection Act
On Passage

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 338
Jul 24, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4250 Patient Protection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 337
Jul 24, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 4250 Patient Protection Act
On Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 336
Jul 24, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4250
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 335
Jul 24, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 509 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4250; Patient Protection Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 334
Jul 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4194
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 332
Jul 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4194
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 331
Jul 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4193 Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1999
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 330
Jul 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4193
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 329
Jul 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4193
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 328
Jul 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 4193
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 327
Jul 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4193
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 325
Jul 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 1122 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 321
Jul 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Discharge the Committee: H R 1122 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
Motion to Discharge the Committee

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 320
Jul 22, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4193
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 318
Jul 22, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 1689 Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 317
Jul 22, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 121 To Disapprove Most-Favored-Nation Treatment to China
On Passage

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 315
Jul 21, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4193
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 313
Jul 21, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4193
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 312
Jul 21, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4193
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 311
Jul 21, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 504 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4193; Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1999
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 310
Jul 21, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 504 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4193; Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1999
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 308
Jul 20, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 307
Jul 20, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 306
Jul 20, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 302
Jul 20, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 296
Jul 17, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4194
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 295
Jul 17, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4194
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 293
Jul 16, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4104 Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations, FY 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 292
Jul 16, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4104
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 290
Jul 16, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4104
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 289
Jul 16, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4104
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 288
Jul 16, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4104
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 287
Jul 16, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4104
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 286
Jul 16, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4104
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 285
Jul 16, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 501 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4194, VA, HUD Approriations, FY 99
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 284
Jul 15, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 498 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4101; Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations for F.Y. 1999
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 283
Jul 15, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 498 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4101; Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations for F.Y. 1999
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 282
Jul 15, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3267 Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 281
Jul 15, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3267
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 280
Jul 15, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3682 Child Custody Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 279
Jul 15, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3682 Child Custody Protection Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 278
Jul 15, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 499 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3682, Child Custody Protection Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 277
Jul 15, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 499 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3682, Child Custody Protection Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 276
Jul 14, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 275
Jul 14, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 273
Jun 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit the Conference Report: H R 2676 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restructure and reform the Internal Revenue Service
On Motion to Recommit the Conference Report

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 272
Jun 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4112 Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY 1999
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 271
Jun 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4112 Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY 1999
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 270
Jun 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 489 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4112; Legislative Appropriations for F.Y. 1999
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 269
Jun 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 489 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4112; Legislative Appropriations for F.Y. 1999
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 267
Jun 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 491 Providing for the consideration of an adjournment resolution
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 266
Jun 24, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4103 Defense Appropriations Act for F.Y. 1999
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 265
Jun 24, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 484 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4103; Defense Appropriations for F.Y. 1999
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Close Vote Absent N Lost
Roll Call 263
Jun 24, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4101
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 260
Jun 24, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4101
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 259
Jun 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4101
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 252
Jun 22, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4060
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 249
Jun 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 248
Jun 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 477 Providing for consideration of H.R. 4059; Military Construction Appropriations for F.Y. 1999
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 247
Jun 18, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 458 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 2183
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 246
Jun 18, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 458 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 2183
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 244
Jun 18, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 476 Providing for consideration of H.Res. 463; To establish the Select Committee on U.S. National Security regarding the People?s Republic of China
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 243
Jun 18, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2646 Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 242
Jun 18, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2646 Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 241
Jun 17, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2183
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 239
Jun 17, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3097 Tax Code Termination Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 238
Jun 17, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3097 Tax Code Termination Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 236
Jun 17, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 471 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2646; Education Savings Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 235
Jun 17, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 472 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3097; Tax Code Termination Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 234
Jun 17, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 472 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3097; Tax Code Termination Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 229
Jun 11, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3494
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 228
Jun 11, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2888 Sales Incentive Compensation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 227
Jun 11, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2888
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 225
Jun 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3150 Bankruptcy Reform Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 224
Jun 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3150 Bankruptcy Reform Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 223
Jun 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3150
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 222
Jun 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3150
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 221
Jun 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3150
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 220
Jun 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3150
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 219
Jun 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3150
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 218
Jun 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 462 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3150, Bankruptcy Reform Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 217
Jun 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 462 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3150, Bankruptcy Reform Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 216
Jun 10, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Consideration of the Resolution: H RES 462 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3150, Bankruptcy Reform Act
On Consideration of the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 210
Jun 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 284 Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 1999
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 209
Jun 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 284
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 208
Jun 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 284
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 205
Jun 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 455 Providing for consideration of H.Con.Res. 284; Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 1999
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 202
Jun 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 285 Sense of Congress Regarding Tiananmen Square
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 201
Jun 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 78 Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 200
Jun 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 78 Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 196
Jun 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 453 Providing for consideration of H.J.Res. 78; Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 188
May 22, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution As Amended: H RES 446 Disposing of the Conference Report to Accompany S. 1150
On Agreeing to the Resolution As Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 186
May 21, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 442 Providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 119 and H.R. 2183, Campaign Finance Reform.
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 183
May 21, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3616 National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 1999
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 182
May 21, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3616 National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 1999
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 180
May 21, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3616
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 179
May 21, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3616
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 177
May 21, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 433 Calling upon the President to Cooperate with Congressional Investigations
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 176
May 21, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 432 Expressing the Sense of the House Concerning the President?s Assertions of Executive Privilege
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 173
May 20, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3616
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 171
May 20, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3616
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 166
May 20, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 441 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 3616
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 165
May 20, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 441 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 3616
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y N Lost
Roll Call 164
May 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 3809 Drug Free Borders Act of 1998
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 163
May 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass: H R 3718 Limit the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts with Respect to Prison Release Orders
Suspend the rules and pass

Y N Lost
Roll Call 160
May 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3534 Mandates Information Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 159
May 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3534
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 158
May 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3534
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 157
May 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3534
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 156
May 19, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3534
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 153
May 14, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to table: MOTION
On motion to table

N N Lost
Roll Call 151
May 13, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 10 Financial Services Competition Act
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 150
May 13, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 145
May 13, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 144
May 13, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 10
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 142
May 13, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 428 Providing for consideration of H.R. 10; Financial Services Competition Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 137
May 07, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3694
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 136
May 07, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2646 Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 134
May 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 43 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 133
May 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 132
May 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 130
May 06, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 124
May 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 123
May 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 121
Apr 30, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3579 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, FY 1998
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 120
Apr 30, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 414 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 119
Apr 30, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 1502 District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 118
Apr 30, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to commit: S 1502 District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act
On motion to commit

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 117
Apr 30, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 413 Providing for consideration of S. 1502; District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 115
Apr 29, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3546 National Dialogue on Social Security and establishment of Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range Social Security Reform.
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 114
Apr 29, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3717 Prohibit Federal Funds for Needle Distribution Programs
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 113
Apr 29, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3717 Prohibit Federal Funds for Needle Distribution Programs
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 109
Apr 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3579 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, FY 1998
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 108
Apr 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1252
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 107
Apr 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1252
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 106
Apr 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1252
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 105
Apr 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1252
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 104
Apr 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1252
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 103
Apr 23, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1252
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 102
Apr 22, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 111 Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States with Respect to Tax Limitations
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 94
Apr 01, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2400
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 93
Apr 01, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2400
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 91
Apr 01, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 257 Providiing for an adjournment of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 88
Mar 31, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3579 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, FY 1998
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 87
Mar 31, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3579 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, FY 1998
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 86
Mar 31, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion For A Secret Session: MOTION
Motion For A Secret Session

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 85
Mar 31, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 402 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3579; Emergency Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 83
Mar 30, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 2608 Paycheck Protection Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 80
Mar 27, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2515 Forest Recovery and Protection Act
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 79
Mar 27, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2515
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 78
Mar 26, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3246 Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 76
Mar 26, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 393 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3246
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 75
Mar 26, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 385 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 1757, State Department Authorization
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 74
Mar 26, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3310 Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 73
Mar 26, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 72
Mar 26, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3310
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 69
Mar 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2589
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 68
Mar 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2589
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 58
Mar 18, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 227 Directing the President to Remove United States Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y N Won
Roll Call 52
Mar 12, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 992 Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 51
Mar 12, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 992
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 50
Mar 12, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2883 Government Performance and Results Act Technical Amendments
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 47
Mar 11, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1432 African Growth and Opportunity Act
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 46
Mar 11, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1432 African Growth and Opportunity Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 45
Mar 11, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1432
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 44
Mar 11, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1432
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 43
Mar 11, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 383 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1432
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 37
Mar 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 856 United States - Puerto Rico Political Status Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 36
Mar 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendment, as amended: Amendment 1 to H R 856
On agreeing to the amendment, as amended

Y Y Won
Roll Call 34
Mar 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 32
Mar 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 30
Mar 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment, as amended: Amendment 1 to H R 856
On Agreeing to the Amendment, as amended

Y Y Won
Roll Call 29
Mar 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 856
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 24
Feb 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1544 Federal Agency Compliance Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 23
Feb 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1544
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 22
Feb 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1544
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 21
Feb 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2181 Witness Protection and Interstate Relocation Act
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 20
Feb 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2181
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 19
Feb 25, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1544
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 18
Feb 24, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 424 To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals possessing firearms, and for other purposes.
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y N Lost
Roll Call 17
Feb 12, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1428 Voter Eligibility Verification Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 15
Feb 12, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 355 Dismissing the election contest against Loretta Sanchez
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 12
Feb 11, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 352 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 9
Feb 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2846 Prohibition on Federal Education Funds on National Testing
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 8
Feb 05, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 348 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2846
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 7
Feb 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 107 A Resolution Concerning Attorneys? Fees, Costs, and Sanctions Payable by the White House Health Care Task Force
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 6
Feb 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2625 To Redesignate Washington National Airport as ?Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport?.
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 5
Feb 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2625 To Redesignate Washington National Airport as ?Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport?.
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 4
Feb 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2625
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 3
Feb 04, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 344 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2625, to redesignate Washington National Airport as ?Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport?
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 2
Jan 28, 1998

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 341 Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 640
Nov 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y N Lost
Roll Call 639
Nov 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998
On Motion to Recommit

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 638
Nov 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: S CON RES 68 Providing for the adjournment of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 636
Nov 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 330 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 2267; Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 634
Nov 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 326 Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 633
Nov 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 326 Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 632
Nov 12, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 301 Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to repeal the exception to the requirement that public committee proceedings be open to all the media.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 630
Nov 12, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 314 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 628
Nov 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 311 Providing for consideration of certain resolutions in preparation for the adjournment of the first session sine die
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 627
Nov 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to suspend the rules and pass: H R 2920 U.S.-Canadian Border Controls
On motion to suspend the rules and pass

Y N Lost
Roll Call 622
Nov 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 318 Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 621
Nov 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

N N Lost
Roll Call 620
Nov 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 315 Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 618
Nov 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 2534 Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reauthorization Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 613
Nov 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 612
Nov 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H R 2616 Charter Schools Amendments Act
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 610
Nov 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2616
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 609
Nov 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2616 Charter Schools Amendments Act
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 608
Nov 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2616 Charter Schools Amendments Act
On motion that the Committee Rise

N Y Lost
Roll Call 607
Nov 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 858 Intelligence Authorization, FY 1998
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 604
Nov 06, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair: H R 2605 Communist China Subsidy Reduction Act
Table motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 602
Nov 06, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H R 2386 United States-Taiwan Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Cooperation Act
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 601
Nov 06, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2386 United States-Taiwan Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Cooperation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 599
Nov 06, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to table the motion to reconsider: H R 2570 Forced Abortion Condemnation Act
On motion to table the motion to reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 596
Nov 06, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H R 967 Prohibiting Certain Chinese Government and Religious Officials from Participating in International Conferences
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 593
Nov 06, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to table the motion to reconsider: H RES 188 Acquisition By Iran of C-802 Cruise Missiles
On motion to table the motion to reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 590
Nov 06, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H RES 305 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and for other purposes.
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 589
Nov 06, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 305 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and for other purposes.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 588
Nov 06, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H RES 305 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and for other purposes.
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 587
Nov 06, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 305 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and for other purposes.
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 586
Nov 06, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 585
Nov 06, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 583
Nov 05, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 307 Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 581
Nov 05, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 2195 Enforce Ban on Slave Labor Products
On Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 578
Nov 05, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 302 Providing for consideration of nine measures relating to the policy of the United States with respect to the People?s Republic of China
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 574
Nov 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 948 Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 573
Nov 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 1839 National Salvage Vehicle Consumer Protection Act
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 570
Nov 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass: H R 2644 U.S. Caribbean Trade Partnership Act
Suspend the rules and pass

N N Won
Roll Call 569
Nov 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2746 Helping Empower Low-Income Parents (HELP) Scholarships Amendments
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 568
Nov 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2746 Helping Empower Low-Income Parents (HELP) Scholarships Amendments
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 567
Oct 31, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 288 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2746 and H.R. 2616
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 566
Oct 31, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 288 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2746 and H.R. 2616
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 565
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 297 Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 564
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 296 Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 563
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 295 Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 562
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 294 Question of the Priveleges of the House
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 561
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 293 Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 560
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 292 Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 559
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 291 Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 558
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 290 Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 557
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1270 Nuclear Waste Policy Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 556
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1270 Nuclear Waste Policy Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 554
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1270
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 553
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1270
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 552
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1270
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 551
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1270
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 550
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1270
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 549
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2493 Forage Improvement Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 548
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2493
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 547
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2493
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 546
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2493
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 545
Oct 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 284 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2493; Forage Improvement Act of 1997
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 542
Oct 29, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Question on Consideration: H R 1270
Question on Consideration

N N Lost
Roll Call 541
Oct 29, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Won
Roll Call 538
Oct 29, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and agree, as amended: H RES 139 Dollars to Classroom Act
Suspend the rules and agree, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 537
Oct 29, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 287
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 536
Oct 29, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 283 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1270, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 534
Oct 28, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1119 National Defense Authorization Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 533
Oct 28, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 278 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 1119, National Defense Authorization Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 531
Oct 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2107 Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 530
Oct 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 529
Oct 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2247
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 528
Oct 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 527
Oct 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 277 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2107; Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 525
Oct 23, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 276 Privileges of the House
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 524
Oct 23, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2646 Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 523
Oct 23, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2646
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 522
Oct 23, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 274 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2646; Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 520
Oct 22, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 270 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2247
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 519
Oct 22, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1534 Private Property Rights Implementation Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 518
Oct 22, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1534
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 515
Oct 21, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 265 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2204, Coast Guard Authorization Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 514
Oct 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H R 2607 District of Columbia Appropriations, FY 1998
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 513
Oct 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2607 District of Columbia Appropriations, FY 1998
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 512
Oct 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2607
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 511
Oct 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2607
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 506
Oct 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1757 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY?s 1998 and 1999
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 504
Oct 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 901 American Land Sovereignty Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 503
Oct 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 901
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 502
Oct 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 901
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 501
Oct 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 901
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 500
Oct 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Agree to Senate Amendments: H R 1122 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
Agree to Senate Amendments

