Lilly Ledbetter Bill Passes, Will Be Signed Into Law

Yesterday, in the House of Representatives the Senate version of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (S.181) was passed without further amendment. The bill will now go to President Barack Obama to be signed into law.


This bill has been followed by Kyle Michaelis and myself, in the following articles:

• Will Nebraska's Congressmen Protect Women From Wage Discrimination?


• Demand Congressmen Protect Nebraska Women In Friday Vote


• Terry, Fortenberry & Smith Vote AGAINST Nebraska Women


• Smith, Terry, Fortenberry Fail Nebraska Children Again


• Johanns Joins His Fellow Republicans By Voting Against Women


• Senator Nelson: Thank You For Standing Up For Nebraska Women!

The bill previously passed in the Senate on a vote of 61-36-1. Senator Mike Johanns voted against it, while Senator Ben Nelson voted for it.

In the House, the bill was passed today without further amendment on a vote of 250-177-6. The vote was basically party-line, with 3 Republicans voting with the Democrats, and 5 Democrats voting with the Republicans.

In other words, House Republicans made it clear they would never support the idea of protecting women from wage discrimination. And Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry, and Adrian Smith all stuck with their party.

But despite the fact that 4 out of 5 of our Washington voices voted against this bill, we should be thankful for Sen. Ben Nelson and his strong voice. He, and he alone, said the women of Nebraska matter!

This bill will now go to President Obama, and he is scheduled to sign it into law on Thursday (1/29/2009). What a proud day for our nation that a vital and necessary law is passed.

Thank you, Senator Nelson, for supporting the mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, nieces, and grandmothers who work hard everyday and deserve to be paid a fair wage for a fair day’s work.

Smith, Terry, Fortenberry Fail Nebraska Children Again

Today in the US House of Representatives, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was put forward for a vote. As previously reported, this bill has been a long time coming, being defeated through 2 vetoes from President Bush, and not enough of votes to override those vetoes. Both times, Nebraska’s 3 Stooges voted against the bill.

Now, in the 111th Congress, another vote came up to expand SCHIP for children across the country who need health care.

With the new bill, H.R.2, the only new addition was to allow states to waive the 5 year waiting period for legal immigrant children. Otherwise, the bill was as it has been for over a year. The program is to be paid for with an increase in the cigarette tax.

The main argument used by those opposed were expected, and once again they chose lies over truth. First off, there was the claim that 2/3rds aren’t even children, but adults. What they were referring to was that some pregnant low-income women receive SCHIP assistance while pregnant. Also, some states allow those between 18 - 21 to be eligible for SCHIP assistance. But the vast majority of those covered under SCHIP are children.

The next argument was that poor children weren’t getting the help, while less needy children were, and they felt there were no assurances the neediest would get the help. This is another lie. Each state sets up a level to which assistance will be provided. This ensures only the neediest get the assistance. The average level for the a state is around 200% above the poverty level.

Finally, there was anger over allowing states to waive the 5-year waiting period for legal immigrant children. It was felt that this would open the door to illegal immigrants. Wrong. The bill is very clear, along with already established law, that illegal immigrants cannot receive SCHIP assistance. If states allow it, they can and will lose their funding.

Republicans did a Motion to Recommit the bill. They wanted to recommit to the Energy and Commerce Committee with further amendments regarding the use of the funds.

The Motion FAILED on a vote of 179-247-7. It was nearly party line.

H.R.2 then PASSED on a vote of 289-139-6. Only 2 Democrats voted against the bill, while 40 Republicans crossed the isle to join with Democrats in passing it.

Adrian Smith, Lee Terry, and Jeff Fortenberry all voted against it.

So this is what we will be dealing with in Nebraska, yet again, for the next 2 years: Representatives that vote against the people. First they voted against the rights of women with regards to fair wages, and now they vote against needy children, who’s numbers are growing day after day.

Just who the hell do they think they represent??

This next goes to the Senate, where they will either take up the House version or vote on their own version. Senator John Kerry has submitted S.77, and it will a chance for new Senator Mike Johanns to show who he really represents. Senator Ben Nelson has already supported the legislation in the past, but his voice may be the only voice of reason when it comes to the health of the children of Nebraska.

UPDATE:

An AP article quotes them all:

“This bill may expand the program to those who do not need it,” Rep. Jeff Fortenberry said.

The legislation “risks creating a program that encourages some families to drop their existing insurance coverage for the government program,” he said.

Rep. Lee Terry said the bill “expands coverage for higher-income families” and places a greater tax burden on lower-income people.

Rep. Adrian Smith said the measure “shifts the focus from poor children without health insurance to adults and families who already have personal coverage,” thereby expanding the reach of government.

What's even more disgusting? That they can flat out LIE and the media YET AGAIN ASKS NO QUESTIONS!

Nebraska Congressmen Have Chance to Support SCHIP

This week, the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP) will be coming up for a vote. According to the New York Times, Democrats will be putting forth a bill that carry’s the same language as the last bill put forth to try and expand the program to 10 million children. It will also include a provision that allows states to waive a 5-year waiting period for legal immigrant children.

This is a chance for Nebraska’s 3 Stooges to step up and finally do the right thing, after doing the wrong thing repeatedly in the 110th Congress. Let’s recap the history of this attempted expansion.

On September 25, 2007, HR 976 was voted on in the House. Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry and Adrian Smith ALL voted against the expansion.

After passage in the Senate, the bill was then vetoed by President George Bush. When it went back to the House, once again, they ALL voted against overriding the veto.

Republicans began their political spin, making arguments against SCHIP expansion that was full of lies. In focusing on Adrian Smith, I documented all of the falsehoods. A more concise look at the claims was done on NNN as well.

Another bill, HR 3963, was put forth for a new debate. It passed in the House, but with ALL 3 voting against it. After Bush vetoed it yet again, it went to the House to attempt an override, and yet again, they ALL voted against it. In the end, all that was supported was continuation of the current program with no expansion of any kind.

An NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health Poll was conducted at the time of the debates. That poll found that 65% of American’s supported expansion of SCHIP.

In a new poll conducted around November 4, 2008 (Election Night), when asked to rate the importance of addressing health insurance for children on a scale of 1-10, 56% of all respondent rated it a 10, with the number rising to 60% among those who had children.

The poll showed that 82% favored the renewing of SCHIP. When told it would be paid for with cigarette taxes, 65% were more supportive of keeping SCHIP than before being informed of the cigarette tax increase. When it comes to the topic of expanding to legal immigrant children, 79% support the expansion, and 67% favor removing the 5-year waiting period.

Democrats plan to set up the passage of the bill so that it will be among the first bills that President Barack Obama will sign into law.

With all that in mind, here is the chance for the Representatives of Nebraska to stand up and support the people of this state, especially the children. With a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, the White House becoming Democratic, and polls consistently showing an overwhelming support for health care coverage for the children of this country, it’s time that Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry and Adrian Smith stepped up and voted YES on SCHIP.

Congressman	Seat	D.C. Office	District Office
Jeff Fortenberry Lee Terry Adrian Smith	NE-01 NE-02 NE-03	(202) 225-4806 (202) 225-4155 (202) 225-6435	(402) 438-1598 (402) 397-9944 (308) 633-3333

Be sure to let your representative know how you feel about this bill. After all, they’ve already voted against women, do they really want to be accused of not caring about children, too?

Nebraska's Congressmen Refuse to Protect Nebraska Women from Discrimination

As the 111th Congress begins, so, too, begins the work on Smith Watch. I'll be doing my best to keep on top of the goings on with Congressman Adrian Smith, along with the rest of Nebraska's delegation. With that in mind, we come to the first major votes of the new Congress.

Today, Nebraska’s 3 Stooges in the House of Representatives decided to vote against HR 11 and HR 12, bills set up to ensure fairness and protection from discrimination in wages for women.

For further information on these bills, I refer you to Kyle Michaelis at the New Nebraska Network. He covered this issue earlier in the week, and then did a second report.

The first votes were on HR 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act. After an hour of debate, Republicans made a Motion to Recommit to the Committee on Labor and Education. This would have effectively delayed passage.

The motion was defeated on a vote of 178-240-14. The Nebraska 3 voted for the motion.

HR 12 was then PASSED on a vote of 256-163-14.

Representatives Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry and Adrian Smith ALL VOTED AGAINST THE BILL.

HR 11, better known as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Bill was then voted on.

The bill PASSED on a vote of 247-171-15.

Once again, ALL 3 VOTED AGAINST IT.

None of this, however, should come as a surprise.

In 2008, all 3 voted AGAINST HR 1338, which was the original version of HR 12. They also all voted AGAINST HR 2831 in 2007, which was the original version of HR 11.

But an even more recent vote just this week indicated they, along with the rest of the Republicans, would vote against these bills.

When the House convened for the 111th Congress, they voted on the Rules of the session, which was H.RES.5. Democrats saw fit to include the fairness in pay bills to be the first order of business. Republicans got angered, and claimed there should be hearings first.

