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.

Smith Appointed to New Committee

With the start of the 2nd session of the 110th Congress, Adrian Smith was added to another committee: Natural Resources. He continues to be appointed to the Budget, Agriculture and Science & Technology committees in the House of Representatives.

When Smith was in the Nebraska Unicameral, he was a member of the Natural Resources Committee. Because he is now joining the Houses committee, it's a chance to recap his attendance as a Nebraska State Senator.

Smith was on the Nebraska Natural Resources Committee for the 2005-2006 sessions. The following is his attendance information as compared to the other members:


2005 Session
Total Bills Considered: 44

(Senator: Voting - Present/Not Voting - Absent)

Sen. Hudkins: 44 - 0 - 0
Sen. Kopplin: 43 - 1 - 0
Sen. Kremer: 43 - 1 - 0
Sen. Louden: 43 - 0 - 1
Sen. McDonald: 41 - 1 - 2
Sen. Schrock: 44 - 0 - 0
Sen. Stuhr: 44 - 0 - 0
Sen. Smith: 30 - 2 - 12


2006 Session
Total Bills Considered: 39

Sen. Hudkins: 38 - 0 - 1
Sen. Kopplin: 37 - 2 - 0
Sen. Kremer: 35 - 1 - 3
Sen. Louden: 30 - 3 - 6
Sen. McDonald: 32 - 2 - 5
Sen. Schrock: 38 - 1 - 0
Sen. Stuhr: 37 - 1 - 1
Sen. Smith: 21 - 1 - 17


TOTAL BILLS: 83

Sen. Hudkins: 82 - 0 - 1
Sen. Kopplin: 80 - 3 - 0
Sen. Kremer: 78 - 2 - 3
Sen. Louden: 73 - 3 - 7
Sen. McDonald: 73 - 3 - 7
Sen. Schrock: 82 - 1 - 0
Sen. Stuhr: 81 - 1 - 1
Sen. Smith: 51 - 3 - 29


In summary, Smith was present AND voting on only 61.4% of the bills, and he was absent for 35% of the bills. The next most absent Senators (McDonald and Louden) were only absent for 8% of the bills.

That was a HORRENDOUS attendance and participation record!

Let's hope he does better at the federal level. However, given his low level of real participation in hearings on the other committees, we may be disappointed.

More Hearing Transcripts

After taking a much needed break, I'm back to catching up on the activities of Congressman Adrian Smith. The following are excerpts from hearings Smith should have participated in, given his membership in those committees. These transcripts are not always available in a timely manner, but as before, I will keeping posting what I find as those transcripts become accessible. As has been his pattern in the past, his participation tends to be very limited.


BUDGET COMMITTEE HEARINGS


PERSPECTIVES ON RENEWING STATUTORY PAYGO - JULY 25, 2007

Witnesses:

- Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
- David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States
- Robert Greenstein, executive director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
- Hon. Patrick J. Toomey, president, Club for Growth, former Congressman from the State of Pennsylvania
- Robert L. Bixby, executive director, the Concord Coalition
- Maya C. MacGuineas, president, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

At the start of the hearing, Smith is listed as "present".

As the hearing continues, however, and it comes his turn to ask any questions, he's gone:

Chairman Spratt. Thank you. We will now turn to Mr. Alexander of Louisiana. Okay. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Not here. Mr. Campbell of California.

Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA: WHAT WILL BE THE LONG TERM EFFECT ON THE FEDERAL BUDGET? - AUGUST 2, 2007

Witnesses:

- Donald E. Powell, Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Stanley J. Czerwinski, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
- Rev. Donald Boutte, Pastor, St. John Baptist Church

Smith is listed as "present" at the start.

After that, we hear nothing else from him.



USING TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS MOST EFFICIENTLY: PERSPECTIVES ON PERFORMANCE BUDGETING - SEPTEMBER 20, 2007

Witnesses:

- Barry Anderson, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
- Hon. Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
- David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
- Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
- Paul L. Posner, director, Public Administration Program, George Mason University


Smith is listed as present, but asks no questions. However, he is the only Representative to submit a prewritten statement for the record (outside of the Chairman and Ranking Republican, who normally submit statements for the record on all hearings).