N N Lost
Roll Call 499
Oct 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 262 Providing for the consideration of the Senate Amendments to H.R. 1122, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 498
Oct 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 901
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 497
Oct 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 629 Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 496
Oct 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2159 Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY 1998
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 495
Oct 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1127 National Monument Fairness Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 494
Oct 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1127
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 493
Oct 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1127
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 489
Oct 01, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to suspend the rules and pass: H R 1262 SEC Authorization
On motion to suspend the rules and pass

N N Won
Roll Call 488
Oct 01, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to suspend the rules and pass: H R 1476 Miccosuke Settlement Act
On motion to suspend the rules and pass

N N Won
Roll Call 487
Oct 01, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 2007 Canadian River Reclamation Project
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended

N N Won
Roll Call 486
Oct 01, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 485
Oct 01, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 2233 Coral Reef Conservation Act
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended

N N Won
Roll Call 484
Oct 01, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and agree, as amended: H CON RES 131 Sense of Congress Regarding the Oceans
Suspend the rules and agree, as amended

N N Won
Roll Call 483
Oct 01, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 482
Oct 01, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to suspend rules and pass: S 1161 Refugee Assistance Authorization
On motion to suspend rules and pass

N N Won
Roll Call 481
Oct 01, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 478
Sep 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 244 Subpoena Enforcement in the Case of Dornan v. Sanchez
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 477
Sep 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 253 Providing for the consideration of H. Res. 244, Subpoena Enforcement in the Case of Dornan v. Sanchez
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 476
Sep 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 475
Sep 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 2267
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 474
Sep 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2378 Treasury, Postal Appropriations, FY 1998
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 472
Sep 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1370
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 471
Sep 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 1370 Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 470
Sep 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 1370
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 465
Sep 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 459
Sep 26, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2267
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 458
Sep 26, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2267
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 456
Sep 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2267
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 454
Sep 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 453
Sep 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 451
Sep 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998
Sustaining the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 450
Sep 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2267 Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1998
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 449
Sep 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2267
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 448
Sep 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 447
Sep 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2267
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 446
Sep 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2267
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 445
Sep 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2267
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 444
Sep 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2267
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 442
Sep 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2266 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 1998
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y N Lost
Roll Call 440
Sep 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 430
Sep 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 238 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H.R. 2209
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 429
Sep 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 428
Sep 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Reconsider Ordering Yeas and Nays on Adjourn: MOTION
Table Reconsider Ordering Yeas and Nays on Adjourn

N N Lost
Roll Call 413
Sep 18, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 168 Ethics Reform Task Force Recommendations
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 412
Sep 18, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 168 Ethics Reform Task Force Recommendations
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 411
Sep 18, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H RES 168
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 410
Sep 18, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H RES 168
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 409
Sep 18, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H RES 168
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 407
Sep 18, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 230 Providing for consideration of H.Res. 168; Ethics Reform Task Force Recommendations
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 403
Sep 17, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2378 Treasury, Postal Appropriations, FY 1998
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 399
Sep 16, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 398
Sep 16, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 30 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 393
Sep 16, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 228 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2016, Military Construction Appropriations, FY 1998
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y N Lost
Roll Call 392
Sep 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 391
Sep 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 389
Sep 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 388
Sep 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 386
Sep 10, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 385
Sep 10, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 379
Sep 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 378
Sep 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 377
Sep 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 373
Sep 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 370
Sep 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 369
Sep 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 368
Sep 05, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to instruct conferees: H R 1119 National Defense Authorization Act
Motion to instruct conferees

N N Lost
Roll Call 367
Sep 05, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 363
Sep 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2159
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 362
Sep 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2159
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 360
Sep 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2159
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 359
Sep 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2159
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 358
Sep 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2159
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 357
Sep 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2159
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 353
Sep 03, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 352
Sep 03, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2209 Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY 1998
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 350
Jul 31, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2014 Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 346
Jul 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2159
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Won
Roll Call 345
Jul 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2015 Balanced Budget Act of 1997
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 343
Jul 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 202 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H.R. 2015, The Balanced Budget Act of 1997
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 342
Jul 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 201 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 341
Jul 30, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 201 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 340
Jul 29, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 1348 Relating to War Crimes
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 338
Jul 29, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2266 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 1998
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 337
Jul 29, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2266
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 336
Jul 29, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2266
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 335
Jul 28, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2209 Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY 1998
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 334
Jul 28, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2209 Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY 1998
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 333
Jul 28, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2209
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 332
Jul 28, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2209
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 328
Jul 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2203
On Agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 327
Jul 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2203
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 325
Jul 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 197 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2209; Legislative Branch Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 324
Jul 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 197 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2209; Legislative Branch Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 322
Jul 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 320
Jul 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 319
Jul 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Motion to Recommit

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 318
Jul 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 316
Jul 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2160
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 315
Jul 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

strike the enacting clause: MOTION
strike the enacting clause

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 314
Jul 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2160
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 313
Jul 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 312
Jul 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2160
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 310
Jul 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2160
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 309
Jul 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2160
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 308
Jul 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2160
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 306
Jul 23, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 193 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 2160; Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 305
Jul 23, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question on the Amendment: H RES 193 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 2160; Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Ordering the Previous Question on the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 304
Jul 23, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 303
Jul 23, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 296
Jul 22, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended: H RES 175 Violence in the Republic of Congo
Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 288
Jul 22, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1853 Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 287
Jul 22, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1853
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 286
Jul 22, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1853
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 284
Jul 17, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 283
Jul 17, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 282
Jul 17, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table reconsider resolving into Committee: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
Table reconsider resolving into Committee

N N Lost
Roll Call 281
Jul 17, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On resolving into Committee: H R 2160 Agriculture Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On resolving into Committee

N N Lost
Roll Call 279
Jul 16, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2158 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N Y Lost
Roll Call 278
Jul 16, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2158
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Won
Roll Call 277
Jul 16, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2158
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 275
Jul 15, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2107 Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1998
On Passage

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 273
Jul 15, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2107
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 272
Jul 15, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2107
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 271
Jul 15, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2107
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 266
Jul 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2107
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 265
Jul 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2107
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 264
Jul 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2107
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 263
Jul 10, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2107
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 262
Jul 10, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2107
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 261
Jul 10, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2107
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 260
Jul 10, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2107
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 259
Jul 10, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 181 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2107, Interior Appropriations Act for FY 1998
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 258
Jul 10, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Insruct Conferees: H R 2014 Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997
Motion to Insruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 255
Jul 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1775
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 254
Jul 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1775
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 253
Jul 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1775
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 245
Jun 26, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2014 Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 243
Jun 26, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2014
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 242
Jun 26, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 176 Providing for Consideration of an Adjournment Resolution
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 241
Jun 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2015 Balanced Budget Act of 1997
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 240
Jun 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit With Instructions: H R 2015 Balanced Budget Act of 1997
On Motion to Recommit With Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 239
Jun 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 174 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2015, Balanced Budget Act of 1997; and H.R. 2014, Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 238
Jun 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 174 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2015, Balanced Budget Act of 1997; and H.R. 2014, Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 236
Jun 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1119 National Defense Authorization Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 235
Jun 25, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 1119
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 234
Jun 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 1119
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 233
Jun 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 1119
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Won
Roll Call 231
Jun 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 79 Disapproving the Extension of Nondiscriminatory Treatment (Most-Favored-Treatment) to the Products of the People?s Republic of China
On Passage

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 230
Jun 23, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 1119
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 229
Jun 23, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1119
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 228
Jun 23, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1119
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 224
Jun 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1119
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 223
Jun 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1119
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 222
Jun 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1119
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 221
Jun 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1119
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 220
Jun 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 167 Providing special investigative authorities for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 219
Jun 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 167 Providing special investigative authorities for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 217
Jun 19, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1119
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 214
Jun 19, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1119
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 210
Jun 19, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 202
Jun 12, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 54 Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 200
Jun 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 197
Jun 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 194
Jun 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 191
Jun 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 189
Jun 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 188
Jun 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 187
Jun 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 185
Jun 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 184
Jun 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 183
Jun 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 182
Jun 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 179
Jun 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 46 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 178
Jun 11, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 177
Jun 10, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Previous Question on Motion to Refer Veto Message: H R 1469 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Previous Question on Motion to Refer Veto Message

N N Lost
Roll Call 175
Jun 10, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 169
Jun 05, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1469 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 168
Jun 05, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 167
Jun 05, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 166
Jun 05, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 84 Congressional Budget Resolution for FY 1998
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 165
Jun 05, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 160 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Reprt on H. Con. Res. 84
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 164
Jun 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 162
Jun 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 161
Jun 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 160
Jun 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 159
Jun 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1757
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 158
Jun 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 159 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1757; Foreign Relations Authorization Act and for considerations of H.R. 1758; The European Security Act of 1997
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 157
Jun 04, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 159 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1757; Foreign Relations Authorization Act and for considerations of H.R. 1758; The European Security Act of 1997
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 152
May 22, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 151
May 21, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 408 International Dolphin Conservation Program Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 149
May 21, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 153 Providing for consideration of H.R. 408; International Dolphin Conservation Program Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 148
May 21, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 84 Congressional Budget Resolution for FY 1998
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 147
May 21, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H CON RES 84
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 146
May 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H CON RES 84
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 145
May 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 84
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 144
May 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H CON RES 84
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 143
May 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 84
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 141
May 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 152 Providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 84; Congressional Budget
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 140
May 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 152 Providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 84; Congressional Budget
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 137
May 16, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1385
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 136
May 15, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1469 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 134
May 15, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1469
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 130
May 15, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 149 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1469; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 129
May 15, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 149 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1469; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 127
May 14, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2 Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 126
May 14, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 125
May 14, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 146 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1469; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Won
Roll Call 123
May 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 122
May 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 121
May 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 120
May 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 119
May 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 118
May 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3 Juvenile Crime Control Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 117
May 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3 Juvenile Crime Control Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 115
May 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 114
May 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 113
May 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 112
May 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 111
May 08, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 109
May 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 143 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3; Juvinile Crime Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 108
May 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 478
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 106
May 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 104
May 06, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 103
May 06, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 102
May 01, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 101
May 01, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 100
May 01, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 99
May 01, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Question of Consideration of the Committee Substitute Amendment: H R 2 Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act
Question of Consideration of the Committee Substitute Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 98
May 01, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 129 Committee Funding Resolution
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 92
Apr 29, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 1342 Conservation Reserve Program Enrollment
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 91
Apr 24, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1275
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 88
Apr 23, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 400
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 87
Apr 23, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 400
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 86
Apr 23, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 400
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 85
Apr 17, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 400
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 83
Apr 17, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

table motion to proceed in order: MOTION
table motion to proceed in order

N N Lost
Roll Call 82
Apr 17, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

strike the words from the record: MOTION
strike the words from the record

N N Lost
Roll Call 79
Apr 16, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 112 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 78
Apr 15, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 62 Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 74
Apr 09, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 107 Providng for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 71
Mar 21, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended: H RES 91 House Committees Funding Resolution
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 70
Mar 21, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 91 House Committees Funding Resolution
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 69
Mar 21, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 105 Providing for consideration of H. Res. 91, Committee Funding for the 105th Congress.
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 67
Mar 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 101 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 91), House Committees Funding Resolution
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Won
Roll Call 65
Mar 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1122 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 64
Mar 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1122 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 63
Mar 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

table appeal of the ruling of the Chair: H R 1122 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
table appeal of the ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 62
Mar 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 100 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1122, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 61
Mar 20, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 100 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1122, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 59
Mar 19, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1 Working Families Flexibility Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 58
Mar 19, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 57
Mar 19, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 54
Mar 19, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 99 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1, Working Families Flexibility Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 51
Mar 18, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 412
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 49
Mar 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 88 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 852; Paperwork Reduction Amendments
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 48
Mar 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 58 Disapprove Certification of Mexico
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 47
Mar 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H J RES 58
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 46
Mar 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H J RES 58
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 45
Mar 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 95 Providing for consideration of H.J.Res. 58; Disapprove Certification of Mexico
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 44
Mar 12, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 89 Request New Balanced Budget from the President
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 43
Mar 12, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 89 Request New Balanced Budget from the President
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 42
Mar 12, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 90 Providing for the consideration of H.Res. 89; Request New Balanced Budget from the President
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 41
Mar 12, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 90 Providing for the consideration of H.Res. 89; Request New Balanced Budget from the President
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 31
Mar 05, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and agree: H CON RES 31 Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the display of the Ten Commandments by Judge Roy S. Moore, a judge on the circuit court of the State of Alabama
Suspend the rules and agree

N N Lost
Roll Call 23
Feb 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 581 Funds Appropriated for Population Planning
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 22
Feb 13, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 36 Approving the Presidential Finding Regarding International Family Planning Programs
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 21
Feb 12, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 2 Term Limits Constitutional Amendment
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 7
Jan 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: S CON RES 3
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 6
Jan 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 5 Rules of the House of Representatives for the 105th Congress
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 5
Jan 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to commit with instructions: H RES 5 Rules of the House of Representatives for the 105th Congress
On motion to commit with instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 4
Jan 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 5 Rules of the House of Representatives for the 105th Congress
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 2
Jan 07, 1997

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

table appeal of the ruling of the chair: MOTION
table appeal of the ruling of the chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 454
Sep 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 546 Consideration of Sine Die Resolutions
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 452
Sep 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass: H R 3163 State Authority Tax Compensation Act
Suspend the rules and pass

N N Won
Roll Call 450
Sep 27, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass: S 1505 Accountable Pipline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996
Suspend the rules and pass

N N Lost
Roll Call 447
Sep 27, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 4073 National Underground Railroad Freedom Center
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 446
Sep 27, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3539 Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 445
Sep 27, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 540 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 3539
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 444
Sep 26, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 3841 Civil Service Reform Act
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended

N N Won
Roll Call 442
Sep 26, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 3752 American Land Sovereignty Protection Act
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended

N N Won
Roll Call 433
Sep 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4134 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize States to deny public education benefits to aliens not lawfully present in the U.S. who are not enrolled in public schools during the period beginning September 1, 1996, and ending July 1, 1997
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 432
Sep 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2202 Immigration Act of 1995
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 431
Sep 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit conference report with instructions: H R 2202 Immigration Act of 1995
Recommit conference report with instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 430
Sep 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 528 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2202; Immigration and Nationality Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 429
Sep 24, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Resolution: H RES 532 Question of the Privileges of the House
On Motion to Table the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 425
Sep 24, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 525 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 424
Sep 19, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to table: H RES 526
On motion to table

N N Lost
Roll Call 422
Sep 19, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 1833 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding

N N Lost
Roll Call 421
Sep 19, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Discharge the Judiciary Committee: H R 1833 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
On Motion to Discharge the Judiciary Committee

N N Lost
Roll Call 417
Sep 17, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 3803 George Bush School of Government and Public Service
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

Y N Lost
Roll Call 408
Sep 11, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2202 Immigration Act of 1995
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 405
Sep 05, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3308 United States Armed Forces Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 404
Sep 05, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3308
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 400
Aug 02, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 508 Providing for consideration of a certain motion to suspend the rules. (Relating to combating terrorism)
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 397
Aug 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the conference report: H R 3230 Department of Defense Authorization, FY 1997
On agreeing to the conference report