Guess what. There were hearings. They happened in the last Congress. These are the same bills that passed the House in the 110th, but then got held up in the Senate without further action. These bills have been vetted, debated, inspected, etc. It was a bogus argument to be made.

It should also be pointed out that our 3 Stooges showed they will continue to support a party rather than the people they represent. Quite frankly, none of the Republicans have independent thought. Why do I say this? Well, because of another issue in the Rules.

In the 110th Congress, Republican learned an incredibly effective parliamentary tactic to stall or even stop legislation. It’s called the Motion to Recommit. This would add additional changes or amendments to a bill by resubmitting to a Committee and then recommitted with the change back to the House. If using the word “forthwith”, this become a change where the bill was immediately put up for a final vote by a motion from the relevant committee’s chair. There was no need to take back to the actual committee. However, Republicans began making their motions using the word “promptly”. In parliamentary terms, this would require a bill to be taken back to a committee and hearings scheduled with a minimum of 3 days notice. In other words, this would have the potential of stopping a bill in it’s tracks, and just as effective as a filibuster.

In the Rules put forth for this session, it was determined that members of the House could no longer make motions using the word “promptly”. To put it another way, Republicans can no longer delay a vote indefinitely on legislation that had reached the point of already jumping through all the necessary hoops, just because Democrats are in control of the agenda. Republicans had abused this option on nearly every major bill, and to keep business moving, this abuse was ended.

Today’s votes, when taking in the votes of the past and the votes of the Rules this week, were not a surprise, and demonstrated what we can continue to see from our Representatives. They will walk lock-step with their party, they will put the rights of their citizens second to political grandstanding, and will continue to support those who discriminate over those who they discriminate against.

I’d just like to hear each of them - Fortenberry, Terry and Smith - explain how they think their own mothers, spouses, sisters, nieces or daughters should have no right to fair pay and equal pay for equal work when compared to their male counterparts?

I can guarantee the Nebraska Press certainly won’t be asking that question.

Nebraska’s Adrian Smith Continues to Put Party First

CQ Politics released their 2008 Vote Studies for the 110th Congress. This annual report reviews the voting patterns of the members of the House and Senate. It includes how often they voted with President Bush, and with the party. This is how our House Representatives stacked up:

Name	District	Pres. Support	Party Unity
Jeff Fortenberry	1st	56%	82%
Lee Terry	2nd	68%	90%
Adrian Smith	3rd	74%	98%

As you can see, all 3 voted heavily with their party, but Adrian Smith was the most in line with his party’s positions. It’s astounding that, during a time when Americans and Nebraskans have been asking their leaders to work together and stop all the partisan positioning, that the 3rd District once again is shown that their representative is one of the greatest puppets of the Republican party. He ranks up there as one of the most partisan in the country. And yet, despite that, he has never shown any real leadership.

During his first 2 years in office, Adrian Smith only introduced 7 bills. To make it worse, the first 6 bills were introduced between January and July 2007. The only bill he introduced in 2008 was a resolution to recognizing North Platte, Nebraska, as "Rail Town USA". And even that bill went nowhere!

By comparison, Jeff Fortenberry sponsored 27 bills, and Lee Terry sponsored 42 bills. We could dive into the content of those bills and show how there are concerns with many of them, but that can be a discussion for another time. The bottom line is that of the 3, Adrian Smith made absolutely no relevant or substantive efforts to stand up for the 3rd District of Nebraska.

In the Senate, Nebraskans had a little more balance in representation in 2008:

Name	Pres. Support	Party Unity
Chuck Hagel	79%	78%
Ben Nelson	48%	72%

Unfortunately, Nebraska went against the national trend for the 111th Session. The Three Stooges (Fortenberry, Terry, Smith) are being joined by Mike Johanns, who through his stint as the Secretary of Agriculture and his robotic repetition through the campaign, has shown he will be just as much of a “yes man” as Adrian Smith is.

As President-Elect Barack Obama prepares to take office, he is showing his willingness to listen to and work with those who disagree with him. Some on the far-left aren’t necessarily agreeing with all his decisions, but he’s taken seriously the belief that he now will be representing ALL Americans. Whereas the Bush Republicans did not seek out or even try to listen to those voices that were there in disagreement, Obama is welcoming those voices. For too long, our country has been divided by blind partisanship, and that it’s time for that to stop.

It’s time for Adrian Smith, and the other Republicans in this state, to acknowledge the fact that Nebraska, despite a Republican majority being present, did have clear voices rise up demanding to be heard this year that were NOT Republican. Just look at the Presidential Election results of the 2nd District. Also consider the fact that the 3rd Districts still shifted a little to the center. While there was a loss (due to population loss) of about 2000 voters, Independents and Democrats still increased their numbers while Republicans LOST 5000 voters.

It will be the responsibility of every Nebraskan who voted for Democrats this year to hold our representatives accountable and demand they begin to work WITH the Democrats, rather than working as the opposition simply because that’s how they see it. If they don’t, Nebraska will lose the vital voices needed for our state to continue moving forward in these difficult times.

Smith Votes Against Agriculture and Transparency in Commodities

The House of Representatives held a vote today on H.R. 6604, the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008. A Motion was made to “suspend the rules” and pass the bill as it was amended in the House Agricultural Committee. This required a 2/3rd’s majority to pass it. In other words, they needed 290 votes to pass the bill.

The bill failed on a vote of 276-151-8.

But according to the Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee, Collin Peterson, they had the 290 votes until they got to the floor. Here was the release he sent out after the vote:

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota released the following statement today regarding the floor vote on H.R. 6604, the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008:

"With the support of more than 290 Members of Congress, including more than 75 Republicans, H.R. 6604 was well on its way to being passed over the two-thirds vote requirement, sending a clear signal that transparency and enforcement would return to the commodities and futures markets. Then Republican leadership demanded that Members change their votes in order to protect President
Bush.

H.R. 6604 is a bipartisan bill that passed the Agriculture Committee by voice vote. It is the product of a comprehensive series of hearings to examine the issues surrounding futures trading from all sides. And it clearly has enough support to pass this House.

We will continue to pursue meaningful steps to address the conditions that have thrown some futures markets into disorder and hope that Members will have the courage of their convictions to join us."

Let’s take a closer look at that release: The bill passed the Ag Committee by voice vote. That means there were no real objections to the bill.

And who is on the Ag Committee?

Adrian Smith.

Then the Republican Leadership DEMANDED members change their votes.

And Adrian Smith DID JUST THAT - He voted AGAINST the bill.

In other words, he flip-flopped when the party leaders told him to. Proof that he puts party and partisanship before voters.

According to this article:

The Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act would boost staffing at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and require the agency to limit the positions of speculators in energy and agricultural commodities. Most Republicans objected to the bill, preferring to pass legislation to open the outer continental shelf and other off-limits areas to energy exploration.

That’s right, folks: it doesn’t matter to the Republicans that one of the biggest problems with soaring energy costs is the work of speculation run amuck. They don’t care that even their own studies have shown (and both John McCain and George Bush have admitted) that opening up these areas for drilling will have little to no affect on prices. And Adrian Smith certainly doesn’t seem to care that this has had a negative impact on agriculture (which his district depends on). They’d rather let the speculators continue doing what they’ve been doing, and driving prices artificially high, all because their Big Oil contributors want more land to drill on (ignoring the more than 68 Million acres of leases they hold that they are doing nothing with, and could be drilling right now - they choose not to drill).

After the vote, the National Farmers Union denounced the vote:

Rampant financial speculation in commodity markets is having a negative impact on rural America, preventing some agricultural producers from participating in the futures market……

"It's pretty clear that the markets are not functioning as they should," National Farmers Union President Tom Buis said.

"Without adequate oversight and transparency we will only continue down this slippery slope, leaving America's family farmers and ranchers in jeopardy."

The Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008 (H.R. 6604) would have required transparency and improved access; prevented excessive speculation by requiring the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) establish requirements limiting speculation; and strengthened the CFTC with legal authority and increased staffing to address oversight, surveillance and regulation.

Buis said this legislation would also address concerns producers have about speculation in the energy futures markets, a particular concern for agriculture producers whose input costs are directly related to U.S. and world energy prices.

"There are many reasons for high energy prices; this bill does not and cannot address all of them.

"However, it is a good step to addressing our concerns in the markets," Buis said.

The NFU was one of 29 Ag groups that sent a letter to Congress, voicing their support of this bill. This included the American Corn Growers Association, National Corn Growers Association, R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America, and the American Association of Crop Insurers, to name a few. In the letter, they stated:

This important legislation would benefit farmers and the entire economy by insuring that the nation’s commodity futures markets are utilized for their original purpose-- to serve as a marketplace where producers and users of commodities can hedge their commercial transactions free of manipulation.

Production agriculture relies on smoothly functioning futures markets for risk management and price discovery. Unfortunately, in recent months concerns about agricultural futures market performance have grown, and the ability of producers and processors to use those markets for hedging has in some cases been seriously compromised.