Prepared Statement of Hon. Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State of Nebraska

Good morning and thank you, Chairman. I am so pleased we are holding this hearing today. We have an obligation to exercise accountability and fiscal responsibility in government spending. As this Committee plans for future federal budgets, the ideas and information expressed to us today are of utmost importance. While we address the many fiscal challenges we face, we must assess the value of the information available to us. This hearing will give us the opportunity to explore ``performance-based budgeting.'' The models and results of ``performance-based budgeting'' could serve as a valuable tool for setting our spending priorities. Too often in Congress, we debate, vote on, and pass--and in some cases regrettably so--legislation about which we have no measure of its efficacy. And Mr. Chairman, that just has to change. Financial discipline is one of my greatest concerns. By serving on this Committee, my goal is to add fiscal restraint to the budget process. Congress must promote policies which will make government programs better, more efficient, and more sustainable for the long- term. Commonsense tells us this can only be achieved with an accountability system in place. Adding accountability to the budget process will combat waste, fraud, and abuse while we work to control the growth in government and restrain spending. I appreciate the Committee for holding this hearing as an important step to meeting our goals. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I thank you for your time.

Given Smith's close ties with the Club for Growth, do not be surprised if this was provided for him to submit.


THE TAX CODE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE - OCTOBER 18, 2007

Witnesses:

- Grace-Marie Turner, president, Galen Institute
- Leonard E. Burman, director, Tax Policy Center, senior fellow, the Urban Institute


Smith was listed as present at the beginning. However, yet again, he is the only Representative to submit a written statement. He also presubmits his questions instead of staying and asking them live. Given this is, yet again, a hearing about taxes the Club for Growth would be interested in, there is a chance these were given to him to submit. It also prevented him from having to put himself on the spot in a room full of people like the rest of the members of the committee.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State of Nebraska

Good Morning. I would like to thank Chairman Spratt for holding today's hearing on this issue of concern to Americans. Our goal in this committee today is to address access and affordability of health care while looking for solutions that promote both fiscal and individual responsibility. Throughout the nation people are concerned about having access to health care; in my home state of Nebraska 11.1 percent of people go without health insurance. Today this Congress is grappling with the issue of providing health insurance to needy children. We must not lose sight, however, of the need for public policy that will reduce the number of Americans who are uninsured while continuing to foster a system that provides consumers with choice and competition. Choice and competition in health care promotes efficiency and innovation that works to keep the costs of health care under control. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership in holding this hearing.

I will only post the question that was submitted, not the response (since it was a written statement with no give and take).

Question for Ms. Turner From Mr. Smith of Nebraska

As we look at ways to use the tax code to reduce the number of uninsured, we have seen different proposals including either tax credits or tax deductions to individuals and families for health care. In a general sense, as we look at the differences between credits, deductions, or a combination of the two, which approach will 1) be more fiscally responsible; and 2) do more to reduce the number of uninsured?

THE GROWING BUDGETARY COSTS OF THE IRAQ WAR - OCTOBER 24, 2007

Witnesses:

- Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
- Prof. Linda J. Bilmes, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
- Amy Belasco, Specialist in U.S., Defense Policy and Budget, Congressional Research Service


Once again, Smith was the only committee member (outside of the Chairman and Ranking member) to submit a written statement:

Prepared Statement of Hon. Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State of Nebraska

Good Morning. I would like to thank Chairman Spratt for holding today's hearing on this issue of concern to almost every American. As Congress provides funds for troops in both the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill and the War Supplemental, it is important for us to set the politics aside. Congress should finance Iraq operations in a fiscally responsible manner without jeopardizing the needs of our troops. After visiting our troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan and seeing real progress from strategies now in place, I am even more convinced the Global War on Terror can be won by supporting our troops and providing them the appropriate tools needed for success. By properly funding the Iraq mission today, the United States is helping Iraq to operate independently in the future; and an independent Iraq is a goal I know we all share. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership in holding this hearing.

Smith then asked a few questions:

Chairman Spratt. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith. Excuse me. I apologize for arriving here late from a markup in another committee. When you talk about reset costs, what would you point to as something that might be neglected that we may need to address 5 years down the road or 10 years down the road rather than 2 years down the road?