N N Lost
Roll Call 396
Aug 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3230 Department of Defense Authorization, FY 1997
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 392
Aug 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit conference report with instructions: H R 3103 Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act
Recommit conference report with instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 391
Aug 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 123 English Language Empowerment Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 390
Aug 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 123 English Language Empowerment Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 389
Aug 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 123
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 388
Aug 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 499 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 123
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 385
Jul 31, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2823 Marine Mammal Protection Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 384
Jul 31, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2823
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 383
Jul 31, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3734 Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 382
Jul 31, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 495 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3734) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 381
Jul 31, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 495 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3734) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 380
Jul 31, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: MOTION
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 375
Jul 31, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table the Motion to Reconsider: MOTION
Table the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 370
Jul 30, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2391 Working Families Flexibility Act of 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 368
Jul 26, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 203 Providing for an Adjounment of Both Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 367
Jul 26, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 488 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2391; Working Families Flexibility Act of 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 365
Jul 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3820 Campaign Finance Reform Act
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 364
Jul 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3820 Campaign Finance Reform Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 363
Jul 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 361
Jul 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 481 Providing for consideration of H.R, 3820; Campaign Finance Reform Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 359
Jul 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3816
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 358
Jul 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3816
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 357
Jul 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3816
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 355
Jul 24, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3816
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Won
Roll Call 354
Jul 24, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3816
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 352
Jul 24, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3814 Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary Appropriation, FY 1997
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 351
Jul 24, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 3814
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 349
Jul 24, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 3814
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 347
Jul 24, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 3814
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 346
Jul 24, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 3814
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 344
Jul 23, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3814
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 343
Jul 23, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3814
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 342
Jul 23, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3814
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 341
Jul 23, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3814
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 333
Jul 22, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3845
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 332
Jul 22, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3845
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 331
Jul 18, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3734 Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 330
Jul 18, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3734 Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 328
Jul 18, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3734
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 327
Jul 18, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 482 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3734
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 323
Jul 17, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3756 Treasury, Postal Sevice, Executive Office of the President, Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY 1997
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 322
Jul 17, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3756
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 320
Jul 17, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3756
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 319
Jul 17, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Strike the enacting clause: MOTION
Strike the enacting clause

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 318
Jul 16, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3756
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 317
Jul 16, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3756
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 316
Jul 12, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3396 Defense of Marriage Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 315
Jul 12, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3396 Defense of Marriage Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 314
Jul 12, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3396
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 313
Jul 11, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3755 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations for FY 1997
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 310
Jul 11, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 3755
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 308
Jul 11, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 3755
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 307
Jul 11, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 3755
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 306
Jul 11, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 3755
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 305
Jul 11, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 3755
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 304
Jul 11, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 3755
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 303
Jul 11, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3755
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 302
Jul 11, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3755
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 301
Jul 11, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3755
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 300
Jul 11, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 474 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3396; Defense of Marriage Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 299
Jul 10, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 472 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3755, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations, FY 1997
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 297
Jul 10, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3754 Legislative Branch Appropriations for F.Y. 1997
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 296
Jul 10, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3754
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 295
Jul 10, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3754
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 291
Jun 27, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3675
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 290
Jun 27, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3675
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 289
Jun 27, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3675
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 288
Jun 27, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3675
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 287
Jun 27, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table the Resolution: H RES 468 Privilege of the House
On Motion to Table the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 286
Jun 27, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 465 Providing for the consideration of an adjournment resolution
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 284
Jun 27, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 182 Disapproving most-favored-nation treatment to the products of the People?s Republic of China
On Passage

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 282
Jun 26, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3666 VA-HUD Appropriations, FY 1997
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 281
Jun 26, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3666 VA-HUD Appropriations, FY 1997
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 279
Jun 26, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 3666
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 278
Jun 26, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 3666
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 276
Jun 26, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3666
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 275
Jun 26, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3666
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 273
Jun 26, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3666
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 270
Jun 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3666
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 269
Jun 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 456 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3666, VA-HUD Appropriations, FY 1997
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 268
Jun 20, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3662 Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1997
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 267
Jun 20, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit: H R 3662 Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1997
On Motion to Recommit

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 266
Jun 20, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3662
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 263
Jun 20, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 3662
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 262
Jun 20, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 3662
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 261
Jun 20, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 3662
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 260
Jun 20, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3662
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 259
Jun 20, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3662
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 258
Jun 19, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3662
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 257
Jun 19, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3662
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 256
Jun 19, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3662
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 255
Jun 19, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3662
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 254
Jun 19, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3662
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 253
Jun 19, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3662
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 251
Jun 19, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3662
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 247
Jun 13, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3610 Fiscal Year 1997 Department of Defense Appropriations
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 246
Jun 13, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3610
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 245
Jun 13, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3610
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 244
Jun 13, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3610
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 243
Jun 13, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3610
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 242
Jun 13, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3610
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 241
Jun 13, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3610
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 240
Jun 13, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3610
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 236
Jun 12, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 178 Congressional Budget For U.S. Government
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 235
Jun 12, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 450 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.Con.Res. 178; Budget for U.S. Government for F.Y. 1997
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 234
Jun 12, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3603 FY 1997 Agriculture Appropriations
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 233
Jun 12, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 231
Jun 12, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 3603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 230
Jun 12, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 227
Jun 11, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 3540
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 226
Jun 11, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3103 Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act
Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 221
Jun 06, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3562 Waivers for Wisconsin Welfare Plan
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 220
Jun 06, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3562
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 219
Jun 06, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 446 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3562; Waivers for Wisconsin Welfare Plan
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 216
Jun 05, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3540
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 215
Jun 05, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3540
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 212
Jun 05, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3540
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 211
Jun 05, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3540
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 209
May 30, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H CON RES 178 Congressional Budget For U.S. Government
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 208
May 30, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 3322
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 207
May 30, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 3322
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 206
May 30, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 3322
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 205
May 30, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 3322
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 204
May 30, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 3322
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 203
May 30, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3322
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 202
May 30, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3322
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 200
May 30, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3517
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 197
May 29, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 3322
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 196
May 29, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 3322
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 195
May 23, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1227 Employee Commuting Act
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 194
May 23, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to Subsection D of the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1227
On Agreeing to Subsection D of the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 193
May 23, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to Subsecs. A, B, & C of the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1227
On agreeing to Subsecs. A, B, & C of the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 192
May 23, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1227
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 191
May 23, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Question of consideration of the amendment: MOTION
Question of consideration of the amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 189
May 22, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 440 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3448; Small Business Job Protection Act and H.R. 1227; Employee Commuting Flexibility Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 188
May 22, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 3259
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 187
May 22, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 3259
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 186
May 22, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3259
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 185
May 22, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 3259
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 182
May 21, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3415 Gas Tax Increase Repeal
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 181
May 21, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3415 Gas Tax Increase Repeal
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 180
May 21, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 436 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3415; Gas Tax Increase Repeal
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 179
May 16, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 178 Congressional Budget For U.S. Government
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 178
May 16, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 178
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 176
May 16, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 178
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 175
May 16, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 435 Providing for the further consideration of H. Con. Res. 178, Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 174
May 15, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3230 Department of Defense Authorization, FY 1997
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 173
May 15, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3230 Department of Defense Authorization, FY 1997
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 171
May 15, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3230
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 170
May 15, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3230
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 169
May 15, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 303 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1745
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 167
May 14, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3230
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 166
May 10, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 430 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3230; Defense Authorization for F.Y. 1997
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 164
May 10, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3286
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 162
May 09, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 956 Product Liability Reform
Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding

N N Won
Roll Call 161
May 09, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2406 United States Housing Act of 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 160
May 09, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2406 United States Housing Act of 1996
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 158
May 09, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2406
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 157
May 09, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2406
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 156
May 09, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2406
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 155
May 09, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Committees to sit: MOTION
Committees to sit

N N Lost
Roll Call 154
May 08, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2406
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 153
May 08, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 426 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2406, U.S. Housing Act of 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 152
May 08, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 417 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Select Subcomittee on the U. S. role in Iranian Arms Transfers to Croatia and Bosnia of the Committee on International Relations
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 151
May 08, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 416 Establishing a select subcomittee of the Committee on International Relations to investigate the U. S. role in Iranian arms transfers to Croatia and Bosnia
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 150
May 08, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 416 Establishing a select subcomittee of the Committee on International Relations to investigate the U. S. role in Iranian arms transfers to Croatia and Bosnia
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 147
May 07, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2974
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 144
May 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2149 Ocean Shipping Reform Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 143
May 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2149
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 140
May 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 418 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2641, United States Marshals Service Improvement Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 136
Apr 30, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, Objection of the President Notwithstanding: H R 1561 American Overseas Interests Act
Passage, Objection of the President Notwithstanding

N N Won
Roll Call 134
Apr 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 412 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 133
Apr 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 412 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions from the Committee on Rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 131
Apr 24, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1675 National Wildlife Refuge Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 126
Apr 18, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 735 Anti-Terrorism Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 125
Apr 18, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 405 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany S. 735; Anti-Terrorism Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 124
Apr 18, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 405 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany S. 735; Anti-Terrorism Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 117
Apr 15, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 159 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. to require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing taxes
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 116
Apr 15, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

table motion to reconsider: MOTION
table motion to reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 115
Apr 15, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Consideration of H.J. Res. 159, as Amended: MOTION
Consideration of H.J. Res. 159, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 114
Apr 15, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table the Motion to Reconsider: H RES 395 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 159, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. to require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing taxes
Table the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 113
Apr 15, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 395 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 159, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. to require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing taxes
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 112
Apr 15, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table the Motion to Reconsider: H RES 395 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 159, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. to require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing taxes
Table the Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 111
Apr 15, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 395 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 159, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. to require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing taxes
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 110
Mar 29, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 956 Product Liability Reform
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 108
Mar 29, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 394 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 956; Product Liability Reform Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 107
Mar 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2854 Agricultural Market Transition Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 106
Mar 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3103 Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 105
Mar 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3103 Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 104
Mar 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3103
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 103
Mar 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 392 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3103, Health Coverage Availabilty and Affordability Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 102
Mar 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3136 Debt Limit Extension
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 101
Mar 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3136 Debt Limit Extension
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 100
Mar 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Consideration of Motion to Recommit With Instructions: H R 3136 Debt Limit Extension
Consideration of Motion to Recommit With Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 99
Mar 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 98
Mar 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the resolution, as amended: H RES 391 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3136; Debt Limit Extension
On agreeing to the resolution, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 97
Mar 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 391 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3136; Debt Limit Extension
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 94
Mar 27, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Agree to Senate Amendments: H R 1833 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Agree to Senate Amendments

N N Lost
Roll Call 93
Mar 27, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 389 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 1833) to ban partial birth abortions
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 92
Mar 22, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 125 Gun Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment Restoration Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 91
Mar 22, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 388 Providing for the consideration of H.R.125, Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment Restoration Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 90
Mar 21, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 3019 Omnibus Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 89
Mar 21, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2202 Immigration Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 88
Mar 21, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2202 Immigration Act of 1995
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 87
Mar 21, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2202
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 85
Mar 21, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2202
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 84
Mar 21, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2202
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 83
Mar 21, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 165 Further Continuing Appropriations, FY 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 82
Mar 21, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 165 Further Continuing Appropriations, FY 1996
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 81
Mar 21, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 386 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 165, Further Continuing Appropriations, FY 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 80
Mar 21, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 386 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 165, Further Continuing Appropriations, FY 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 78
Mar 20, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2202
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 76
Mar 20, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2202
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 75
Mar 20, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2202
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 74
Mar 20, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2202
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 73
Mar 20, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2202
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 71
Mar 20, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2202
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 68
Mar 19, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 384 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2202, Immigration and National Interest Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 66
Mar 14, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2703 To Combat Terrorism
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 65
Mar 14, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2703
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 64
Mar 14, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2703
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 62
Mar 14, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 163 Making further continuing appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 61
Mar 13, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2703
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 60
Mar 13, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 380 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2703; Anti-Terrorism Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 59
Mar 12, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1561 American Overseas Interests Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 56
Mar 12, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 375 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 1561, American Overseas Interests Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 55
Mar 07, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3019 Omnibus Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 54
Mar 07, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3019 Omnibus Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 53
Mar 07, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3019
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 52
Mar 07, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3019
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 51
Mar 07, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3019
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 50
Mar 07, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 372 Providing for consideration of H.R. 3019; Omnibus Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 49
Mar 07, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 372
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 47
Mar 06, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 927 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 46
Mar 06, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 370 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 927; Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 43
Feb 29, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 956 Product Liability Reform
Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 42
Feb 29, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2854 Agricultural Market Transition Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 41
Feb 29, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2854 Agricultural Market Transition Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 40
Feb 29, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2854
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 38
Feb 29, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2854
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 33
Feb 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2854
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 32
Feb 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 366 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2854, Agricutural Market Transition Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 31
Feb 28, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 366 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2854, Agricutural Market Transition Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 29
Feb 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 141 Providing for the adjournment of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 28
Feb 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 355 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2924; Social Security Benefits
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 27
Feb 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION
Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 26
Feb 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION
Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 24
Feb 01, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 353 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany S. 652; Telecommunications Reform Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 23
Jan 31, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2546 District of Columbia Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 22
Jan 31, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit Conference Report With Instructions: H R 2546 District of Columbia Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
Recommit Conference Report With Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 19
Jan 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2880 Making appropriations for fiscal year 1996 to make a downpayment toward a balanced budget
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 18
Jan 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2880 Making appropriations for fiscal year 1996 to make a downpayment toward a balanced budget
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 17
Jan 25, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 342 Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 16
Jan 24, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 1124 National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1996
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 11
Jan 05, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 338 Providing for the disposition of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1358, Targeted Continuing Appropriations and Marine Fisheries Service Laboratory Transfer
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 9
Jan 05, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 336 Providing for the dispostion of the Senate amendment to H.J.Res. 134; making further continuing appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 8
Jan 05, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 330 Authorize the Speaker to Declare Recesses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 6
Jan 05, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 334 Providing for consideration of a motion to dispose of Senate amendment (Continuing Appropriations) to H.R. 1643; Bulgaria
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 5
Jan 04, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, objections of the President notwithstanding: H R 1977 Interior Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
Passage, objections of the President notwithstanding

N N Won
Roll Call 4
Jan 03, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, Objection of the President Notwithstanding: H R 2076 Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations, FY 1996
Passage, Objection of the President Notwithstanding

N N Won
Roll Call 3
Jan 03, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, the Objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 1530 National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1996
Passage, the Objections of the President Notwithstanding