At the same time, agricultural producers have a strong interest in transparent and efficient energy futures markets, since so many of our input costs are directly related to U.S. and world energy prices. We are concerned that energy futures prices have been unduly affected by new capital flows, including passively-managed, long-only index funds. These funds and other sources of speculative capital may also be affecting agricultural futures markets to the extent that these markets are not fully available to farmers trying to hedge their crops.

H.R. 6604 addresses our concerns about both agricultural and energy markets in a balanced, responsible, and bipartisan way.

So, in summary, today is solid proof that Adrian Smith will always do as he is told by the party leadership, and put his own self-interests ahead of the interests of the 3rd District, Nebraska, and the nation as a whole.

Adrian Smith Votes Consistently Against the People

It’s been a while since I’ve had some time to look at what Adrian Smith has been doing, and I’m disappointed to report that nothing has changed. As has been his pattern since he took office, Smith consistently votes in the interest of his donors and his party, and against his constituents and the American people. What is really sad is that he tends to be in the minority even among Republicans when doing it.

The biggest news recently was the override of the Presidents veto on the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. If the bill had not been passed and the veto overrode, there would been a cut in benefits to doctors and providers by almost 11%. Doctors in smaller, more rural areas were already telling elderly and disabled patients they might have to stop providing care because of the cuts. And the real kicker was that most Medicare supplemental insurance wouldn’t pay for the difference. This would have left many elderly and disabled, ESPECIALLY IN RURAL AREAS, without the critical care they needed.

This same bill also provided a grant to communities that expanded mental health services for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill had wide, bi-partisan support. It was put before the House on June 24, 2008 and passed on a vote of 355-59-20. That extreme minority that voted against the bill were all Republicans - and Adrian Smith was one of them.

The bill went to the Senate and passed by Unanimous Consent.

When the bill came back for the veto override, it passed the House on a vote of 383-41-11. Once again, the extreme minority that voted against the veto override were all Republicans - and again, Adrian Smith was one of them.

Why would Adrian Smith vote to defeat a bill that obviously had wide support, would continue to ensure needed services were provided to some of the most vulnerable citizens in his constituency, and provided further mental health assistance to returning soldiers?? It makes absolutely no sense.

Another vote I looked at was the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act. Remember that tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota last fall? This bill was written as a response. It provides for more inspection and reconstruction on bridges around the country, many of which could also be tragedies waiting to happen. It just went through the floor process in the House for the first time. After debate and some amendments, it passed with wide, bipartisan support on a vote of 367-55-12. Once again, an extreme minority of Republicans voted against a bill - and Adrian Smith joined in with them.

The next vote I looked at was the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act. This bill extends the investment into fighting the spread of AIDS and other terrible diseases. This is a matter we, as a nation, should take a lead on, and it’s one of the few good things President Bush actually takes a stand on.

The bill was passed in the House on a vote of 303-115-17. Adrian Smith voted against this bill. It has now gone to the President, and he has stated he will sign it.

Finally the last recent vote I looked at was the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. Many called this a bailout of Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but it was more than that. It was help for those families finding themselves in a position where they are losing their homes. All those years, people were encouraged to buy their homes. They were told they could have all these special deals to do so. Banks and lenders approved thousands who probably shouldn’t have been approved, but it was a big money maker for them. Now, with the economy tanking and families finding they can’t even afford basic necessities, many are losing the very roofs over their heads.

The bill was passed in the House on a vote of 272-152-11. Again, Adrian Smith voted against this measure - one that would help so many struggling families in the 3rd District.

But this last vote was not a surprise. The Club for Growth listed it as one of the Key Votes and demanded all of the bought and paid for politicians they supported to vote against it.

Adrian Smith - working hard to do nothing.

Temporary Break

If you've noticed, I've not been posting a lot in recent months to Smith Watch. It's not because I don't want to continue holding Adrian Smith accountable, but time and other commitments is preventing me from doing this as I would like.

Presently, I'm focusing on the Senate race, so if you see anything about Mike Johanns in a small local paper, or hear about him making an appearance in your area, I'd be greatful if you sent it on to me. You can email me through this site or through New Nebraska.

In the mean time, if something really pressing comes up, I'll try to get it posted on this site. Also, if anyone would like to get involved in providing some articles for Smith Watch (it can be done anonymously), get in touch with me and maybe we can work out a coordination of information.

If anyone sees anything about Adrian Smith and want more information, or you have questions about anything, please don't hesitate to email me. I'll respond and help out in every way I can.

Thanks for everyones support and hang in there with me in the crazy time! And know that your voices are just as powerful as anyones, and if many voices speak out, they will have impact that only makes our district better!

Smith Traveling to Gas Stations Again

Over Memorial Day Week, Smith will be traveling, at taxpayers expense to campaign for reelection talk with people about gas prices. Here is his information:

Rep. Adrian Smith is visiting gas stations during Congress' long Memorial Day recess to talk with motorists about fuel prices, energy legislation and other issues.

Gas prices are near $4 a gallon and have hit nationwide highs on consecutive days for nearly two weeks. Crude oil is shot past $130 a barrel last week, and the U.S. economy has felt the impacts – from the cost of food to summer vacation plans to surcharges on shipped goods, Smith said.

“American families need real relief," he said in announcing his plans. "We need to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, lower fuel prices here at home, and invest in all forms of energy to create jobs and grow our economy."

“I want to take this opportunity to speak with folks as they are traveling for vacation or running their daily errands and hear what they have to say."

Smith started the tour May 23 in Columbus and is working eastward.

The upcoming schedule:

5/26 -- Alliance, 9 a.m. MDT, Cenex, 724 West Third St.

-- Valentine, 4 p.m. CDT, Rodco Gas Station, East Highway 20.

5/27 -- Arnold, 2:45 p.m. CDT, Cal’s Best Services Conoco, 102 South Carroll St.

5/30 -- Broken Bow, 11 a.m. CDT, Trotter’s Whoa and Go, 608 South E.

-- Kearney, 4 p.m. CDT, Holiday Gas Station, 115 East 25th Street, Kearney.

If you're able to see him, go ahead and ask him tough questions, such as:

- Why does he consistantly vote against energy bills that expand renewable energy?

- Why does he encourage drilling in such places as ANWR when a report from the Department of Energy showed that oil from ANWR would arrive in 10 years at a savings of only 75 cents per barrel?

- Why did he vote against the new GI Bill?

- Why did he play along with other Republicans to prevent the final passage of a bill honoring mothers for Mothers Day?

In the mean time, have a good Memorial Day weekend!

This Is Nebraska

Time to take a break from politics, even if only for a short time.

This is a video I put together of what, I hope, captures the real Nebraska. I tried to tell a story, starting with the Oregon Trail, the Native Americans, Fort Robinson, expansion, growth, the Dust Bowl, World War II, our Native sons and daughters who gave to the world, our rich agricultural ties, and most importantly, the people and land itself.

The music is a song that I find tells an incredible story just with the notes and feelings it evokes.

This is my first time doing a video, so I hope you enjoy it.

Assessments of Smith’s Performance in Congress

Today I will highlight the evaluations done by 3 different organizations with regards to how members of Congress are performing. As has continued to be shown, Adrian Smith receives very low marks.


POWER RANKINGS

The Congress.org's Power Rankings have been updated with the information from the 2007 session in Congress.

From last year's post on this matter, here were the previous rankings:

State: 3 out of 3
House: 429 out of 439 (this include the At-large Reps).
House Republicans: 190 out of 202
Class of 2006: 42 out of 53
House Agriculture Committee: 45 out of 46
House Budget Committee: 38 out of 38
House Science Committee: 44 out of 44

Here are the new rankings for 2008:

State: 3 out of 3
(stayed the same)
House: 425 out 435
(remained basically the same, maybe one up 1)
House Republicans: 191 out of 200
(Dropped 1 even though the number of Republicans dropped by 2)
Class of 2006: 51 out of 57
(Even though there were 4 more freshmen added, Smith's rank dropped by 9 points).
House Agriculture Committee: 44 out of 45
(basically the same)
House Budget Committee: 39 out of 39
(even with adding one to the mix, he stayed in last place)
House Science Committee: 41 out of 43
(gained a couple spots)
House Natural Resources: 47 out of 48
(new ranking, as he is new to the committee

CHILDREN’S DEFENSE FUND

The Children’s Defense Fund Action Council released their 2007 Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard. They looked at who was best representing the children in this nation, and who were the worst representatives.

They based their score on votes cast for bills that had a direct affect on children. None of the representatives in Nebraska showed up on the “best” list, but 2 showed up on the “worst”:

The Worst Representatives for Children Scored 30 Percent or Below
- Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) 20%
- Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) 20%

Nebraska’s representation as a whole ranks 46 out of 50.



THE MIDDLE CLASS

A sited called The Middle Class was set up to score member’s of Congress on how well their votes support the middle class. The non-partisan Drum Major Institute for Public Policy has issued annual scorecards for a few years now.