Mr. Orszag. I am not exactly sure what you mean, sir.

Mr. Smith. With the reset costs, replacing equipment and various other items, long term, I mean, we are finding out now that some of the equipment is needing to be replaced that was not replaced 10 years ago that maybe should have been, so we are starting to see some increased costs now, and certainly the war on terror exacerbates the entire issue. Could you elaborate on that?

Mr. Orszag. Sure. Again, the most dramatic increases in costs over the past several years have been in the area of procurement, and part of that is related to the reset program. I would just note, though, that the reset program now is being so aggressively funded that our analysis suggests that it is more than offsetting what it is supposedly designed to do, which is to replace or repair equipment that is damaged in theater. In other words, it is leading to a net improvement in the quality and number of tanks and trucks and what have you relative to prewar----

Mr. Smith. So, I mean----

Mr. Orszag [continuing]. Because of the money that you are providing to it, okay?

Mr. Smith. Excuse me. I understand, I think, where you are going with this. Now, if a 1990--and my years are probably not accurate, but if a 1990 tank is needing to be replaced, what would you suggest replacing it with?

Mr. Orszag. Well, again, I think the question is not whether or not a 1990 tank needs to be replaced, but, rather, if a 1995 or a 1998 tank is damaged in theater, whether the purpose of the emergency funding that is provided for the reset program is to restore it to operational--you know, to its original state, or whether the funds should be used to purchase a 2007 or a 2008 high-technology tank. A significant component of what is happening is the latter. Again, that is up to you. The way that the program is being described is that it is designed just to offset the impact of the war on that 1998 tank, and that is not all that is happening.

Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you.

How embarrassing! I don't think Smith had a clue what he was even talking about!



SURFACE TRANSPORTATION: INVESTMENT NEEDS AND THE BUDGET - OCTOBER 25, 2007

Witnesses:

- Hon. Mary E. Peters, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
- Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office
- Janet F. Kavinoky, director of transportation infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and executive director, Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition
- Robert Puentes, fellow, metropolitan policy program, the Brookings Institution


Smith must have learned a new way to get words on the record regularly and not have to actually speak or think in the moment. He was one of 2 committee members to submit statements....again:

Prepared Statement of Hon. Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State of Nebraska

Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman. This hearing is necessary and timely, and I am pleased we are holding it today. Safe and efficient transportation is tremendously important to the Nation's economy and to the Third District of Nebraska. The Federal surface transportation spending and revenue structure needs improvement. This is especially troubling to me since Nebraska is one of 25 donor states; putting more money in gas tax revenue into the Highway Trust Fund than we get back. As currently structured, funds are not targeted to most effectively address current and future challenges. Some of the these challenges in Nebraska relate to changing economic activity. For example, we still face significant transportation issues in the ethanol industry. As we see changes resulting from bioenergy development, transportation demands are changing and I question whether or not we are prepared to meet this challenge. I want to thank our witnesses for coming here today to provide testimony for the Committee, and I look forward to hearing from you. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I thank you for your time.

Smith does not take the time to ask any questions during the hearing.


COUNTING THE CHANGE: ACCOUNTING FOR THE FISCAL IMPACTS OF CONTROLLING CARBON EMISSIONS - NOVEMBER 1, 2007

Witnesses:

- Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office
- David Doniger, Climate Center policy director, Natural Resources Defense Council
- Robert Greenstein, executive director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
- Anne E. Smith, Ph.D., vice president, CRA International


Smith decides to ask some questions during this hearing:

Mr. Spratt. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Thank you very much for your time here. I know that it gets to be a challenge balancing science and politics and economics, and I appreciate your efforts. In trying to read up on so much of this, it has been interesting to see, and especially for my district, a large producer of livestock. And I have read about the impacts of high corn prices, not only high corn prices on the prices in livestock, but across the food spectrum, if you will, around the world. Here are pluses and minuses along the way. But especially the criticisms of the livestock industry and relating to carbon, would situations be considered, Mr. Orszag, if you don't mind; with a cap and trade system would the increased costs of food producti