N N Won
Roll Call 2
Jan 03, 1996

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table appeal of the ruling of the chair: MOTION
Table appeal of the ruling of the chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 885
Dec 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 136 Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 884
Dec 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

table the appeal of the ruling of the chair: H RES 321 Directing the committee on rules to report a resolution providing for the consideration of H.R. 2530
table the appeal of the ruling of the chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 883
Dec 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended: H RES 299 Amending the Rules of the House
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 882
Dec 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 299
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 879
Dec 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended: H RES 320 Authorize Speaker to Declare Recesses
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 878
Dec 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 320 Authorize Speaker to Declare Recesses
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 877
Dec 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4 Personal Responsibility Act of 1995
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 876
Dec 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit Conference Report With Instructions: H R 4 Personal Responsibility Act of 1995
Recommit Conference Report With Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 875
Dec 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H R 4 Personal Responsibility Act of 1995
Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 873
Dec 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 134 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 872
Dec 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: H J RES 134 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996
Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 871
Dec 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 317 Providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 134; Making further continuing appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 870
Dec 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Passage, objections of the President Notwithstanding: H R 1058 Securities Litigation Reform Act
Passage, objections of the President Notwithstanding

N N Lost
Roll Call 868
Dec 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 309 Providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 122; Revised Congressional Budget for 7 years
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 867
Dec 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 309 Providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 122; Revised Congressional Budget for 7 years
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 866
Dec 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H J RES 132 Achieving a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y N Lost
Roll Call 865
Dec 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1530 Defense Department Authorization, FY 1996
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 864
Dec 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 307 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1530; Department of Defense Authorization for F.Y. 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 863
Dec 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to declare recesses: MOTION
Motion to declare recesses

N N Lost
Roll Call 861
Dec 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2621 Prevent Disinvestment of Trust Funds
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 860
Dec 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 293 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2621; Enforce Public Debt Limit and Protect Federal Trust Funds
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 859
Dec 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 293 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2621; Enforce Public Debt Limit and Protect Federal Trust Funds
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 858
Dec 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 306 Deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to Bosnia
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 857
Dec 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 302 Relating to the deployment of United States Armed Forces in Bosnia
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 856
Dec 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2770 To prohibit Federal funds from being used for deployment on the ground of U.S. Armed Forces in Bosnia
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 855
Dec 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 304 Providing for debate and consideration of three measures relating to U,S. troop deployments in Bosnia
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 854
Dec 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1977 Department of the Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 853
Dec 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1977 Department of the Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 852
Dec 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 301 Waiving points of order against the further conference report on H.R. 1977, Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 851
Dec 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 297 Waiving a rerquirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to certain resolutions reported fromm the Committee on Rules
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 850
Dec 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recede from H.amendment to S.amendment #115 w/adt: H R 1868 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996
Recede from H.amendment to S.amendment #115 w/adt

N N Lost
Roll Call 849
Dec 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 296 Providing for consideration of a motion to dispose of the remaining Senate amendment to H.R. 1868; Foreign Operations appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 846
Dec 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Suspend the rules and pass, as amended: H R 2677 Use of State Employees and Services in National Parks During Government Shutdowns
Suspend the rules and pass, as amended

N N Won
Roll Call 844
Dec 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2099 VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 843
Dec 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit the Conference Report With Instructions: H R 2099 VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
Recommit the Conference Report With Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 842
Dec 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 291 Waiving points of order against further consideration of the Conference Report on H.R. 2099; VA HUD Appropriations for F.Y. 1966
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 841
Dec 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2076 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 840
Dec 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit the Conference Report with instructions: H R 2076 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
Recommit the Conference Report with instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 839
Dec 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1058 Securities Litigation Reform Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 838
Dec 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 290 Waiving points of order against the Conference Report on H.R. 1058; Federal Securities Litigation
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 833
Nov 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to table: H RES 288 Priviledges of the House
On motion to table

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 831
Nov 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1788
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 830
Nov 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1788
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 829
Nov 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit Conference Report With Instructions: H R 2099 VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
Recommit Conference Report With Instructions

Y Y Won
Roll Call 827
Nov 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2564
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 826
Nov 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2564
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 825
Nov 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2564
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 824
Nov 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2564
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 820
Nov 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to agree to Senate Amendment: H R 2491 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995
On motion to agree to Senate Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 817
Nov 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 275 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 816
Nov 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

on motion to proceed in order: MOTION
on motion to proceed in order

N N Lost
Roll Call 815
Nov 17, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 277
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 814
Nov 17, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2606 Prohibition on Funds for Bosnia Deployment
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 813
Nov 17, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 273 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2606; Prohibition on Funds for Bosnia Deployment
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 812
Nov 17, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2491 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 810
Nov 17, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 272 Authorizing a specified correction in the form of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2491; Budget Reconciliation for F.Y. 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 806
Nov 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2126 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 1996
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 805
Nov 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit the Conference Report with Instructions: H R 2126 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 1996
Recommit the Conference Report with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 804
Nov 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 271 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2126; Department of Defense Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 803
Nov 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

table the appeal of ruling of the chair: MOTION
table the appeal of ruling of the chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 802
Nov 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 122 Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 801
Nov 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 122 Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1996
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 800
Nov 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 270 Providing for consideration of H.J.Res. 122; Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 799
Nov 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 1977 Department of the Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
Motion to Recommit Conference Report with Instructions

Y Y Won
Roll Call 798
Nov 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 253 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 1977
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 797
Nov 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2020 Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations, FY 1996
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y N Lost
Roll Call 796
Nov 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 267 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2020; Treasury - Postal Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 795
Nov 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 267 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2020; Treasury - Postal Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 794
Nov 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

disagree to S.adt. to H. adt. to S. adt # 115: H R 1868 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996
disagree to S.adt. to H. adt. to S. adt # 115

N N Lost
Roll Call 792
Nov 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2539
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 791
Nov 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 2621 Prevent Disinvestment of Trust Funds
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 790
Nov 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Postpone consideration of Veto Message to a date certain: H J RES 115 Further Continuing Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
Postpone consideration of Veto Message to a date certain

N N Lost
Roll Call 788
Nov 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Postpone Veto to a date certain: H R 2586 Temporary Increase in the Public Debt Limit
Postpone Veto to a date certain

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 787
Nov 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

N N Lost
Roll Call 786
Nov 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Dispose of Senate Amendments En Bloc: H J RES 115 Further Continuing Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Motion to Dispose of Senate Amendments En Bloc

N N Lost
Roll Call 785
Nov 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Agree to the Senate Amendment: H R 2586 Temporary Increase in the Public Debt Limit
On Motion to Agree to the Senate Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 784
Nov 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 261 Providing for the consideration of Senate amendments to H.J. Res. 115
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 783
Nov 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 262 Providing for the consideration of Senate amendments to H.R. 2586
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 781
Nov 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2586 Temporary Increase in the Public Debt Limit
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 780
Nov 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2586 Temporary Increase in the Public Debt Limit
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 779
Nov 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: H R 2586 Temporary Increase in the Public Debt Limit
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 778
Nov 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 258 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2586, Temporary Increase in Public Debt Limit
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 777
Nov 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 956 Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act
Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 775
Nov 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H J RES 115 Further Continuing Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 774
Nov 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 115 Further Continuing Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 773
Nov 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 257 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res 115; Further Continuing Appropriations
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 772
Nov 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 395 Alaska North Slope Oil
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 771
Nov 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to recommit the Conference Report: S 395 Alaska North Slope Oil
On motion to recommit the Conference Report

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 770
Nov 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 256 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany S. 395; Alaska Power Administration Sale Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 764
Nov 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2546 District of Columbia Appropriations, FY 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 763
Nov 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2546
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 762
Nov 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

motion to instruct conferees: H R 2099 VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
motion to instruct conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 761
Nov 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

previous question on motion to instruct conferees: H R 2099 VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
previous question on motion to instruct conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 759
Nov 01, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2546
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 758
Nov 01, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2546
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 757
Nov 01, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 252 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2546; District of Columbia Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 756
Nov 01, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1833 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 754
Nov 01, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 251 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1833
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 753
Oct 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recede And Concur With Amendment In Senate Amendment No. 115: H R 1868 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996
Recede And Concur With Amendment In Senate Amendment No. 115

N N Lost
Roll Call 751
Oct 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit Conference Report With Instructions: H R 1868 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996
Recommit Conference Report With Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 750
Oct 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 249 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 1868; Foreign Assistance Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 749
Oct 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 249 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 1868; Foreign Assistance Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 747
Oct 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2492 Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 746
Oct 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 239 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2492, Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 745
Oct 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H RES 247 Sense of Congress relating to Bosnia and Herzegovina
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree

Y N Lost
Roll Call 744
Oct 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2491 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 743
Oct 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2491 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 742
Oct 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2491 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 739
Oct 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 245 Providing for consideration of H.Con.Res. 109; Social Security Earnings Test Reform and further consideration of the bill H.R. 2491; Budget Reconciliation for F.Y. 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 738
Oct 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 245 Providing for consideration of H.Con.Res. 109; Social Security Earnings Test Reform and further consideration of the bill H.R. 2491; Budget Reconciliation for F.Y. 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 737
Oct 25, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H RES 244
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 731
Oct 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2425 Medicare Preservation Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 730
Oct 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2425 Medicare Preservation Act of 1995
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 729
Oct 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2425
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 727
Oct 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 238 Providing for the connsideration of H.R. 2425; Medicare Preservation Act of 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 726
Oct 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 238 Providing for the connsideration of H.R. 2425; Medicare Preservation Act of 1995
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 725
Oct 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2259 To disapprove certain sentencing guideline amendments
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 724
Oct 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2259 To disapprove certain sentencing guideline amendments
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 723
Oct 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2259
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 721
Oct 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 2126 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 1996
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 717
Oct 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 39
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 713
Oct 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2405 Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 712
Oct 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 2405
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 711
Oct 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 2405
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 710
Oct 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2405
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 709
Oct 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 2405
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 708
Oct 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1976 Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for Fiscal Year 1996
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 707
Oct 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to recommit Conference Report with instructions: H R 1976 Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for Fiscal Year 1996
Motion to recommit Conference Report with instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 706
Oct 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2405
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 703
Oct 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2405
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 702
Oct 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2405
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 701
Oct 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2405
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 699
Sep 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Recommit the Conference Report with instructions: H R 2126 Department of Defense Appropriationms, FY 1996
Recommit the Conference Report with instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 696
Sep 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Recommit Conference Report with Instructions: H R 1977 Department of the Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
Motion to Recommit Conference Report with Instructions

Y Y Won
Roll Call 695
Sep 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 231 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1977; Department of Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 694
Sep 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 232 Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 2126; Department of Defense Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 693
Sep 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1170 Three Judge review of State passed referendums
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 692
Sep 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1170
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 691
Sep 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 743 Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 690
Sep 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 743
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 689
Sep 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 743
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 688
Sep 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 743
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 686
Sep 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 226 Providing for consideration of H.R. 743; Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 683
Sep 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 927 Cuban liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 682
Sep 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 927
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 681
Sep 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 225 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 927; Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 680
Sep 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1817 Military Construction Appropriations for fiscal year 1996
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 678
Sep 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2274
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 677
Sep 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2274
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 676
Sep 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2274
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 674
Sep 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 224 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2274; National Highway System Designation Act of 1995
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 673
Sep 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Committees to sit: MOTION
Committees to sit

N N Lost
Roll Call 671
Sep 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1617 Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 670
Sep 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1617
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 669
Sep 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 558 Texas Low-Level radioactive Waste Compact Consent Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 667
Sep 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 260 National Park System Reform Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

N N Won
Roll Call 662
Sep 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1670
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 660
Sep 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1670
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 658
Sep 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1162 Deficit Reduction Lock-Box Act
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 657
Sep 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1162
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 656
Sep 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1162
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 655
Sep 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1655
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 654
Sep 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1655
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 652
Sep 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1594 Restrictions on Promotion by the Government of Use by Employee Benefit Plans of Economically Targeted Investments
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 651
Sep 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1594
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 650
Sep 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1594
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 649
Sep 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1594
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 646
Sep 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2126 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 645
Sep 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2126
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 644
Sep 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 2126
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 643
Sep 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 2126
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 642
Sep 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2126
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 641
Sep 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2126
On Agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 640
Sep 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2126
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 639
Sep 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2126
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 638
Sep 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1854 Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1996
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 637
Sep 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit Conference Report: H R 1854 Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1996
On Motion to Recommit Conference Report

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 636
Sep 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 206 Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1854; Legislative Branch Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 635
Aug 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1555 Communications Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 634
Aug 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1555 Communications Act of 1995
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Won
Roll Call 633
Aug 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1555
On Agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 632
Aug 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1555
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 630
Aug 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Amendment, as modified: Amendment 3 to H R 1555
On agreeing to the Amendment, as modified

N Y Lost
Roll Call 628
Aug 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1555
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 626
Aug 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2127 Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 625
Aug 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2127 Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 624
Aug 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2127
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 623
Aug 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2127
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 622
Aug 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2127
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 620
Aug 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2127
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 619
Aug 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2127
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 618
Aug 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2127
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 617
Aug 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 616
Aug 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 207 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1555; Communications Act of 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 615
Aug 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2127
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 614
Aug 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2127
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 613
Aug 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2127
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 612
Aug 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Amendments en bloc: Amendment 4 to H R 2127
On agreeing to the Amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 611
Aug 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2127
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 610
Aug 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended: H RES 208 Providing for consideration of H.R. 2127; Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations for fiscal year 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 609
Aug 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 608
Aug 01, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 21 Bosnia and Herzegovina Self-Defense Act of 1995
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 607
Jul 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2099 VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 606
Jul 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2099 VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 605
Jul 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 603
Jul 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 602
Jul 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 600
Jul 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION
On Motion that the Committee Rise

N N Lost
Roll Call 599
Jul 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 598
Jul 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 597
Jul 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 596
Jul 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 595
Jul 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 594
Jul 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 593
Jul 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 592
Jul 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 590
Jul 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 589
Jul 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 588
Jul 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 587
Jul 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2099
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 586
Jul 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 201 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2099: VA, HUD, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 585
Jul 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2076 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 583
Jul 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 31 to H R 2076
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 582
Jul 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 2076
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 581
Jul 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2076
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 580
Jul 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2076
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 578
Jul 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2076
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 577
Jul 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2076
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 575
Jul 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2076
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 574
Jul 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2076
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 573
Jul 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2076
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 572
Jul 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2076
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 571
Jul 25, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2076
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 570
Jul 25, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2002 Transportation Appropriations, FY 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 569
Jul 25, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Sustain the ruling of the chair: MOTION
Sustain the ruling of the chair

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 567
Jul 25, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2002
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 566
Jul 25, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2002
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 565
Jul 25, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Instruct Conferees: S 395 Alaska North Slope Oil
Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Won
Roll Call 564
Jul 25, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1943 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 563
Jul 25, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1943 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 559
Jul 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2002
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 558
Jul 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2002
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 557
Jul 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 70 To permit exports of certain domestically produced crude oil, and for other purposes.
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 556
Jul 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 70
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 555
Jul 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 70
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 554
Jul 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1976 Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for Fiscal Year 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 552
Jul 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 1976
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 551
Jul 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 1976
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 549
Jul 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 1976
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 548
Jul 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 1976
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 546
Jul 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 194 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2002; Department of Transportation Appropriations for FY 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 545
Jul 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 1976
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 544
Jul 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1976
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 543
Jul 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1976
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 542
Jul 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1976
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 541
Jul 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1976
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 539
Jul 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1976
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 537
Jul 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Table: H J RES 96 Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation treatment) to the People?s Republic of China
On Motion to Table