All three of Nebraska’s Representatives received failing grades in 2007, and 2008 is looking no different:


Adrian Smith

2007 - F
Smith voted against the middle class on 12 out of 16 bills considered.

2008 - 40% year to date
Smith has voted against the middle class on 3 out of 5 bills so far.

Of the 3, Smith had the worst score in 2007.


Jeff Fortenberry

2007 - F
Fortenberry voted against the middle class on 9 out of 12 bills considered.

2008 - 33% year to date
Fortenberry has cast 2 votes against the middle class, and missed 2 votes, out of 5 bills so far.

He also received an “F” in 2005.


Lee Terry

2007 - F
Terry voted against the middle class on 11 out of 16 bills considered.

2008 - 40% year to date
Terry has voted against the middle class on 3 out of 5 bills so far.

Terry also received an “F” in 2003, 2004 and 2005.


Here are the bills that were considered and how Smith, Fortenberry and Terry voted on each:

2008

Smith and Terry voted AGAINST, Fortenberry FOR:

HR 5351 - Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008

Smith, Fortenberry and Terry voted AGAINST:

HR 3963 - Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (Revised Bill)
HR 1424 - Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008

Smith and Terry voted FOR, Fortenberry DID NOT VOTE:

HR 5140 - Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008
HR 4137 - College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2008

2007

Smith, Fortenberry and Terry voted FOR:

HR 4040 - Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act of 2007
HR 3580 - FDA Amendments Act of 2007
HR 1429 - Improving Head Start Act of 2007
HR 1362 - Accountability in Contracting Act of 2007

Smith, Fortenberry and Terry voted AGAINST:

HR 3996 - Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007
HR 3688 - United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act of 2007 (Voted for, which is felt to be against the middle class).
HR 2831 - Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007
HR 976 - Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007
HR 800 - Employee Free Choice Act of 2007
HR 6 - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (first vote)
HR 2 - Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007
HR 4 - Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007

Smith and Fortenberry voted AGAINST, Terry voted FOR:

HR 2895 - Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007


Smith and Terry voted AGAINST, Fortenberry voted FOR:

HR 2669 - College Cost Reduction Act of 2007
HR 1257 - Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act of 2007
HR 6 - CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 (last vote)

Nebraska’s Senators were also given grades:

Ben Nelson

2007 - B
Nelson voted against the middle class on 2 out of 13 votes considered.

2008 - 67% year to date
Nelson has voted against the middle class on 3 votes, missed one voted, out of 10 bills so far.

He also received a “B” in 2003, a “C” in 2004, and an “F” in 2005.


Chuck Hagel

2007 - F
Hagel voted against the middle class on 8 out of 13 bills considered.

2008 - 11% year to date
Hagel has voted against the middle class on 8 bills, missed one vote, out of 10 bills so far.

He also received a “D” in 2003, and an “F” in 2004 & 2005.

House Actions 2/25/2008 - 2/29/2008

After a week off, the House returned, and Republicans still had the chip on their shoulders regarding the FISA reauthorization bill. They didn't want it to go to Conference. They wanted an immediate vote. So they kept up their games, and as usual, Adrian Smith was right their supporting the actions of the political leadership at the expense of other bills being debated.

A bill called the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007 was considered. During the debate, one of he amendments presented was to clarify the bill regarding local housing authories that go into receivership. It would protect tenants by continuing to abide by agreements that had been made previously, and protect them from being homeless in such a situation. Democrats and most Republicans supported the amendment. While time was claimed for opposition, no one actually spoke up and stated why this amendment should be opposed. Adrian Smith voted against the amendment. It's really rather bizarre. Why would he vote against it?

But Republicans decided to hijack the bill and propose a Motion to Recommit. In that motion, they wanted to erase the current bill and replace it with the text of the FISA Bill passed in the Senate. Smith supported the idea. In the end, the Motion was ruled not to be germane. Then, per the rules of debate on the bill, the Speaker decided to postpone further consideration of the bill. It is on hold at this point.

Another bill that was considered was the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. This bill laid out many tax credits that would encourage the use, expansion and investment of renewable forms of energy (wind, solar, ethanol, biodiesal, etc). To help pay for this, Big Oil would not be able to deduct their income from oil and gas production. Once again, Republicans tried to replace the text of the bill with the FISA Bill passed in the Senate. The Chair ruled it was not germane to the bill being considered, and a motion to table their appeal was upheld. Smith supported the actions of his fellow Republicans. Republicans then tried to remove many of the tax credits, and to restore the corporate welfare for Big Oil. They also tried to make some of the Bush tax cut permanent in the process. They blame Democrats for raising energy costs and wanted to maintain investment in oil and gas. The attempt to make these changes failed, but Smith supported all of them. When the final version was voted on, Smith voted against it. The bottom line is that Smith is all for tax credits, but only when they benefit the very few, the wealthy and Big Oil.

Smith made a brief statement on the floor regarding energy, but it didn't take place during the debate on the bill. He basically took the stance that it would create a greater dependence on foreign oil, would send jobs overseas, and would raise costs overall. The fact is that energy costs are rising all over the world, not just here. The longer we put off investing in and moving toward the regular use of renewable energy sources, the greater the cost. Not just in a monetary sense, but in cost to health, safety, and to our planet. We should have started moving away from oil and gas a long time ago.

Smith also decided to submit a statement on National Engineers Week. The funny thing is that the resolution had been voted on nearly two weeks before he submitted his statement for the record. Way to be on the ball there!

Finally, Smith again failed to submit any new bills as a sponsor. He signed onto 4 bills, 2 of which have been out for nearly a year already.


ROLL CALL VOTES


One of the first votes was to Approve the Journal from the last session

Since there had been all the issues over FISA and the contempt of Congress vote, Republicans demanded a vote.

The Journal was APPROVED on a vote of 226-183-1-18
FOR: 205 Democrats, 21 Republicans
AGAINST: 15 Democrats, 168 Republicans
PRESENT: 1 Republican
NO VOTE: 10 Democrats, 8 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST approval.


H.RES.974 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3521) to improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This sets forth the rules for consideration of H.R.3521. As per normal, there were 2 votes, both party-line, with Republicans voting against it.


H.R.3521 - To improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This bill is known as the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. Per the CRS Summary:

- Prohibits the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from imposing restrictions or limitations on the amount of management and related fees for a public housing project which the public housing agency (PHA) determines reasonable, unless such restriction or limitation:
(1) is determined pursuant to a negotiated rulemaking convened by the Secretary no earlier than April 1, 2009, with representatives from interested parties; and
(2) is effective only on or after January 1, 2011.
- Allows any PHA that owns or operates fewer than 500 public housing units under the United States Housing Act of 1937 to elect to be exempt from asset management requirements imposed by the Secretary.
- Prohibits the Secretary from imposing any requirement, regulation, or guideline relating to asset management that restricts or limits in any way the use by PHAs of amounts for Capital Fund assistance for costs of any PHA central office.
- Requires the Secretary to ensure that PHAs encourage the reasonable efforts of resident tenant organizations to represent their members and of tenants to organize.
- Requires guidance issued by the Secretary to encourage participation by residents in the implementation of asset management and the development of local policies for such purposes.

There were 2 amendments that were debated and voted on.


H.AMDT.956 - Clarifies the intent of an amendment offered by Rep. Velazquez and adopted by the Financial Services Committee by ensuring that public housing authorities that apply to HUD for "stop-loss" do not have their applications rejected on the basis that the management and related fees they establish pursuant to this bill are not reasonable as defined by HUD. Additionally, the amendment is a restatement of current law with respect to the ineligibility of illegal immigrants for assistance.

The amendment PASSED by on a vote of 415-0-18.


H.AMDT.957 - Holds HUD responsible, in the case of receivership, for performing the same responsibilities that the local housing agencies have in respect to working with tenant associations before building public housing. Additionally, in the case of receivership, before building new public housing HUD must honor any formal agreements entered into before the commencement of such receivership between the local housing authority and the tenant association.

Those who supported this amendment wanted to ensure that, should a dispute arise with HUD and a local housing authority, and should that housing authority fall into receivership, that all agreements with tenants will be honored. It would be protection against forcing people into a situation where they are homeless.

While opposition time was claimed, no one stood up to speak as to why this would be opposed.

The Amendment PASSED on a vote of 337-77-19.
FOR: 223 Democrats, 114 Republicans
AGAINST: 77 Republicans
NO VOTE: 11 Democrats, 8 Republicans

Adrian Smith voted AGAINST this amendment, while Lee Terry and Jeff Forteberry voted FOR it.


A Motion to Recommit was then made by Republicans:

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. SMITH of Texas moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3521, to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the text of the bill H.R. 3773 as passed by the Senate on February 12, 2008.

That's right: Republicans came back to start playing their political games. They tried to get rid of this bill and replace it with the FISA Bill as it was passed in the Senate.

Democrats raised a point of order that the amendment was not germane to the bill, as it had nothing to do with asset management. Republicans accused Democrats of using a "procedural objection" to block consideration of the FISA Bill. Of course, they didn't admit they were using partisan, political, procedural actions to play their games. Just who is playing politics here? Here was the dialogue that occured on this motion:

POINT OF ORDER
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. The bill H.R. 3773 has nothing to do with the asset management bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Yes, I do, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, once again, the Democratic majority is insisting on a procedural objection to block consideration of the Senate-passed FISA modernization bill. This motion to recommit adds the bipartisan bill passed 2 weeks ago by the Senate, 68-29.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman must confine his remarks to the gentleman from New Jersey's point of order.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, there is nothing more germane to the security of the American people than to take up the Senate bill as quickly as possible.
Now I would like to reiterate my disappointment that the majority has raised a point of order against this motion to recommit.
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is not speaking on the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas must confine his remarks to the point of order.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman to withdraw his point of order and allow for an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan Senate reform bill.
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The instructions in the motion to recommit propose an amendment consisting of the text of an entirely different measure that falls outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services. The instructions are therefore not germane. The point of order is sustained. The motion is not in order.

When the decision was appealed by the Republicans, a motion was made to table (not consider) that appeal.

The Motion to Table PASSED on a vote of 218-195-15. Democrats for, Republicans against. Smith joined his party as usual.

Further consideration of the bill was then postponed per Section 2 of H.RES.974:

Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 3521 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

The next day, the Journal had to be approved, and vote was again demanded.

The Journal was APPROVED on a vote of 217-185-1-25
FOR: 205 Democrats, 12 Republicans
AGAINST: 15 Democrats, 170 Republicans
PRESENT: 1 Republican
NO VOTE: 10 Democrats, 15 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST approval.


H.RES.1001 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5351) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.

This set forth the rules for consideration of H.R. 5351. There were 3 votes: To Consider the Resolution, Ordering the Previous Question, and Approving the Resolution. All 3 votes were party-line: Democrats for, Republicans against.


H.R.5351 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.

This is known as the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008.

It extends tax credits through 2011 for production of electricity from renewable resources. A limit is place on credits based on investment in renewable resource facilities placed in service after 2009. It extends tax credits for investment in solar and fuel cell property through 2016. An offset is allowed against AMT liability for certain energy tax credits. It allows public utilities to qualify. Extends credits for energy efficient property upgrades through 2014. A new tax credit is provided for production of plug-in hybrid vehicles. It extends a tax credit for installing nonhydrogen alternative fuel refueling property to 2010, among other adjustments for alternative fuel properties. It extends through 2010 the income and excise tax credits for biodiesel. A tax credit is provided for cellulosic alcohol fuel. Energy conservation bods are authorized to finance local government conservation and greenhouse gas reductions projects (a national limit of $3.6 Billion). A five-year recovery period for depreciate of energy management devices (measures and records electricity usage data) is set up. Oil Companies are denied a tax deduction for income from oil and gas production, while individual taxpayers' deductions are reduced by 3%. Increases the estimated tax payment for large oil corporations by 3% in the 3rd quarter of 2013 for assest over $1 Billion. A study is to be done to determine tax provisions that have the greatest affect on reducing carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. A scientific finding is also to be made in regards to current and future biofuels production and the domestic effects of a dramatic increase in productivity. Finally, it applies labor standards under the Davis-Bacon Act to projects financed with new clean renewable energy bonds.

There were no amendments set forth for this bill, and after the debate was held on it, Republicans made a Motion to Recommit.

Once again, they tried to remove this bill and replace it with the pending FISA Bill as approved in the Senate. Democrats objected saying the motion was not germane to the bill (FISA is not energy tax credits!). The Chair sustained the objection, and Republicans demanded an appeal of the decision. Democrats moved to table the appeal.

The Motion to Table was PASSED on a vote of 222-191-15. It was party-line, with Democrats for, Republicans against.


Another Motion to Recommit was made, asking to promptly report back (which in the House ends all debate before passage and delays considerably). The motion was to remove several of the tax credits. They then wanted to add in entensions for the marriage penalty relief and child tax credits.

Those for the motion decided to blame the Democrats for the rising oil prices, and failing to address it effectively. They then say this bill, by taking away some of the corporate welfare Big Oil receives, will only make things worse for Americans and not promote ongoing exploration for oil and gas. They call the bonds a "liberal slush fund".

Those opposed point out that this motion would essentially kill the bill, or at the very least, render it ineffective.

The Motion to Recommit FAILED on a vote of 197-222-9, nearly party-line. Republicans were for it, Democrats were against it.


H R 5351 was then PASSED on a vote of 236-182-11.
FOR: 219 Democrats, 17 Republicans
AGAINST: 8 Democrats, 174 Republicans
NO VOTE: 4 Democrats, 7 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST the bill. So, while he's all for tax credits that usually benefit only a very few and usually the wealthy (individuals and corporations), he's against this one. Shows where his priorities really are.


----------------------------------------------

The remaining bills that received votes were passed with little or no opposition:

H.RES.978 - Expressing support for the designation of the week of March 3-7, 2008, as "School Social Work Week" to promote awareness of the vital role of school social workers in schools, and in the community as a whole, in helping students prepare for their future as productive citizens.
H.RES.930 - Supporting the goals and ideals of "Career and Technical Education Month".
H.RES.944 - Honoring the service and accomplishments of Lieutenant General Russel L. Honore, United States Army, for his 37 years of service on behalf of the United States.
S.2272 - A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service known as the Southpark Station in Alexandria, Louisiana, as the John "Marty" Thiels Southpark Station, in honor and memory of Thiels, a Louisiana postal worker who was killed in the line of duty on October 4, 2007.
H.R.3936 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 116 Helen Highway in Cleveland, Georgia, as the "Sgt. Jason Harkins Post Office Building".
H.R.4454 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3050 Hunsinger Lane in Louisville, Kentucky, as the "Iraq and Afghanistan Fallen Military Heroes of Louisville Memorial Post Office Building", in honor of the servicemen and women from Louisville, Kentucky, who died in service during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.



FLOOR STATEMENTS

Smith submitted the following statement for the record. Funny, but it was submitted on February 25, but was for the resolution passed nearly 2 weeks before:

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL ENGINEERS WEEK
(Extensions of Remarks - February 25, 2008)

SPEECH OF HON. ADRIAN SMITH OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I rise to salute the engineers, past, present, and future, of the United States of America. Engineers have shaped our history, from aiding the colonists to win our independence to designing our advanced, modern technologies. They impact our daily lives from the first ring of our alarm clocks in the morning to our late-night, online shopping.

In my home State of Nebraska, engineers aid agriculture with new and more effective agricultural chemicals and better equipment and technologies. Nebraska engineers help secure our Nation's energy independence by supporting the ethanol industry. Nebraska engineers ensure our roads, bridges, water-works, and other infrastructure are well designed, functional, and safe.

Engineers are key to a prosperous and productive future for all Nebraskans and Americans. There are nearly 150 engineering companies in Nebraska's Third District. Every day I hear about the need to attract talented, educated young people to fill technical, engineering, and science positions in small communities and rural areas in the Third District. I have been, and continue to be, an enthusiastic supporter of the America COMPETES act which encourages American competitiveness in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. I am optimistic this initiative will help Nebraska's engineering businesses attract and maintain native talent in engineering.

Smith then made the following statement on the floor. It did NOT occur during the Energy Tax Credit debate:

ENERGY TAX HIKE MEANS HIGHER GAS PRICES
(House of Representatives - February 26, 2008)

(Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will, for the third time, debate an energy bill which actually raises gas prices for the American people, sends manufacturing jobs overseas, and increases our reliance on foreign energy. This energy tax hike will raise taxes on domestic energy producers, in essence making it more difficult and expensive to produce American energy for American consumers.

As you know, oil has reached and broken the previously untouched benchmark of $100 a barrel, and the average national price of gasoline has gone up 16 cents in just 13 days. In my State of Nebraska, gas prices are hitting $3.14 in Grand Island, and in Scottsbluff they're hitting $3.08.

The American public is deeply worried about the rising cost of energy, yet we stand on the verge of making it worse by stubbornly going forward with this legislation. It's simple, really; raising taxes on American energy leads to higher gas prices and a greater dependency on foreign sources of energy.

The longer we put off working to switch to new forms of energy, specifically renewable forms, the worse it will be for all of us. Does Smith propose we just ignore that fact?



BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED

Smith did not sponsor any new bills this week. The last time he introduced a bill as the lead sponsor was on 7/24/2007 (H.R.3143 - to eliminate meth kingpins). He's only sponsored a total of 6 bills.

He signed on to 4 bills as a cosponsor.


H.RES.951 - Condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations, and for other purposes.

This was introduced on 1/29/2008. Smith signed onto it on 2/26/2008.


H.R.1576 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the special rule for contributions of qualified conservation contributions.