N N Lost
Roll Call 535
Jul 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1976
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 534
Jul 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2020 Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations, FY 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 533
Jul 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2020
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 531
Jul 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2020
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 530
Jul 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2020
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 529
Jul 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2020
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 528
Jul 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2020
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 527
Jul 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2020
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 526
Jul 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2020
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 524
Jul 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 188 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1976; Agriculture Appropriations for fiscal year 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 523
Jul 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1977 Department of the Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 522
Jul 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 1977
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 521
Jul 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 37 to H R 1977
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 520
Jul 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 36 to H R 1977
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 519
Jul 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 1977
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 518
Jul 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 1977
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 516
Jul 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 190 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 2020, Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations, FY 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 515
Jul 17, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 1977
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 514
Jul 17, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 1977
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 513
Jul 17, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 1977
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 512
Jul 17, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 1977
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 510
Jul 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 1977
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 509
Jul 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1977
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 508
Jul 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 507
Jul 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Strike the Enacting Clause: H R 1977 Department of the Interior Appropriations for F.Y. 1996
On Motion to Strike the Enacting Clause

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 506
Jul 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee rise: MOTION
On Motion that the Committee rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 505
Jul 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion the Committee Rise: MOTION
On motion the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 504
Jul 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1977
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 502
Jul 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1977
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 501
Jul 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1977
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 500
Jul 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1977
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 499
Jul 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 187 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1977; Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 498
Jul 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 187 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1977; Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 496
Jul 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 185
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Won
Roll Call 495
Jul 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 185
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 493
Jul 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

sustain the ruling of the chair: MOTION
sustain the ruling of the chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 492
Jul 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1905
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 490
Jul 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1905
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 489
Jul 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 1905
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 488
Jul 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1905
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 487
Jul 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1905
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 486
Jul 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1905
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 484
Jul 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1905
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 483
Jul 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1905
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 481
Jul 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table motion to reconsider: H RES 177 Providing for further consideration in the Committee of the Whole of H.R. 1868; Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996
Table motion to reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 480
Jul 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 177 Providing for further consideration in the Committee of the Whole of H.R. 1868; Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 479
Jul 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 177 Providing for further consideration in the Committee of the Whole of H.R. 1868; Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 478
Jul 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 177 Providing for further consideration in the Committee of the Whole of H.R. 1868; Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 477
Jul 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Permit Committees To Sit: MOTION
Permit Committees To Sit

N N Lost
Roll Call 476
Jul 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 183 Election to the Committee on Ways and Means
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 475
Jul 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 183 Election to the Committee on Ways and Means
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 474
Jul 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 183 Election to the Committee on Ways and Means
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 473
Jul 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 183
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 472
Jul 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Lay the Resolution on the Table: H RES 183
Lay the Resolution on the Table

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 471
Jul 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 183
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 470
Jul 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Question of Consideration: H RES 183
Question of Consideration

N N Lost
Roll Call 469
Jul 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 468
Jun 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 179 Providing for the consideration of S.Con.Res. 20: Providing for the adjournment of the two Houses
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 467
Jun 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 483 Expanded use on Medicare Select Policies Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 466
Jun 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 464
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1944 Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 463
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1944 Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 462
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 176 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1944; Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 461
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 176 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1944; Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 460
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 176 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1944; Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 459
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 176 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1944; Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 458
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 67 Setting forth the Congressional Budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1996 - 2002
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 457
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H CON RES 67 Setting forth the Congressional Budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1996 - 2002
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 456
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H CON RES 67 Setting forth the Congressional Budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1996 - 2002
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 454
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Motion to Reconsider: H RES 175
Table Motion to Reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 453
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 175
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 452
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table motion to reconsider: H RES 175
Table motion to reconsider

N N Lost
Roll Call 451
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 175
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 450
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 1868 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996
On Motion that the Committee Rise

N N Lost
Roll Call 446
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 1868
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 445
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 1868
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 443
Jun 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 1868
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 441
Jun 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 1868
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 440
Jun 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 1868
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 439
Jun 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Strike the Enacting Clause: H R 1868 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996
On Motion to Strike the Enacting Clause

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 438
Jun 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: H R 1868 Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 437
Jun 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 436
Jun 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 1868
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 435
Jun 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion that the Committee Rise: MOTION
On Motion that the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 433
Jun 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 1868
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 432
Jun 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 1868
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 431
Jun 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 79 Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag of the United States
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 429
Jun 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 173 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res 79; Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the physical desecation of the Flag Of the United States
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 428
Jun 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 173 Providing for the consideration of H.J. Res 79; Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the physical desecration of the Flag Of the United States
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 427
Jun 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment, As Amended: Amendment 15 to H R 1868
On Agreeing to the Amendment, As Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 426
Jun 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 1868
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 424
Jun 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1868
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 423
Jun 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1868
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 421
Jun 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1868
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 420
Jun 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1868
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 419
Jun 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 170 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1868, Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 418
Jun 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 170 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1868, Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 417
Jun 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1854 Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1996
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 416
Jun 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit: H R 1854 Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1996
On Motion to Recommit

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 414
Jun 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1854
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 413
Jun 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1854
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 411
Jun 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1854
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 410
Jun 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Amendment, as amended: Amendment 5 to H R 1854
On agreeing to the Amendment, as amended

Y Y Won
Roll Call 409
Jun 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Permission for Committees to sit: MOTION
Permission for Committees to sit

N N Lost
Roll Call 406
Jun 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

on motion to rise: H R 1854 Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1996
on motion to rise

N N Lost
Roll Call 405
Jun 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Amendment, as amended: Amendment 5 to H R 1854
On agreeing to the Amendment, as amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 404
Jun 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

on motion the Committee Rise: MOTION
on motion the Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 403
Jun 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1854
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 402
Jun 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1854
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 401
Jun 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1817 Military Construction Appropriations for fiscal year 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 400
Jun 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1817
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 398
Jun 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1817
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 396
Jun 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1817
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 395
Jun 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1817
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 393
Jun 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1817
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 392
Jun 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 169 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1854; Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 391
Jun 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 169 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1854; Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 390
Jun 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 168 To provide for a Corrections Calendar
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 389
Jun 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 168 To provide for a Corrections Calendar
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 387
Jun 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 167 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1817; Military Construction Appropriations for fiscal year 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 386
Jun 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 167 Providing for consideration of H.R. 1817; Military Construction Appropriations for fiscal year 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 385
Jun 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1530 Defense Department Authorization, FY 1996
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 384
Jun 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1530 Defense Department Authorization, FY 1996
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 382
Jun 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1530
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 381
Jun 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 1530
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 379
Jun 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1530
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 378
Jun 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1530
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 377
Jun 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1530
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 376
Jun 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1530
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 375
Jun 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1530
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 374
Jun 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1530
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 373
Jun 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1530
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 371
Jun 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1530
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 370
Jun 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1530
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 369
Jun 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1530
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 368
Jun 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 164 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1530, DOD Authorization, FY 1996
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 367
Jun 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 164 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1530, DOD Authorization, FY 1996
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 366
Jun 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1561 American Overseas Interests Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 365
Jun 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1561 American Overseas Interests Act of 1995
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 364
Jun 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 1561
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 363
Jun 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 1561
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 361
Jun 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H CON RES 67 Setting forth the Congressional Budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1996 - 2002
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 360
Jun 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1561
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 359
Jun 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 1561
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 357
Jun 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 156 Providing for further consideration of H.R. 1561; American Overseas Interests Act of 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 356
Jun 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 535
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 355
May 25, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 483 Expanded use on Medicare Select Policies Act
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 354
May 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1561
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 353
May 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 1561
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 352
May 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1561
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 351
May 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1561
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 350
May 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1561
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 349
May 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1561
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 348
May 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1561
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 347
May 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 155 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1561; American Overseas Interests Act of 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 346
May 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1158 Supplemental Appropriations and Making Recissions
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

N N Lost
Roll Call 345
May 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 67 Setting forth the Congressional Budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1996 - 2002
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 344
May 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 67
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 340
May 17, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 149 Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 67; setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1996 through 2002
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 339
May 17, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 149 Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 67; setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1996 through 2002
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 337
May 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 961 Clean Water Amendments of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 336
May 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 961 Clean Water Amendments of 1995
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 335
May 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 334
May 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 333
May 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 332
May 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 331
May 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Committees to sit today and the balance of the week: MOTION
Committees to sit today and the balance of the week

N N Lost
Roll Call 330
May 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 1590 Medicare Trustees reporting on financial imbalance
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

N N Won
Roll Call 329
May 12, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 326
May 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 325
May 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 324
May 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 323
May 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 322
May 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 321
May 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 320
May 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 319
May 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 12 to H R 961
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 318
May 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 317
May 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 316
May 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 315
May 11, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 314
May 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 313
May 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 961
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 312
May 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment, as amended: Amendment 2 to H R 961
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment, as amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 308
May 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1361
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 307
May 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 655
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 306
May 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 655
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 303
May 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 1158 Supplemental Appropriations and Making Recissions
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 301
Apr 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 483
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 300
Apr 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table appeal of the ruling of the chair: MOTION
Table appeal of the ruling of the chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 298
Apr 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 130 Providing for consideration of H.R, 483; Expanded Use of Medicare Select Policies Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 296
Apr 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 889 Emergency Defense Supplemental Appropriations
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y N Lost
Roll Call 295
Apr 05, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1215 Contract With America Tax Relief Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 294
Apr 05, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair: MOTION
Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

N N Lost
Roll Call 293
Apr 05, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1215 Contract With America Tax Relief Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 292
Apr 05, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1215
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 290
Apr 05, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 128 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1215; Contract With America Tax Relief Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 289
Apr 05, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 128 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1215; Contract With America Tax Relief Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 286
Apr 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Amendments En Bloc: Amendment 2 to H R 1271
On agreeing to the Amendments En Bloc

N N Won
Roll Call 285
Apr 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1271
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 279
Mar 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 121 Waiving points of order against consideration of Conference Report on H.R. 831; Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for the Self-Employed
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 278
Mar 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 121 Waiving points of order against consideration of Conference Report on H.R. 831; Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for the Self-Employed
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 277
Mar 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 73 Term Limits Constitutional Amendment
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 276
Mar 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 3 to H J RES 73
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 273
Mar 29, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to proceed in order: MOTION
On motion to proceed in order

N N Lost
Roll Call 272
Mar 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 831 Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for the Self-Employed
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 270
Mar 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Instruct Conferees: H R 889 Emergency Defense Supplemental Appropriations
On Motion to Instruct Conferees

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 269
Mar 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4 Personal Responsibility Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 268
Mar 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4 Personal Responsibility Act of 1995
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 267
Mar 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 266
Mar 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 261
Mar 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 260
Mar 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 258
Mar 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Amendments en bloc, as modified: Amendment 2 to H R 4
On agreeing to the Amendments en bloc, as modified

N N Lost
Roll Call 257
Mar 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 256
Mar 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion That The Committee Rise: H R 4 Personal Responsibility Act of 1995
On Motion That The Committee Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 255
Mar 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 119 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 4; Personal Responsibility Act of 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 253
Mar 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Permission for Committees to sit: MOTION
Permission for Committees to sit

N N Lost
Roll Call 251
Mar 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1158 Supplemental Appropriations and Making Recissions
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 250
Mar 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1158 Supplemental Appropriations and Making Recissions
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 249
Mar 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 1158
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 247
Mar 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Strike the Enacting Clause: H R 1158 Supplemental Appropriations and making Recissions
On Motion to Strike the Enacting Clause

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 246
Mar 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1158
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 242
Mar 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1158
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 240
Mar 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1158
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 238
Mar 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended: H RES 115 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1158; Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Additional Disaster Assistance and Making Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 237
Mar 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 115
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 229
Mar 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 956 Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 228
Mar 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 956 Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 227
Mar 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 956
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 226
Mar 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 956
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 225
Mar 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 956
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 224
Mar 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 956
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 223
Mar 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 956
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 222
Mar 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 956
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 221
Mar 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 956
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 220
Mar 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 956
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 219
Mar 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 956
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 218
Mar 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 109 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 956; Common Sense Product Product Liability Reform Act of 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 217
Mar 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 109 Providing for the further consideration of H.R. 956; Common Sense Product Product Liability Reform Act of 1995
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 216
Mar 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1058 Securities Litigation Reform Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 215
Mar 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1058 Securities Litigation Reform Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 214
Mar 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 213
Mar 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 1058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 212
Mar 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 1058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 211
Mar 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 210
Mar 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 209
Mar 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1058
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 208
Mar 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 105 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1058; Securities Litigation Reform Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 207
Mar 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 988 Attorney Accountability Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 206
Mar 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 988
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 205
Mar 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 988
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 204
Mar 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 988
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 201
Mar 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 988
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 200
Mar 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 988
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 199
Mar 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 9 Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 198
Mar 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 9 Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 197
Mar 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 925 Private Property Protection Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 196
Mar 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 925
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 195
Mar 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 925
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 194
Mar 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 925
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 193
Mar 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 925
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 192
Mar 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 925
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 191
Mar 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 925
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 190
Mar 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 925
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 189
Mar 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 101 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 925; Private Property Protection Act of 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 185
Mar 01, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 926
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 183
Feb 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1022 Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 182
Feb 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1022 Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 181
Feb 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 1022
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 180
Feb 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 1022
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 179
Feb 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1022
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 178
Feb 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 1022
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 177
Feb 28, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 1022
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 176
Feb 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1022
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 175
Feb 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 96 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1022, Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 174
Feb 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 450 Regulatory Transition Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 173
Feb 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 450 Regulatory Transition Act of 1995
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 172
Feb 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 450
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 171
Feb 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 450
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 170
Feb 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 450
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 169
Feb 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 450
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 168
Feb 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 450
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 167
Feb 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 450
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 166
Feb 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 450
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 164
Feb 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 450
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 163
Feb 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 450
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 162
Feb 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 450
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 161
Feb 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 450
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 160
Feb 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 2 to H R 450
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 159
Feb 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 93 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 450; Regulatory Transition Act of 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 156
Feb 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 830
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 155
Feb 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 830
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 154
Feb 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 889 Emergency Defense Supplemental Appropriations
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 153
Feb 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 889 Emergency Defense Supplemental Appropriations
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 152
Feb 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 889
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 151
Feb 22, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 92 Providing for the consideration of H.R. 889; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 149
Feb 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 831 Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for the Self-Employed
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 148
Feb 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 831
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 147
Feb 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 88 Providing for consideration of H.R. 831; Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for the Self-Employed
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 146
Feb 21, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 88 Providing for consideration of H.R. 831; Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for the Self-Employed
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 145
Feb 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 7 National Security Revitalization Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 144
Feb 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 7 National Security Revitalization Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 143
Feb 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 7
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 142
Feb 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 7
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 141
Feb 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 7
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 140
Feb 16, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 7
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 139
Feb 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment, as amended: Amendment 7 to H R 7
On Agreeing to the Amendment, as amended

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 138
Feb 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 7
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 137
Feb 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Amendment as modified: Amendment 4 to H R 7
On agreeing to the Amendment as modified