This bill would make permanent the tax deduction for charitable contributions by individuals and corporations of real property interests for conservation purposes.

It was introduced back on 3/19/2007. Smith signed onto it on 2/27/2008, nearly a year later.


H.R.1767 - To amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act to assure meaningful disclosures of the terms of rental-purchase agreements, including disclosures of all costs to consumers under such agreements, to provide certain substantive rights to consumers under such agreements, and for other purposes.

This bill was introduced back on 3/29/2007. Smith signed onto it on 2/28/2008.


H.R.5134 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exclusion for gain from the sale of farmland to encourage the continued use of the property for farming, and for other purposes.

This bill has been titled the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Act, and was introduced on 1/23/2008 by Rep. Lee Terry (NE-2). It would exclude 100% of the gain, up to $500,000, from the sale of farm property to first-time farmers who will use the property for farming for 10 years. There would be a 50% exclusion for all farm sales to those who will use it to farm for 10 years, and a 25% exclusion for all other sales.

Smith signed onto the bill on 2/25/2008.

House Actions 2/11/2008 - 2/15/2008

This week in the House was an ongoing battle over FISA and warrantless wiretapping. A bill revamping the program had gone through the House previously, and then the Senate had considered. The Senate added on amendments that would give telecom companies blanket ammunity, an idea House Democrats had previously rejected. As a result, House Republicans were trying to put the issue in most of the bills being presented. It was a lot of political games, and Adrian Smith followed right along with the party leadership.

The first thing that came up was a bill to expand the Protect America Act of 2007 (the temporary FISA Bill from last year) for another 21 days, as it was expiring on February 16th. It was the old battle of Republicans accusing Democrats of supporting the terrorists, while Democrats argued that they wanted to insure civil liberties and the law was followed, and still go after terrorism. Republicans tried to get the Senate version of the bill into the extension, which failed. Smith made sure to support that, and also voted against the extension. In the end, the extension failed. However, even if the extension failed, the old FISA rules would still apply and not stop any needed work by the intelligence community, despite what Bush and the Republicans wanted anyone to believe.

The next big issue to occur was a vote on a Contempt of Congress citation against Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton. Both had been subpeonaed by Congress to testify on the firing of several US Attorney's after the 2006 elections. Congress was attempting to find out if there had been an abuse of power for political purposes. The White House was refusing to provide documents on the matter, and had told Miers and Bolton not to testify even though they were no longer employeed in the White House. As a result, they didn't show for the hearing. The resolution was also going to allow Congress to take legal action to enforce the subpeonas in the legal system, even if the Bush Administration directed the Justice Department not to cooperate in the enforcement.

Because Republicans were continuing to be angered over the FISA Bill that had passed the Senate, and also because they didn't want to support anything that held Bush Administration official in contempt, the large majority of them walked off the House floor and refused to participate in the vote. The irony was that they accused Democrats of playing political games - and this was after they played a game and walked out as a group to a bank of microphones to use political games in the media to make their point. It was all set up prior to the vote. Adrian Smith, of course, walk right in line with the other Republicans like a puppet on a string. The Contempt citation was passed in the end.

During the week, Smith made no statements, didn't sponsor any new legislation, and didn't cosponsor any new legislation.

The following week, starting 2/18/2008, the House was in recess, but Smith signed his name to a resolution. The resolution is an attempt to further insert that Christianity and the Bible were, and continue to be, a foundation of this nation. It's to establish an "American Religious History Week". Now, if this was to show the diversity of religion in this nation, it might be okay. However, this extensive resolution lays out very clearly the focus is on Christianity and makes no mention of any other religions. Given Smith's connection with the Religious Right (Jerry Falwell, Liberty University), it's a bill that appeals to his most ardent supporters. But it also shows he's more concerned with continuing to present an image, and not actually do anything that has a real impact on the daily lives of the people of the Third District. While people may have their faith and their beliefs, what does that do to help a family afford health care for their children? To pay their energy bills? To buy their groceries? To pay their mortgage? And what is Smith even doing about any of that?



ROLL CALL VOTES


H.RES.976 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5349) to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days.

This set forth the rules for consideration of HR 5349. What followed were several moves by Republicans to stall and delay. They wanted to move forward, but at a snails pace.


Prior to consideration, a motion was made to Adjourn.

Adjournment FAILED on a vote of 3-366-59.


Shortly thereafter, another motion was made to Adjourn.

Adjournment FAILED on a vote of 7-364-57.


There were then 4 different votes just to pass the resolution. First there was "ordering the previous question". Then a motion was made by Republicans to reconsider that vote, but Democrats countered with a vote to "table" (not consider) that motion. A vote was then held to "agree to the resolution". Republicans then tried to make a motion to reconsider that vote, but was countered by another vote to "table" that motion. All 4 votes were party line votes, with Democrats supporting the resolution, Republicans voting against it. As always, Smith joined with his party.


H.R.5349 - To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days.

This bill would amend the Protection America Act of 2007, set to expire on February 16, 2008, by extending it another 21 days. This was the Act the dealt with the FISA courts. The argument going at the time was Bush accusing Democrats of not wanting to protect America. Republicans wanted to continue to let the Bush Administration to perform wiretaps without following the law. They also wanted to exempt telecom companies that gave information to the Bush Administration from any lawsuits that may be filed by citizens claiming civil rights violations. However, Democrats were wanting to give the authority to wiretap with the proper oversight in place, and wanted to prevent the Bush Administration from continuing to circumvent the law.


Prior to consideration, however, Republicans again stalled with a motion to Adjourn. Once again, they didn't actually want adjournment, but wanted to simply delay moving forward by holding the vote.

Ajournment FAILED on a vote of 3-395-30.


Those in support of this bill explained that the delays in the Senate on the House-passed RESTORE Act were a factor. The day before this vote, the Senate had then passed the new FISA bill with additions that were concerning. First, they provided blanket, retroactive amnesty for telecom companies that participated in warrantless surveillance programs. The additional time which an extension would provide would allow time to examine the legality of this matter. There continued to be concerns about the President's view that he can spy on American's without warrants and without real oversight. As Representative John Conyers stated on the floor, "Congress is committed to providing the executive branch the tools it needs. But we need to do so to make sure that the power to spy on Americans is not subject to abuse or misuse. All of us in this body think that that is of paramount concern."

Those opposed to this extension felt it would hurt the intelligence community (although keeping existing law in place is exactly what would be happening, and that was not hurting anyone at present). They felt it put national security at risk (but couldn't say just how that is). They wanted the Senate bill passed without further debate, and to forgo any conference between the House and Senate to debate differences in the bill. There was a lot of fear-mongering and assertions that this was aiding terrorists (yes, we've heard those for years: If you don't support Bush blindly, then you support terrorists).


At the end of debate a Motion to Recommit was made.

The motion was to take the full text of HR 3773 (the FISA Bill) that was passed in the Senate and put that in the bill in place of the extension.

Democrats objected, saying that the motion was not germane to the bill under consideration, that it goes beyond the scope, and should not be considered. Republicans argued that Democrats are using procede over substance and aren't prepared to protect Americans from terrorists (get real!).

The Chair then had to make a ruling:

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.

The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of order that the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Texas proposes an amendment that is not germane to the bill.

Clause 7 of rule XVI provides that no proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.

The bill, H.R. 5349, extends the Protect America Act of 2007 for a limited time.

The instructions contained in the motion to recommit propose permanent changes in law.

A general principle of the germaneness rule is that where a bill is composed only of a temporary extension of existing programs, an amendment making permanent changes in law relating to such programs is not germane.

The Chair will note a relevant precedent. On December 2, 1982, the Chair ruled that an amendment permanently changing the organic law governing an agency's operation was not germane to a bill that merely provided a temporary authorization for the agency. This precedent is recorded on page 722 of the House Rules and Manual.

Therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, the instructions contained in the motion to recommit are not germane. The point of order is sustained.

The Republicans then made a motion to appeal the Speaker's ruling. Democrats immediately countered with a motion to table the appeal.


The Motion to Table the Ruling was PASSED on a party-line vote of 222-196-10: Democrats for, Republicans against. This led to the final vote on whether to pass the bill.


H.R. 5349 then FAILED on a vote of 191-229-9.
FOR: 191 Democrats
AGAINST: 34 Democrats, 195 Republicans
NO VOTE: 6 Democrats, 3 Republicans

Smith voted against the bill.



H.CON.RES.293 - Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses.

This Concurrent Resolution would adjourn the House and Senate at the end of the week until Monday, February 25, 2008, with allowances for early recall should it be necessary.

The House PASSED the the resolution of a vote of 215-203-10, nearly party-line. Democrats voted for it, Republicans against it. Smith joined in voting against it with his party. In the Senate, it passed with no problems by Unanimous Consent.



H.RES.982 - Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 979) recommending that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, Chief of Staff, White House, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary and for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 980) authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.