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 136
Feb 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 7
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 135
Feb 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 7
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 134
Feb 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

N Y Lost
Roll Call 133
Feb 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 83 Providing for the consideration of H.R.7, National Security Revitalization Act
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 132
Feb 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 83 Providing for the consideration of H.R.7, National Security Revitalization Act
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 130
Feb 15, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 129
Feb 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 728 Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 128
Feb 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 728 Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 1995
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 127
Feb 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Committee Substitute as Amended: Amendment 20 to H R 728
On Agreeing to the Committee Substitute as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 126
Feb 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 728
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 125
Feb 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 728
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 124
Feb 14, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 728
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 123
Feb 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Committees to Sit during 5 minute Rule for Balance of Week: MOTION
Committees to Sit during 5 minute Rule for Balance of Week

N N Lost
Roll Call 122
Feb 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On ordering the Previous Question: MOTION
On ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 121
Feb 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 728
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 120
Feb 13, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 728
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 117
Feb 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 667 Violent Criminal Incarceration Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 116
Feb 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 667 Violent Criminal Incarceration Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 115
Feb 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 667
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 114
Feb 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 667
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 113
Feb 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 667
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 112
Feb 10, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 667
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 111
Feb 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 667
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 110
Feb 09, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 667
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 109
Feb 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 729 Effective death penalty act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 108
Feb 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 729
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 107
Feb 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 729
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 106
Feb 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 729
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 105
Feb 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 729
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 104
Feb 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 729
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 103
Feb 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 666 Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 102
Feb 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 666
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 101
Feb 08, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 666
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Won
Roll Call 99
Feb 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 666
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 98
Feb 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 666
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 96
Feb 07, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to table the appeal: H RES 57 In regard to the financial assistance plan for Mexico
On motion to table the appeal

Y N Lost
Roll Call 95
Feb 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2 Line Item Veto Act
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 94
Feb 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2 Line Item Veto Act
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 93
Feb 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2
On agreeing to the Substitute Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 92
Feb 06, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 90
Feb 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2
On agreeing to the amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 89
Feb 03, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 88
Feb 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 86
Feb 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 85
Feb 02, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 83
Feb 01, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5 Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 82
Feb 01, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 60 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 81
Feb 01, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 59 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 80
Feb 01, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 57 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 79
Jan 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 55 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 78
Jan 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 54 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 77
Jan 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 76
Jan 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 48 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 75
Jan 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 74
Jan 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 43 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 73
Jan 31, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 41 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 72
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 30 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 71
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 29 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 70
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 28 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 69
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 27 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 68
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 26 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 67
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 25 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 66
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 65
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 23 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 64
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 22 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 63
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 20 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 62
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 61
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 17 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

N Y Lost
Roll Call 60
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

on agreeing to the amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 5
on agreeing to the amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 59
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to rise: MOTION
Motion to rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 58
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

motion to rise: H R 5 Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
motion to rise

N N Lost
Roll Call 57
Jan 30, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On motion to Limit Debate: H R 5 Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
On motion to Limit Debate

N N Lost
Roll Call 55
Jan 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 54
Jan 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 15 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 53
Jan 27, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 14 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 51
Jan 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 1 Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
On Passage

N N Lost
Roll Call 50
Jan 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H J RES 1 Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 49
Jan 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H J RES 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 48
Jan 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H J RES 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 47
Jan 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to Rise: MOTION
Motion to Rise

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 46
Jan 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H J RES 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 45
Jan 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Motion to rise and strike the resolving clause: MOTION
Motion to rise and strike the resolving clause

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 44
Jan 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H J RES 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 43
Jan 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H J RES 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 41
Jan 26, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H J RES 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 39
Jan 25, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended: H RES 44 Providing for the consideration of H, Con, Res 17 and H,J, Res. 1; relating to the Balanced Budget Amendment
On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended

N N Lost
Roll Call 38
Jan 25, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H RES 44
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 37
Jan 25, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 44 Providing for the consideration of H, Con, Res 17 and H,J, Res. 1; relating to the Balanced Budget Amendment
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 36
Jan 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 13 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 35
Jan 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 12 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 33
Jan 24, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 29
Jan 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

Leave for Committees to Sit for Balance of the Week: MOTION
Leave for Committees to Sit for Balance of the Week

N N Lost
Roll Call 28
Jan 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 27
Jan 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 8 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 26
Jan 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 7 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 25
Jan 23, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 6 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 24
Jan 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENTS EN BLOC: Amendment 4 to H R 5
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENTS EN BLOC

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 23
Jan 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On agreeing to the amendments en bloc: Amendment 3 to H R 5
On agreeing to the amendments en bloc

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 22
Jan 20, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 5
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 21
Jan 19, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 38 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5; UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 19
Jan 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Adjourn: ADJOURN
On Motion to Adjourn

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 18
Jan 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

striking words from the record: MOTION
striking words from the record

N N Lost
Roll Call 17
Jan 18, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR: MOTION
TABLE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR

N N Lost
Roll Call 14
Jan 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

COMMIT TITLE 2 WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H RES 6 ADOPTING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE 104TH CONGRESS
COMMIT TITLE 2 WITH INSTRUCTIONS

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 13
Jan 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO SEC. 108: H RES 6 ADOPTING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE 104TH CONGRESS
ON AGREEING TO SEC. 108

Absent N Lost
Roll Call 11
Jan 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO SEC. 106: H RES 6 ADOPTING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE 104TH CONGRESS
ON AGREEING TO SEC. 106

N N Lost
Roll Call 8
Jan 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO SEC. 103: H RES 6 ADOPTING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE 104TH CONGRESS
ON AGREEING TO SEC. 103

Y N Lost
Roll Call 5
Jan 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 5 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 6
On Agreeing to the Resolution

N N Lost
Roll Call 4
Jan 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H RES 5 RULES OF THE HOUSE
ON MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 3
Jan 04, 1995

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 5 RULES OF THE HOUSE
On Ordering the Previous Question

N N Lost
Roll Call 507
Nov 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5110 GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 503
Oct 07, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to S 455
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 502
Oct 07, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to S 455
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 501
Oct 06, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 568 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 21
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 500
Oct 06, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 416 LIMITED AUTHORIZATION OF U.S. TROOPS IN HAITI
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 498
Oct 06, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H J RES 416
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 497
Oct 06, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H J RES 416
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 495
Oct 06, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 570 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES 416; LIMITED AUTHORIZATION OF U.S. TROOPS IN HAITI
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 491
Oct 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS: S 1225 U.S. = MEXICO BORDER HEALTH COMMISSION
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS

Y Y Won
Roll Call 490
Oct 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: S 1919 RIO PUERCO WATERSHED ACT 0F 1994
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 489
Oct 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 4533 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ENTREPRENEURIAL MANAGEMENT REFORM ACT
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 488
Oct 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS: H R 5139 POSTAL SERVICE REEMPLOYMENT
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS

Y Y Won
Roll Call 486
Oct 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5044 AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 485
Oct 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 5044
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 484
Oct 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 5044
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 482
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 4533 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ENTREPRENEURIAL MANAGEMENT REFORM ACT
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 481
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: S 1919 RIO PUERCO WATERSHED ACT 0F 1994
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 480
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS: S 1225 U.S. = MEXICO BORDER HEALTH COMMISSION
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 475
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 967 MINOR CROP PESTICIDES ACT
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

N N Lost
Roll Call 474
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO TABLE THEMOTION TO RECONSIDER: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION
ON MOTION TO TABLE THEMOTION TO RECONSIDER

Y Y Won
Roll Call 473
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO TABLE THEMOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION
ON MOTION TO TABLE THEMOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

Y Y Won
Roll Call 471
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Y Y Won
Roll Call 470
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

INSIST ON HOUSE AMENDMENTS AND AGREE TO A CONFERENCE: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION
INSIST ON HOUSE AMENDMENTS AND AGREE TO A CONFERENCE

Y Y Won
Roll Call 469
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Y Y Won
Roll Call 468
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

MOTION TO COMMIT TO COMMITTEE: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION
MOTION TO COMMIT TO COMMITTEE

N N Won
Roll Call 467
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Y Y Won
Roll Call 466
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON ORDERING PREVIOUS QUESTION ON THE MOTION: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION
ON ORDERING PREVIOUS QUESTION ON THE MOTION

Y Y Won
Roll Call 465
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

MOTION TO TABLE: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION
MOTION TO TABLE

N N Won
Roll Call 464
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Y Y Won
Roll Call 463
Oct 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

QUESTION OF CONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR CONFERENCE: S 21 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION
QUESTION OF CONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR CONFERENCE

Y Y Won
Roll Call 458
Oct 03, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 4608 PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 456
Sep 30, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 6 IMPROVING AMERICA?S SCHOOL ACT
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 455
Sep 30, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

MOTION TO RECOMMIT THECONFERENCE REPORT: H R 6 IMPROVING AMERICA?S SCHOOL ACT
MOTION TO RECOMMIT THECONFERENCE REPORT

N N Won
Roll Call 454
Sep 30, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 556 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 6; IMPROVING AMERICAN SCHOOLS ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 451
Sep 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 349 LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 450
Sep 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO RECOMMIT THE CONFERENCE REPORT: S 349 LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT
ON MOTION TO RECOMMIT THE CONFERENCE REPORT

N N Won
Roll Call 449
Sep 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 550 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY S. 349; LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 445
Sep 28, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3171
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 442
Sep 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 5044 AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 440
Sep 26, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4448 ESTABLISHING LOWEL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 439
Sep 26, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4448
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 438
Sep 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 4554 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 436
Sep 22, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

MOTION TO RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT: H R 4539 TREASURY, POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995
MOTION TO RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT

N N Lost
Roll Call 435
Sep 22, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 537 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT H.R. 4539; TREASURY, POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS, F.Y. 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 433
Sep 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2866 HEADWATERS FOREST ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 432
Sep 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2866
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 431
Sep 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2866
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 430
Sep 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 536 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2866; HEADWATERS FOREST ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 429
Sep 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 536 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2866; HEADWATERS FOREST ACT
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 427
Sep 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4801 SMALL BUSINESS ACT REAUTHORIZATION
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 426
Sep 20, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 6 IMPROVING AMERICA?S SCHOOL ACT
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Lost
Roll Call 419
Sep 12, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 87: H R 4624 VA, HUD, AND INDEPENENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995
RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 87

N N Lost
Roll Call 418
Sep 12, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE ADT NO. 28 WITHAMENDMENT: H R 4624 VA, HUD, AND INDEPENENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995
RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE ADT NO. 28 WITHAMENDMENT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 416
Aug 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 415
Aug 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION
RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS

N N Won
Roll Call 414
Aug 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 526 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST A FURTHER CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 3355
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 412
Aug 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4908
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 411
Aug 18, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3433 MANAGEMENT OF THE PRESIDIO
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 410
Aug 18, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3433
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 409
Aug 18, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3433
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 407
Aug 18, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 523 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 4603; COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 406
Aug 18, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 523 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 4603; COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 404
Aug 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 2182 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 402
Aug 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4906
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 401
Aug 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4906
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 400
Aug 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4906
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 398
Aug 16, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 4867 HIGH-SPEED RAIL DEVELOPMENT
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y Y Won
Roll Call 396
Aug 12, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4907
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 395
Aug 12, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4907
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 394
Aug 11, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 517 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3355; OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 393
Aug 11, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 512 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4907
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 389
Aug 10, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4822
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 386
Aug 10, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 514 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4822; THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 384
Aug 10, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 4603 COMMERCE, STATE, JUSTICE, JUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1995
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Won
Roll Call 383
Aug 09, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4590
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 382
Aug 09, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4590
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 377
Aug 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4217
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 373
Aug 03, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 1066 RECOGNITION OF THE POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 372
Aug 03, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 1357 LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS & THE LITTLE RIVER BAND OF OTTAWA INDIANS ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 371
Aug 02, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4003 MARITIME ADMINISTRATION AND PROMOTIONAL REFORM ACT OF 1994
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 370
Aug 02, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4003
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 368
Aug 01, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 4158 ESTABLISHING THE LOWER EAST SIDE TENEMENT MUSEUM NATIONAL HISTORICAL SITE
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 367
Aug 01, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 4448 LOWELL HISTORICAL PARK
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 366
Aug 01, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

PREVIOUS QUESTION ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 4506 ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1995
PREVIOUS QUESTION ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Won
Roll Call 365
Jul 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 494 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4801; SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 364
Jul 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 494 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4801; SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ACT
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 362
Jul 28, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to S 208
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 361
Jul 28, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2448 RADON AWARENESS AND DISCLOSURE
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 360
Jul 28, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2448
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 358
Jul 28, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 4649 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Lost
Roll Call 357
Jul 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 518 CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 356
Jul 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO LIMIT DEBATE: MOTION
ON MOTION TO LIMIT DEBATE

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 355
Jul 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 35 to H R 518
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 353
Jul 26, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3870
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 352
Jul 26, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 3870
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 348
Jul 22, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3838
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 346
Jul 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4604 BUDGET CONTROL ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 343
Jul 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 1 to H R 4604
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT

N N Won
Roll Call 342
Jul 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 484 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4604
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 340
Jul 20, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

Y N Lost
Roll Call 339
Jul 20, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1188
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 338
Jul 20, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1188
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 337
Jul 20, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1188
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 333
Jul 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4299
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 332
Jul 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4299
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 330
Jul 14, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 474 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3937; EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1994
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y N Lost
Roll Call 329
Jul 14, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4600 EXPEDITED RESCISSIONS ACT
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 328
Jul 14, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4600
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 327
Jul 14, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4600
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 326
Jul 14, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 467 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4600
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 325
Jul 14, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 34 to H R 518
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 324
Jul 13, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Lost
Roll Call 322
Jul 13, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4649 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 321
Jul 13, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4649
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 320
Jul 13, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT: H R 4649 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995
ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 317
Jul 12, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 518
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 316
Jul 12, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 518
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 315
Jul 12, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 518
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 314
Jun 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