H.Res.979 is a Contempt of Congress citation against Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton. They were both former members of the Bush White House staff, and were issued subpoenas by Congress to testify in hearings regarding the firing of the US Attorney's after the 2006 elections. If you recall, they were suspect and there was extensive evidence that the firings were the result of the US Attorney's refusing to use their office to play politics in the elections. Both Miers and Bolton failed to appear and refused to testify. H.Res.980 would allow for legal proceedings to begin to enforce the subpeonas through the legal system.


Prior to considering the bill, however, a motion was made to Adjourn.

Adjournment FAILED on a vote of 2-185-11.


Then another motion was made to Adjourn.

Adjournment FAILED on a vote of 2-400-26.


Republicans were angered by this resolution. While they claimed that they believed Congress has a right to demand information from the Executive Branch, they didn't think it applied in this case. They said the US Attorney's were "at-will" employees, that could be fired for any reason by the President (of course, they didn't point out that such "firings" had never happened at this point in any other Administration and that there was clear indication it was politically motivated). They also claimed they weren't getting a chance to debate - while they were standing and debating the matter. The Republicans went back to the pending FISA bill that passed the Senate and wanted to focus on that instead.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke on the matter:

This is not a conflict that the Congress has sought. In fact, as the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee has indicated, the committee has repeatedly sought to avoid confrontation, repeatedly making requests that have been ignored or rejected by the White House on completely unacceptable terms.

The Judiciary Committee, indeed the Congress, is clearly entitled to this information. It involves neither national security information nor communications with the President. The President has no grounds to assert executive privilege.

On the other hand, Congress has the responsibility of oversight of the executive branch. I know that Members on both sides of the aisle take that responsibility very seriously. Oversight is an institutional obligation to ensure against abuse of power, in this case the politicizing of the Department of Justice. Subpoena authority is a vital tool for that oversight.

Today, we seek to require the Department of Justice to bring contempt motions against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. When our resolution passes, we hope the administration will realize that this House of Representatives, this Congress, is serious about our constitutional role of oversight and will reach a settlement with us over the documents and testimony at issue. I still hold out the hope that they will cooperate.

But if the administration fails to do so, and if it orders the Department of Justice not to file contempt proceedings, we will then, through this resolution, have the power ourselves to go to Federal court and seek civil enforcement of our subpoenas.

The resolution before us today should not be a partisan issue. It should not be. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. Former Congressman Mickey Edwards, who once served in the Republican leadership, has said that the enforcement of the subpoenas in the U.S. Attorney matter is about defending Congress, not a Democratic or a Republican Congress, but the people's Congress, as a separate, independent, and completely equal branch of government.

The subject of the Judiciary Committee's investigation involves serious and credible allegations that Federal law enforcement was politicized. Political manipulation of law enforcement undermines public confidence in our criminal justice system. Congress must find out what happened not just in terms of those who were fired but also whether improper criteria were used to retain the remaining U.S. Attorneys. We must have the information in order to protect against political manipulation of law enforcement, and it must be provided in terms consistent with our constitutional obligations.

House Majority Leader Stenny Hoyer added:

The issue before this body is not fundamentally whether the current administration acted properly and within the law when it dismissed seven U.S. attorneys in 2006, that may be the issue at some point in time, but unless we have the information to get to that point, such a question will be moot. Nor is this a partisan clash between a Democratic House and a Republican President. Rather, the basic issue before this House is this: whether this body and the committee system, which is central to our duties to perform meaningful and vigorous oversight, can simply be ignored by the executive branch when this body seeks testimony and documents relevant to an important public policy controversy.

As the New York Times noted this morning, ``If Congress fails to enforce its own subpoenas, it would effectively be ceding subpoena power. It would also be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an imperial President, above the law, and beyond the reach of checks and balances.''

Republicans were angered over this vote, and wanted to protest it, along with the delay in adoption of the new FISA bill. To do so, they took their ball and went home.

In other words.......they walked out.


The Resolution was PASSED on a vote of 223-32-1-173.
FOR: 220 Democrats, 3 Republicans
AGAINST: 1 Democrat, 31 Republicans
PRESENT: 1 Republican
NO VOTE: 10 Democrats, 163 Republicans

Nebraska's Representatives chose politics over the Constitution. Adrian Smith, Lee Terry and Jeff Fortenberry all walked out and did not vote.


H.R.1834 - To authorize the national ocean exploration program and the national undersea research program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This would establish a program that the NOAA, in coordination with other programs around the country, would conduct an undersea research, exploration, education, and technology development program to increase scientific knowledge regarding management, use, and preservation of oceanic, coastal, and Great Lakes resources.

H R 1834 was then PASSED on a vote of 352-49-27
FOR: 213 Democrats, 139 Republicans
AGAINST: 49 Republicans
NO VOTE: 17 Democrats, 10 Republicans

Smith voted FOR the program.

----------------------------------------------


The remaining bills to receive votes were passed with little or no opposition:


H.RES.954 - Honoring the life of senior Border Patrol agent Luis A. Aguilar, who lost his life in the line of duty near Yuma, Arizona, on January 19, 2008.
H.RES.909 - Commemorating the courage of the Haitian soldiers that fought for American independence in the "Siege of Savannah" and for Haiti's independence and renunciation of slavery.
H.CON.RES.281 - Celebrating the birth of Abraham Lincoln and recognizing the prominence the Declaration of Independence played in the development of Abraham Lincoln's beliefs.
H.RES.960 - Congratulating the National Football League champion New York Giants for winning Super Bowl XLII and completing one of the most remarkable postseason runs in professional sports history.
H.RES.917 - Supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week, and for other purposes.
H.RES.966 - Honoring African American inventors, past and present, for their leadership, courage, and significant contributions to our national competitiveness.
S.2571 - A bill to make technical corrections to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
H.CON.RES.289 - Honoring and praising the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 99th anniversary.
H.R.4169 - To authorize the placement in Arlington National Cemetery of an American Braille tactile flag in Arlington National Cemetery honoring blind members of the Armed Forces, veterans, and other Americans.
H.RES.790 - Commending the people of the State of Washington for showing their support for the needs of the State of Washington's veterans and encouraging residents of other States to pursue creative ways to show their own support for veterans.
H.RES.963 - Supporting the goals and ideals of National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Week, and for other purposes.
H.RES.972 - Supporting the goals and ideals of American Heart Month and National Wear Red Day.



FLOOR STATEMENTS

Adrian Smith made no statements on the floor, nor submitted any for the record this week.



BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED

Adrian Smith did not sponsor or cosponsor any new bills during this week.



ACTIONS DURING HOUSE ADJOURNMENT

For the week of 2/18/2008, the House was Adjourned. However, Smith decided to sign onto a resolution.


H.RES.888 - Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as "American Religious History Week" for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.


This was introduced back on 12/18/2007 by Republican Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia. Smith signed onto it on 2/19/2008.

This resolution is one for many of the Religious Right. It highlights Christianity in the country, and is a long resolution. Here are some of the highlights:

Whereas political scientists have documented that the most frequently-cited source in the political period known as The Founding Era was the Bible;

Whereas the first act of America's first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of 4 chapters of the Bible;

Whereas Congress regularly attended church and Divine service together en masse;

Whereas in 1776, Congress approved the Declaration of Independence with its 4 direct religious acknowledgments referring to God as the Creator (`All people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'), the Lawgiver (`the laws of nature and nature's God'), the Judge (`appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world'), and the Protector (`with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence');

Whereas the Liberty Bell was named for the Biblical inscription from Leviticus 25:10 emblazoned around it: `Proclaim liberty throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof';

Whereas in 1789, on the same day that Congress finished drafting the First Amendment, it requested President Washington to declare a National day of prayer and thanksgiving, resulting in the first Federal official Thanksgiving proclamation that declared `it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor';

Whereas in 1854 the United States House of Representatives declared `It [religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests ... Christianity; in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions';

Whereas in 1864, Congress passed an act authorizing each State to display statues of 2 of its heroes in the United States Capitol, resulting in numerous statues of noted Christian clergymen and leaders at the Capitol, including Gospel ministers such as the Revs. James A. Garfield, John Peter Muhlenberg, Jonathan Trumbull, Roger Williams, Jason Lee, Marcus Whitman, and Martin Luther King Jr.; Gospel theologians such as Roger Sherman; Catholic priests such as Father Damien, Jacques Marquette, Eusebio Kino, and Junipero Serra; Catholic nuns such as Mother Joseph; and numerous other religious leaders;

Whereas America's first Presidential Inauguration incorporated 7 specific religious activities, including--
(1) the use of the Bible to administer the oath;
(2) affirming the religious nature of the oath by the adding the prayer `So help me God!' to the oath;
(3) inaugural prayers offered by the President;
(4) religious content in the inaugural address;
(5) civil leaders calling the people to prayer or acknowledgement of God;
(6) inaugural worship services attended en masse by Congress as an official part of congressional activities; and
(7) clergy-led inaugural prayers, activities which have been replicated in whole or part by every subsequent President;

Whereas President Andrew Jackson declared that the Bible `is the rock on which our Republic rests';

Whereas President Abraham Lincoln declared that the Bible `is the best gift God has given to men ... But for it, we could not know right from wrong'

Whereas President Ronald Reagan, after noting `The Congress of the United States, in recognition of the unique contribution of the Bible in shaping the history and character of this Nation and so many of its citizens, has ... requested the President to designate the year 1983 as the `Year of the Bible',' officially declared 1983 as `The Year of the Bible';

Whereas the first week in May each year would be an appropriate week to designate as `American Religious History Week': Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives----
(1) affirms the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history, including up to the current day;
(2) recognizes that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation's most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America's representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures;
(3) rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's public buildings and educational resources; and
(4) expresses support for designation of a `American Religious History Week' every year for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.

While a lot things highlighted were personal feelings of many in our history, my concern would be that this resolution would be yet another attempt to mesh government and religion (specifically Christianity) together. But signing onto it will appeal to those that want just that.

House Actions 2/4/2008 - 2/8/2008

This week in the House focused on 2 major bills: the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, and the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.

Adrian Smith supported both bills in the end, and made a couple of floor statements. However, he did not sponsor any new bills.


ROLL CALL VOTES


H.RES.956 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.

This sets forth the rules for debate on H.R. 4137. As usual, on "ordering the previous question" and "agreeing to the resolution", the votes were party-line: Democrats for, Republicans against.


H.R.4137 - To amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.

Known as the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, this bill would provide greater access to higher education. It would provide greater resources, establish a new Teacher Quality Partnership grant program, expand the Pell Grant, broaden eligibility for various other grants, provide further loan forgiveness programs, and other oversight and program expansions.

There were 23 amendments offered up for debate. Of those, 20 were passed by voice vote. The remaining 3 received roll call votes.


H.AMDT.936 - Requires the existing Education-Treasury Study Group to evaluate the feasibility of an alternative market-based reform to the Federal Family Education Loan Program. The recommended alternative should reduce federal costs to taxpayers and use savings to increase need-based grant aid to low-income students.

This amendment would study market-based reforms to the guaranteed student loan program.

Those opposed to this amendment state this would require a feasibility study on market mechanisms that could then be used to determine lender returns when making student loans. With the current set up, it's unclear how a study could be done without implementing a broader pilot program.

The Amendment PASSED on a vote of 260-153-21. There were 49 Republicans that joined Democrats in passing the amendment, while 10 Democrats joined Republicans in voting "no".
Smith voted AGAINST this amendment.


H.AMDT.937 - Extends the new audit and reporting provisions applied only to the Direct Loan program to the Federal Family Education Loan Program.

As stated, this amendment would extend the audit and reporting provisions. This amendment was offered due to the scandals and abuse by such lenders like Nelnet. It would create further accountability.

Those opposed felt the idea was on track, but wanted to further debate and asked for a "no" vote.

The Amendment PASSED on a vote of 222-191-21. There were 25 Republicans that joined the Democrats to pass the amendment, while 24 Democrats voted "no" with the Republicans.
Smith voted AGAINST the amendment.


H.AMDT.939 - To restore protections to private student loan borrowers similar to those afforded other unsecured debtors by allowing the discharge of private student loans via bankruptcy.

This amendment would allow for student loans to be included in bankruptcy filings by individuals.

Those opposed said this would add uncertainty and additional risk to student lending. They also point out that student loans can be discharged right now if the person is facing and undue hardship. The amendment would remove the hardship element and create greater instability.

The Amendment FAILED on a vote of 179-236-19. There were 52 Democrats that joined Republicans to defeat the amendment.
Smith voted AGAINST it.



A MOTION TO RECOMMIT was then offered up for consideration.

The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ferguson moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4137 to the Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

TITLE XII--LIMITATIONS ON EXPENDITURES
SEC. 1201. FUNDING PRIORITIES.
(a) Pell and IDEA First.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to an authorization of appropriations or other provision of this Act (including an amendment made by this Act) shall be expended to carry out any new program under this Act for any fiscal year, or any FIPSE program for that fiscal year, unless--
(1) the Federal Pell Grant program is fully funded for that fiscal year; and
(2) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is fully funded for that fiscal year.
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) NEW PROGRAM.--The term ``new program under this Act'' means a title, part, subpart, section, or other provision of the Higher Education Act of 1965--
(A) for which funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by an amendment made by this Act to the Higher Education Act of 1965; and
(B) for which funds were not authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available prior to the date of enactment of this Act .
(2) FIPSE PROGRAM.--The term ``FIPSE program'' means any program authorized by section 741 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended by title VII of this Act.
(3) PELL GRANT FULL FUNDING.--The Federal Pell Grant program shall be considered to be fully funded for a fiscal year only if the total amount appropriated or otherwise made available for such fiscal year is sufficient to provide a maximum Federal Pell Grant that equals or exceeds $9,000.
(4) IDEA FULL FUNDING.--The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act shall be considered to be fully funded for a fiscal year only if, with respect to such fiscal year, the total amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations under section 611(i) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1411(i)) or otherwise made available is sufficient to provide the maximum grant to each State as determined under section 611(a)(2)(B) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1411(a)(2)(B)) for such fiscal year.

The Motion would essentially block funding unless IDEA is fully funded, and would cause the full bill to lose a lot of its strength.

The Motion FAILED on a vote of 194-216-19, with most Democrats AGAINST it, and most Republicans FOR it.
Smith voted FOR the motion.


H R 4137 was then PASSED on a vote of 354-58-17
FOR: 219 Democrats, 135 Republicans
AGAINST: 58 Republicans
NO VOTE: 12 Democrats, 5 Republicans

Smith voted FOR the bill.


H.R.5140 - To provide economic stimulus through recovery rebates to individuals, incentives for business investment, and an increase in conforming and FHA loan limits.

This was the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.

The vote was to approve the Senate amendments to the bill.

The Senate Amendments PASSED on a vote of 380-34-16.
Only 6 Democrats and 28 Republicans voted against it.
Smith voted FOR it.

The bill was then signed by the President on 2/13/2008, becoming Public Law No: 110-185.

--------------------------------------------

The remaining roll call votes were on bills that passed with little or no opposition:

H.RES.867 - Commending the Houston Dynamo soccer team for winning the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup.
H.RES.942 - Recognizing the significance of Black History Month.
H.RES.943 - Remembering the space shuttle Challenger disaster and honoring its crew members, who lost their lives on January 28, 1986.
H.CON.RES.283 - Calling for a peaceful resolution to the current electoral crisis in Kenya.
H.R.4848 - To extend for one year parity in the application of certain limits to mental health benefits, and for other purposes.
H.RES.947 - Congratulating Lee Myung-Bak on his election to the Presidency of the Republic of Korea and wishing him well during his time of transition and his inauguration on February 25, 2008.


FLOOR STATMENTS

Adrian Smith made 2 statements on the House Floor during this week.

CONGRATULATING THE X PRIZE FOUNDATION
February 06, 2008

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague and friend from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, prizes have a history of encouraging innovation by promoting competition and expanding the talent pool to include a numerous and diverse array of groups and individuals. Those unable or unwilling to secure grants can participate in the race for the goal. With prizes, government funding is not used to pick technological winners and losers. The prize is only awarded if the goal is met. Prizes encourage the investment of private capital and research, even beyond the monetary value of the prize.

I applaud the X PRIZE Foundation for spurring competition and innovation in the race to a more efficient automobile. When the 100 mile-per-gallon vehicle is achieved, citizens of my home State of Nebraska will be able to drive across the State on Interstate 80 on only 4 1/2 gallons of fuel. This tremendous efficiency would dramatically reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, it would stimulate our economy, and certainly improve our national security.

I am grateful for the vision and enterprise of men like Dr. Peter Diamandis who kindle the spark of innovation that leads to revolutionary technologies.

COLLEGE OPPORTUNITY AND AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2007
February 07, 2008

Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I note that Mr. Emanuel's extension was shorter than even his form that he's seeking here, but we're in broad bipartisan support of that simplified process. It was a wonderful idea, and I'm glad we could work with him. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, since being elected to Congress, I have had the opportunity to speak with young students throughout the Third District of Nebraska. They are smart and sharp, and we need to do everything we can to encourage them. Unfortunately, however, many rural States have seen what we call ``brain drain'' in recent years. As the depletion occurs, we lose our most vital economic asset to more populated areas. Responsible policy is needed to retain and grow our workforce to make our rural communities more competitive in this modern economy.

The College Opportunity and Affordability Act seeks to address this by encouraging economic development partnerships. These partnerships would be formed between rural colleges and universities and rural employers. This would provide additional career training to students attending rural schools in fields significant to the local economy. It also would encourage rural businesses to employ students once they graduate.

I thank the chairman and ranking member for working with me to target these partnerships to the areas in the most need.

There are no indications that Smith had any role in working on the bill in question.



BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED


Smith did not sign on to any new bills this week.