Y N Lost
Roll Call 311
Jun 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4624 VA, HUD, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1995
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 310
Jun 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT: H R 4624 VA, HUD, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1995
MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 309
Jun 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4624
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 308
Jun 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4624
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 307
Jun 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4624
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 306
Jun 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 466 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4649; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 305
Jun 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 466 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4649; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1995
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 303
Jun 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4606 LABOR HHS EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1995
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 302
Jun 29, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 299
Jun 28, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 297
Jun 28, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 295
Jun 28, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 294
Jun 28, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4606
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 291
Jun 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4603 COMMERCE, STATE, JUSTICE, JUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1995
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 290
Jun 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4603 COMMERCE, STATE, JUSTICE, JUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1995
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 289
Jun 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 4603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 288
Jun 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 4603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 287
Jun 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 4603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 285
Jun 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 284
Jun 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 282
Jun 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 281
Jun 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 280
Jun 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 279
Jun 27, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 278
Jun 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 277
Jun 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 276
Jun 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 275
Jun 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4603
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 274
Jun 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Won
Roll Call 273
Jun 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 461 WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4603
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 269
Jun 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4602
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent Y Won
Roll Call 268
Jun 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4602
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 267
Jun 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4602
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 266
Jun 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4602
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 265
Jun 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4602
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 264
Jun 22, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Lost
Roll Call 263
Jun 22, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4602
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 262
Jun 22, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4602
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 261
Jun 22, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4602
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 260
Jun 22, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4602
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 258
Jun 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 24 INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REAUTHORIZATION
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 257
Jun 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 439 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAIN ST CONFERENCE REPORT ON S.24; INDEPENENT COUNSEL REAUTHORIZATION
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 256
Jun 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4554 AGRICULTURE AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION, FY1995
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 255
Jun 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT: H R 4554 AGRICULTURE AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION, FY1995
ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 254
Jun 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4554
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 253
Jun 16, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3355 CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Lost
Roll Call 251
Jun 16, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4556
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 250
Jun 16, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4556
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 249
Jun 16, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 454 WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4556
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 248
Jun 16, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 454 WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4556
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 247
Jun 15, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4539 TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, PRESIDENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATION FOR F.Y. 1995
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 246
Jun 15, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT: H R 4539 TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, PRESIDENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATION FOR F.Y. 1995
ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 245
Jun 15, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4539
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 244
Jun 15, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4539
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 242
Jun 15, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4539
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 241
Jun 15, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4539
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 240
Jun 15, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4539
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 239
Jun 15, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4539
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 238
Jun 15, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4539
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 237
Jun 15, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4539
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 236
Jun 15, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4539
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 234
Jun 14, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4506
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 233
Jun 13, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 7 to H R 518
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 231
Jun 10, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 518
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 227
Jun 09, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 447 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4539; TREASURY, POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 226
Jun 09, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4301 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 225
Jun 09, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4301 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 224
Jun 09, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 223
Jun 09, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 222
Jun 09, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 220
Jun 08, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 219
Jun 08, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 218
Jun 08, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 216
May 26, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4454 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 215
May 26, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4454 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 214
May 26, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4454
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 213
May 26, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 4454
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 210
May 26, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 444 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4454; LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS, F.Y. 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 206
May 25, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4426
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 205
May 25, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4426
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 203
May 25, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 443 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4426; FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION, F.Y.1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 202
May 25, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 443 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4426; FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION, F.Y.1995
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 201
May 25, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 441 WAIVING TWO-THIRDS REQUIREMENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF A CERTAIN RULE FILED THE SAME DAY
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 198
May 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 197
May 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 196
May 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 195
May 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 192
May 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 191
May 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 190
May 20, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 189
May 20, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 188
May 20, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 187
May 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 186
May 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2108 BLACK LUNG BENEFITS RESTORATION ACT
On Passage

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 185
May 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2108
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 184
May 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2108
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 183
May 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2108
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 182
May 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2108
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 181
May 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2108
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 180
May 18, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 179
May 18, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4301
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 176
May 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 422 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 518
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 175
May 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 422 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 518
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 174
May 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2473 MONTANA WILDERNESS ACT
On Passage

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 173
May 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2473
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 172
May 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2473
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 166
May 12, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2442
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 165
May 12, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2442
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 164
May 12, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2442
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 163
May 11, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2442
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 162
May 11, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2442
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 161
May 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 218 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR F.Y. 1995
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 160
May 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 418 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H. CON. RES. 218
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 159
May 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 636 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 158
May 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: S 636 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT
RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS

N N Won
Roll Call 157
May 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 417 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 636
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 156
May 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4296 PUBLIC SAFETY AND RECREATION FIREARMS USE PROTECTION ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 155
May 05, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 416 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4296; PUBLIC SAFETY AND RECREATIONAL FIREARMS USE PROTECTION ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 152
May 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3254
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 151
May 04, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3254
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 147
Apr 28, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H R 2333 STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION
RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS

N N Won
Roll Call 145
Apr 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3355 OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Won
Roll Call 144
Apr 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4092 TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 143
Apr 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 4092 TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 142
Apr 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 27 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 138
Apr 20, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 24 to H R 4092
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 137
Apr 20, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 136
Apr 20, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 132
Apr 20, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RISE AND REPORT WITH ENACTING CLAUSE STRICKEN: H R 4092 TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME
RISE AND REPORT WITH ENACTING CLAUSE STRICKEN

N N Won
Roll Call 131
Apr 20, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 126
Apr 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 125
Apr 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 124
Apr 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 123
Apr 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RISE AND REPORT WITH ENACTING CLAUSE STRICKEN: H R 4092 TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME
RISE AND REPORT WITH ENACTING CLAUSE STRICKEN

N N Won
Roll Call 122
Apr 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 121
Apr 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RISE AND REPORT WITH ENACTING CLAUSE STRICKEN: H R 4092 TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME
RISE AND REPORT WITH ENACTING CLAUSE STRICKEN

N N Won
Roll Call 120
Apr 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 119
Apr 19, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 112
Apr 14, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H CON RES 218 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR F.Y. 1995
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Won
Roll Call 111
Apr 14, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 110
Apr 14, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RISE AND REPORT WITH ENACTING CLAUSE STRICKEN: H R 4092 TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME
RISE AND REPORT WITH ENACTING CLAUSE STRICKEN

N N Won
Roll Call 109
Apr 14, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 108
Apr 14, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 107
Apr 14, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 106
Apr 14, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 4092
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 103
Apr 13, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 401 PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4092; TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 102
Apr 13, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS: S 2004 EXTEND COLLEGE LOAN DEFAULT EXEMPTION
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS

Y Y Won
Roll Call 101
Apr 13, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 2843 WHEELING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 100
Apr 13, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 3498 GREAT FALLS HISTORIC DISTRICT
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y Y Won
Roll Call 95
Mar 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 6 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT REAUTHORIZATIONS
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 94
Mar 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 47 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 93
Mar 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 42 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 92
Mar 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 39 to H R 6
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT

N N Lost
Roll Call 91
Mar 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 40 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 89
Mar 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 397 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A CERTAIN MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 88
Mar 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H R 3345 WORKFORCE RESTRUCTURING ACT
RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS

N N Won
Roll Call 87
Mar 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 388 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3345; FEDERAL WORKFORCE RESTRUCTURING ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 86
Mar 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 1804 GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 85
Mar 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H R 1804 GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT
RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT WITH INSTRUCTIONS

N N Won
Roll Call 84
Mar 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 395 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4092; TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CRIME
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 80
Mar 22, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 369 COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 79
Mar 22, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 369 COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 76
Mar 22, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 38 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 75
Mar 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 32 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 74
Mar 21, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 33 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 71
Mar 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

INSIST ON AMENDMENTS AND ASK FOR CONFERENCE: S 636 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT
INSIST ON AMENDMENTS AND ASK FOR CONFERENCE

Y Y Won
Roll Call 70
Mar 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S 636 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 69
Mar 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

COMMIT TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY: S 636 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT
COMMIT TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

N N Won
Roll Call 68
Mar 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO TABLE THE HOUSE AMENDMENT: S 636 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT
ON MOTION TO TABLE THE HOUSE AMENDMENT

N N Won
Roll Call 67
Mar 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 374 REQUESTING A CONFERENCE ON S. 636; ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 66
Mar 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 374 REQUESTING A CONFERENCE ON S. 636; ACCESS TO CLINICS ACT
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 65
Mar 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 103 BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
On Passage

N N Won
Roll Call 63
Mar 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H J RES 103
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 62
Mar 17, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H J RES 103
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 60
Mar 16, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H J RES 103
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 57
Mar 11, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3345 WORKFORCE RESTRUCTURING ACT
ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Lost
Roll Call 56
Mar 11, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 218 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR F.Y. 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 55
Mar 11, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H CON RES 218
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 54
Mar 11, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 218
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 51
Mar 10, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H CON RES 218
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 50
Mar 10, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 384 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 218; SETTING FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR F.Y. 1995
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 46
Mar 09, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 44
Mar 09, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 43
Mar 09, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 40
Mar 03, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 39
Mar 03, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 8 to H R 6
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT

N Y Lost
Roll Call 37
Mar 02, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO TABLE: H RES 238 REGARDING THE HOUSE POST OFFICE
ON MOTION TO TABLE

Y Y Won
Roll Call 36
Mar 02, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 375 REGARDING THE HOUSE POST OFFICE
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 35
Mar 02, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 32
Feb 24, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 6
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 30
Feb 23, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 1804 GOALS 200: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

Y N Lost
Roll Call 22
Feb 10, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 811 INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REAUTHORIZATION
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent N Won
Roll Call 21
Feb 10, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 811
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 19
Feb 10, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 811
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 18
Feb 10, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 811
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 17
Feb 09, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 352 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 811; INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REAUTHORIZATION
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 16
Feb 09, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 352 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 811; INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REAUTHORIZATION
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 12
Feb 03, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3759 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

Absent N Won
Roll Call 10
Feb 03, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 3759
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent N Won
Roll Call 9
Feb 03, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3759
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Close Vote Absent N Won
Roll Call 8
Feb 03, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3759
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 6
Feb 03, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 336 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3759; EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 4
Feb 02, 1994

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 312 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3425; DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 615
Nov 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 3167 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION...
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 614
Nov 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

AGREEING TO CONFERENCEREPORT: H R 1025 BRADY HANDGUN BILL
AGREEING TO CONFERENCEREPORT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 613
Nov 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 714 RTC FUNDING
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 611
Nov 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3400
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 610
Nov 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3400
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 609
Nov 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 3400
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 608
Nov 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3400
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 607
Nov 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 320 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3400; GOVERNMENT REFORM AND SAVINGS ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 606
Nov 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 322 AGREEING TO THE REQUEST OF THE SENATE FOR A CONFERENCE ON H.R. 1025; BRADY HANDGUN PROTECTION ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 605
Nov 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3 CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1993
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 604
Nov 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit: H R 3 CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1993
On Motion to Recommit

N N Won
Roll Call 603
Nov 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 600
Nov 21, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: H RES 319 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3; CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1993 .
TABLE THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Y Y Won
Roll Call 599
Nov 21, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO THE RESOLUTION: H RES 319 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3; CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1993
ON AGREEING TO THE RESOLUTION

Y Y Won
Roll Call 595
Nov 21, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 51 NEW COLUMBIA ADMISSIONS ACT
On Passage

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 591
Nov 20, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 316 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 51; NEW COLUMBIA ADMISSIONS ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 589
Nov 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 3351 ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 588
Nov 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE THE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR: H R 3351 ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS
TABLE THE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR

Y Y Won
Roll Call 587
Nov 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE THE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR: H R 3351 ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS
TABLE THE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR

Y Y Won
Roll Call 586
Nov 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE THE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR: H R 3351 ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS
TABLE THE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR

Y Y Won
Roll Call 585
Nov 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 3351
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 584
Nov 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 314 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3351; ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 582
Nov 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 796 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCES ACT OF 1993
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 581
Nov 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 796
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 580
Nov 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 796
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 579
Nov 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 796
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 578
Nov 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 313 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 796; FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCES
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 577
Nov 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 322 MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 576
Nov 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 322 MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 575
Nov 17, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 3450 NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 571
Nov 16, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 322
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 570
Nov 16, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 322
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 569
Nov 16, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 322
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 568
Nov 16, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 322
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 566
Nov 15, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 2121 NEGOTIATED TRUCKING RATES SETTLEMENTS
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y N Lost
Roll Call 565
Nov 15, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2401 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 1994
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 564
Nov 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1025 BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 563
Nov 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1025 BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 562
Nov 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1025
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 560
Nov 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1025
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 559
Nov 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1025
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 557
Nov 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 302 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1025; BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 556
Nov 09, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: H CON RES 170 REMOVAL OF U.S. FORCES FROM SOMALIA
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 555
Nov 09, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: H CON RES 170 REMOVAL OF U.S. FORCES FROM SOMALIA
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 554
Nov 09, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1036 EMPLOYMENT RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 553
Nov 09, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1036
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 552
Nov 09, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

MOTION TO RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT: H R 3167 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM EXTENSION
MOTION TO RECOMMIT CONFERENCE REPORT

N N Lost
Roll Call 551
Nov 09, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 298 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3167
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 544
Nov 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 3167 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM EXTENSION
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Lost
Roll Call 541
Nov 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 3351 ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENTS FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 538
Oct 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 334 RECOGNITION OF THE LUMBEE TRIBE
On Passage

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 537
Oct 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 334
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 536
Oct 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 283 MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 535
Oct 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 287 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 283; MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 534
Oct 27, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2492 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1994
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 533
Oct 27, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 283 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2492; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 530
Oct 26, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1845 ESTABLISHING THE BIOLOGIAL SURVEY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 529
Oct 26, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1845
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 528
Oct 26, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1845
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 527
Oct 26, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 33, WITH AMENDMENT: H R 2445 ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 33, WITH AMENDMENT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 525
Oct 20, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 123 WITH AMENDMENT: H R 2520 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 123 WITH AMENDMENT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 524
Oct 20, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 12 WITH AMENDMENT: H R 2520 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 12 WITH AMENDMENT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 523
Oct 20, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO.1 WITH AMENDMENT: H R 2520 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT NO.1 WITH AMENDMENT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 522
Oct 20, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 279 RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS REPORTED FROM CONFERENCE IN DISAGREEMENT ON THE BILL H.R. 2520
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 518
Oct 20, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2492 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1994
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 517
Oct 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2519 COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND STATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 515
Oct 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT #129: H R 2491 VA, HUD APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
RECEDE AND CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT #129

N N Lost
Roll Call 512
Oct 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 275 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2491; VA HUD APPROPRIATIONS
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 508
Oct 15, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 3167
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 507
Oct 15, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 265 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3167; UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM EXTENSION
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 505
Oct 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 273 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3167
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 504
Oct 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 273 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3167
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 503
Oct 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2351 NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES ACT AUTHORIZATION
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 502
Oct 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2351 NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES ACT AUTHORIZATION
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 501
Oct 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2351
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 500
Oct 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2351
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 498
Oct 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 264 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2351; NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES ACT AUTHORIZATION
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 497
Oct 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 264 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2351; NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES ACT AUTHORIZATION
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 496
Oct 13, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1804 GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 494
Oct 13, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 5 to H R 1804
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT

N N Won
Roll Call 490
Oct 13, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2739
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 489
Oct 07, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2739
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 487
Oct 07, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2739
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 486
Oct 07, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2518 LABOR, HHS, EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 485
Oct 06, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 1845
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 484
Oct 06, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1845
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 483
Oct 06, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 262 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1845; ESTABLISH THE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 479
Sep 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 3116
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 478
Sep 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 3116
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 477
Sep 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 3116
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Lost
Roll Call 476
Sep 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2403 TREASURY, POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 475
Sep 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 263 WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 3116
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 474
Sep 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2401 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR F.Y. 1994
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 473
Sep 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2401 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR F.Y. 1994
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 471
Sep 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 470
Sep 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 468
Sep 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 464
Sep 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H J RES 267 CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1994
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 462
Sep 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 461
Sep 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 20 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 460
Sep 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 459
Sep 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 254 PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2401; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 453
Sep 23, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2750
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 452
Sep 23, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2750
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 451
Sep 23, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2750
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 434
Sep 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1340 RTC COMPLETION ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 433
Sep 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1340 RTC COMPLETION ACT
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 430
Sep 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 250 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1340, RTC COMPLETION ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 429
Sep 13, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 428
Sep 13, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N Y Lost
Roll Call 427
Sep 13, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 426
Sep 13, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 425
Sep 13, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 248 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2401; DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR F.Y. 1994
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 424
Sep 13, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 248 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2401; DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR F.Y. 1994
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 423
Sep 09, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 422
Sep 09, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 421
Sep 09, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 420
Sep 09, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 418
Sep 09, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 417
Sep 09, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 416
Sep 09, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 415
Sep 09, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 414
Sep 08, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 413
Sep 08, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 412
Sep 08, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2401
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 411
Sep 08, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 246 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2401; DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 408
Aug 06, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2010 NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 407
Aug 06, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 241 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2010; NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 406
Aug 05, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2264 OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 403
Aug 05, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 240 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2264; OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 401
Aug 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 233 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2401: DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR F.Y. 1994
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 400
Aug 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 233 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2401: DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR F.Y. 1994
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 397
Aug 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2330
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 396
Aug 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2330
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 395
Aug 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2330
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 394
Aug 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2330
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 393
Aug 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2330
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 391
Aug 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2330
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 389
Aug 02, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 2668 COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DEMONSTRATION ACT
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y Y Won
Roll Call 383
Jul 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 382
Jul 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 380
Jul 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 2200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 379
Jul 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2010 NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 377
Jul 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 375
Jul 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 18 to H R 2010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 374
Jul 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 19 to H R 2010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 372
Jul 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 369
Jul 27, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2667 DISASTER SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 368
Jul 27, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 226 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2667
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 363
Jul 23, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ADJOURN FROM FRIDAY TOMONDAY NEXT: MOTION
ADJOURN FROM FRIDAY TOMONDAY NEXT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 362
Jul 23, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 361
Jul 23, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 360
Jul 23, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 357
Jul 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO TABLE: H RES 222 REGARDING THE HOUSE POST OFFICE
ON MOTION TO TABLE

Y Y Won
Roll Call 356
Jul 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 223 REGARDING THE HOUSE POST OFFICE
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 355
Jul 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 220 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2667; DISASTER SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 354
Jul 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 220 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2667; DISASTER SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 352
Jul 21, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 351
Jul 21, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 350
Jul 21, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 349
Jul 21, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2010
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 348
Jul 21, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 217 PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2010
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 346
Jul 20, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2519 COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND STATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 345
Jul 20, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2519 COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND STATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 344
Jul 20, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2519
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 341
Jul 20, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2519
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 340
Jul 20, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2519
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 339
Jul 15, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2520 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 338
Jul 15, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2520
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 335
Jul 15, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT: H R 2520 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 334
Jul 15, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 16 to H R 2520
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 333
Jul 15, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 13 to H R 2520
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 330
Jul 15, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2520
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 328
Jul 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUBSTITUTE FOR THE MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 2264 OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 327
Jul 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

PREVIOUS QUESTION ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 2264 OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993
PREVIOUS QUESTION ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Won
Roll Call 326
Jul 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2520
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 324
Jul 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2520
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 323
Jul 14, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2520
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 322
Jul 13, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 215 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2010; NATIONAL SERVICE TRUST ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 321
Jul 01, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2118 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1993
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 320
Jul 01, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 216 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT FOR H.R. 2118; MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1993
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 319
Jul 01, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 216 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT FOR H.R. 2118; MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1993
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 317
Jun 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2492 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1994
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 315
Jun 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2492
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 314
Jun 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2492
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 313
Jun 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2492
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 312
Jun 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2492
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 311
Jun 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2518 LABOR, HHS, EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 310
Jun 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2518 LABOR, HHS, EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 309
Jun 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2518
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 307
Jun 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 9 to H R 2518
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 306
Jun 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT: H R 2518 LABOR, HHS, EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
ON MOTION TO RISE AND REPORT

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 305
Jun 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2518
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 302
Jun 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2493 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 301
Jun 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2493 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 299
Jun 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2493
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 294
Jun 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2493
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 292
Jun 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2493
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 290
Jun 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2491 VA, HUD APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 289
Jun 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2491 VA, HUD APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 287
Jun 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2491
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 286
Jun 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2491
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 285
Jun 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2491
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 284
Jun 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2491
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 283
Jun 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 14 to H R 2491
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 282
Jun 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 2491
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 281
Jun 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 2491
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 280
Jun 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2491
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 279
Jun 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2491
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 278
Jun 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2491
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 277
Jun 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2491
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 276
Jun 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2491
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 274
Jun 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 208 WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 2491: VA, HUD, APPROPRIATIONS FOR F.Y. 1994
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 270
Jun 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2445
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 267
Jun 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 2445
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 266
Jun 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2445
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 265
Jun 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2445
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 264
Jun 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2445
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 263
Jun 23, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2200
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 260
Jun 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2403 TREASURY, POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 259
Jun 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2403 TREASURY, POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 256
Jun 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2403
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y N Lost
Roll Call 254
Jun 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION THAT THE COMMITTEE RISE AND REPORT: H R 2403 TREASURY, POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994
ON MOTION THAT THE COMMITTEE RISE AND REPORT

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 252
Jun 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2333 STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 251
Jun 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2333
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 249
Jun 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2333
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 248
Jun 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2333
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 247
Jun 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1876 EXTENSION OF FAST TRACK NEGOTIATION AUTHORITY
On Passage

Y N Lost
Roll Call 246
Jun 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 2403
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 244
Jun 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2403
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 243
Jun 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2403
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 238
Jun 17, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2295
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 237
Jun 17, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2295
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 233
Jun 17, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 200 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2295; FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION FOR FY 1994
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 232
Jun 16, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 2333
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 230
Jun 16, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 2404
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 229
Jun 16, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 2404
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 227
Jun 16, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 4 to H R 2404
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 226
Jun 16, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 197 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2333; STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION FOR FY 1994 AND 1995; AND H.R. 2404; FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZATION
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 224
Jun 15, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 5 CESAR CHAVEZ WORKPLACE FAIRNESS ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 221
Jun 15, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 195 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5; CESAR CHAVEZ WORKPLACE FAIRNESS ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 217
Jun 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2348 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 216
Jun 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2348 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 205
Jun 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 192 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2348; LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 204
Jun 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 192 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2348; LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 199
May 27, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2264 OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 198
May 27, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2264
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 196
May 27, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 186 PROVIDNG FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2264; OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 195
May 27, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 186 PROVIDNG FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2264; OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 193
May 26, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2244 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1993
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 192
May 26, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 2244
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 191
May 26, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 6 to H R 2244
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 190
May 26, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENTS: Amendment 5 to H R 2244
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENTS

N N Won
Roll Call 189
May 26, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENTS: Amendment 1 to H R 2244
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENTS

N N Won
Roll Call 187
May 26, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 2118
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 186
May 26, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 2118
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 185
May 26, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 183 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2244 AND WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 2118
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 183
May 25, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: S J RES 45 AUTHORIZING U.S. FORCES IN SOMALIA
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 180
May 25, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to S J RES 45
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 179
May 25, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to S J RES 45
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 178
May 25, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: S 1 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH AUTHORIZATION
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 175
May 20, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 873 GALLATIN RANGE CONSOLIDATION AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1993
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 174
May 20, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 873 GALLATIN RANGE CONSOLIDATION AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1993
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 173
May 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 820 NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 1993
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 172
May 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 171
May 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 29 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 170
May 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 26 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 169
May 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 25 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 168
May 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 24 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 167
May 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 23 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 166
May 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 22 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 165
May 19, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 21 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 163
May 13, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 17 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 162
May 13, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 15 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 161
May 12, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 12 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 160
May 12, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 11 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 159
May 12, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 10 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 158
May 11, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED: H R 873 GALLATIN RANGE CONSOLIDATION AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1993
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS, AS AMENDED

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 157
May 06, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 156
May 06, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 820
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 154
May 05, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2 NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 153
May 05, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 2 NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 152
May 05, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 163 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2; NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 149
Apr 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1578 EXPEDITED RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1993
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 148
Apr 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 147
Apr 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 146
Apr 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED: Amendment 1 to H R 1578
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED

N N Won
Roll Call 145
Apr 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1578
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 144
Apr 28, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 149 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1578; EXPEDITED RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1993
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 142
Apr 22, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT: H R 1335 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FOR 1993
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 138
Apr 20, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: S 326 WASHINGTON BIRTHPLACE NATIONAL MONUMENT
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

Y Y Won
Roll Call 133
Apr 01, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1430 TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 132
Apr 01, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1430 TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 131
Apr 01, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 147 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1430, TO PROVIDE FOR A TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 130
Apr 01, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 147 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1430, TO PROVIDE FOR A TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 129
Apr 01, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: H R 2 NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Won
Roll Call 127
Mar 31, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H CON RES 64 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT
On Agreeing to the Conference Report

Y Y Won
Roll Call 126
Mar 31, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 145 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H. CON. RES. 64; THE BUDGET RESOLUTION
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 125
Mar 31, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 145 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H. CON. RES. 64; THE BUDGET RESOLUTION
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 124
Mar 31, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 142 WAIVING REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO A RESOLUTION
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 121
Mar 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 107 COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION FOR 1993
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 120
Mar 30, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H RES 107 COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION FOR 1993
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 113
Mar 29, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO ADJOURN: ADJOURN
ON MOTION TO ADJOURN

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 108
Mar 25, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: H R 670 FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Y Y Won
Roll Call 107
Mar 25, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 670 FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 106
Mar 25, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 670 FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 104
Mar 25, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 670
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 102
Mar 25, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 670
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 98
Mar 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO RISE: H R 670 FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993
ON MOTION TO RISE

Y Y Won
Roll Call 97
Mar 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 670
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 95
Mar 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 670
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 92
Mar 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: H RES 138 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 670; FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Y Y Won
Roll Call 91
Mar 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 138 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 670; FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 90
Mar 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 138 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 670; FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 88
Mar 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1335 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FOR 1993
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 87
Mar 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1335 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FOR 1993
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 86
Mar 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 132 PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1335, DIRE EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1993
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 85
Mar 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H CON RES 64 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 84
Mar 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H CON RES 64
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 83
Mar 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

STRIKE THE RESOLVING CLAUSE: H CON RES 64 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT
STRIKE THE RESOLVING CLAUSE

N N Won
Roll Call 81
Mar 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: H CON RES 64 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT

N N Won
Roll Call 79
Mar 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: H RES 133 PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 64, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Y Y Won
Roll Call 78
Mar 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 133 PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 64, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 77
Mar 18, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 133 PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 64, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 70
Mar 11, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES: S 1 NIH REAUTHORIZATION
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES

N N Lost
Roll Call 69
Mar 11, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 4 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 68
Mar 11, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 7 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 64
Mar 11, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Absent Y Won
Roll Call 62
Mar 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 8 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 61
Mar 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 60
Mar 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 4
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 59
Mar 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 119 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 58
Mar 10, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 119 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 53
Mar 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

AGREE TO SECTIONS 1 THROUGH 6 OF SENATE AMENDMENT: H R 920 EXTEND THE EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM
AGREE TO SECTIONS 1 THROUGH 6 OF SENATE AMENDMENT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 51
Mar 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 106 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 20; FEDERAL EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 50
Mar 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 106 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 20; FEDERAL EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ACT
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 42
Feb 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS AS AMENDED: H R 20 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ACT OF 1993
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS AS AMENDED

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 41
Feb 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 920 EXTEND THE EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 40
Feb 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RECOMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H R 920 EXTEND THE EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM
RECOMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS

N N Won
Roll Call 39
Feb 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 103 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL H.R. 920; EXTEND THE EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 38
Feb 24, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 103 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL H.R. 920; EXTEND THE EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 34
Feb 17, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER: H CON RES 39 PROVIDING FOR A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS TO RECEIVE A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
TABLE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Y Y Won
Roll Call 29
Feb 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 71 RELATING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 28
Feb 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 71 RELATING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 27
Feb 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 61 WAIVING A REQUIRMENT OF CLAUSE 4(B) OF RULE XI TO CONSIDERATION OF A CERTAIN RESOLUTION REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 26
Feb 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 2 NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 25
Feb 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

RECOMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H R 2 NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT
RECOMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS

N N Won
Roll Call 24
Feb 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 59 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2; NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 23
Feb 04, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 59 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2; NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 22
Feb 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Passage: H R 1 FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
On Passage

Y Y Won
Roll Call 21
Feb 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 1 FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions

N N Won
Roll Call 20
Feb 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

Y Y Won
Roll Call 19
Feb 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 18
Feb 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT: Amendment 4 to H R 1
ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT

Y Y Won
Roll Call 17
Feb 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 3 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Lost
Roll Call 16
Feb 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 2 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 15
Feb 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 1 to H R 1
On Agreeing to the Amendment

N N Won
Roll Call 14
Feb 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR: MOTION
TABLE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR

Y Y Won
Roll Call 13
Feb 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 58 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1; FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 12
Feb 03, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 58 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1; FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 10
Jan 26, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 20 TO ESTABLISH THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Lost
Roll Call 9
Jan 26, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Ordering the Previous Question: H RES 20 TO ESTABLISH THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL
On Ordering the Previous Question

Y Y Won
Roll Call 7
Jan 05, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

On Agreeing to the Resolution: H RES 5 RULES OF THE HOUSE
On Agreeing to the Resolution

Y Y Won
Roll Call 6
Jan 05, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS: H RES 5 RULES OF THE HOUSE
ON MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS

N N Won
Roll Call 5
Jan 05, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

ON ORDERING THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: H RES 5 RULES OF THE HOUSE
ON ORDERING THE PREVIOUS QUESTION

Y Y Won
Roll Call 3
Jan 05, 1993

A ProgressivePunch description is not available. The following is the official title provided by Congress to summarize the bill, which can often be confusing or even misleading.

TABLE MOTION TO REFER: H RES 5 RULES OF THE HOUSE
TABLE MOTION TO REFER

Y Y Won
Total Overall: 10437, Progressive Overall Votes: 10090
Total Crucial: 4311, Progressive Crucial Votes: 4103
Year:   2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995 | 1994 | 1993
Classified?:   Yes | No | All

We have several years of detailed vote descriptions that are included in this site. Clicking on "Classified" in a year that contains these narrative descriptions will show only the votes which were written up and assigned to fourteen Issue Categories. We haven't had the bandwidth to do this in recent years. Classified votes are subject to the same algorithms as all other votes.

Crucial?:   Yes | No | All

Back | Home | About/Contact Us

©2003-2005 Progressive Punch. All rights reserved.