House Actions 5/14/2007 - 5/18/2007

I don’t usually start out a week summary with a news article, but it’s a good one, and it’s short.

BUDGET VOTE

The Congress, this week, passed the budget resolution, that sets up the spending priorities for the government. This article explains the significance of this:

You say you want a resolution

Congressional Democrats, not usually thought of as paragons of legislative efficiency, have succeeded where the Republicans have failed three of the six years they held power under President Bush.

Before that, only once had Congress failed to adopt a budget resolution since the current budgeting process was adopted in 1976, and that was in 1999, when Senate Republicans and House Republicans couldn’t agree with one another. But that was sort of a no-harm-no-foul situation.

The Democrats not only have agreed on and adopted a budget resolution, they even did it early. The much-abused congressional budget calendar gives them until the end of June.

Now Congress can get down to the serious and onerous task of enacting the 12 spending bills that actually fund the government. Those bills are supposed to be finished and sent to the president for signature in mid-September, before the start of the federal fiscal year Oct. 1.

Republican Congresses were chronically unable to do that. Last year the budget process was in such bad shape that the Republicans gave up and left the whole mess for the incoming Democrats to clean up, which they did, though it was four months late.

The resolution calls for $2.9 trillion in federal spending - meaning next year’s budget will surely cross the $3 trillion mark - and doesn’t exactly square with Bush’s own tax and spending priorities. The resolution doesn’t require his signature, so he can’t veto it, but he can veto the 12 individual spending bills and any changes in the law they may require.

The resolution also restores the pay-as-you-go rules that require new spending or tax cuts to be paid for by spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the budget. The rules can be waived, but they do help keep down the deficit. The Republicans scrapped pay-go in 2001 to enact Bush’s tax cuts and their own spending plans.

Enacting a timely budget resolution doesn’t solve all problems, but it’s a start to restoring the order and discipline that broke down six years ago, with the result that federal spending increased by half. It’s a good start, actually.

The first vote was on the procedural resolution.

H.RES.409 - Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2012.

Once again, two votes took place on “ordering the previous question” and “agreeing to the Resolution. Once again it was a party-line vote each time, with Smith joining his party to try and stop debate.

S.CON.RES.21 - An original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2012.

This is the final resolution for the FY2008 Budget. There were also several related bills (H.CON.RES.99, H.CON.RES.109, H.RES.370, H.RES.409, H.J.RES.43).

The Republicans all stood up and kept giving the same talking point: “Largest tax increase in history”, something Adrian Smith has already joined in with repeatedly. It’s not true, of course, as it completely misrepresents the budget resolution. They also complained that the vote would also approve an increase in the allowed national debt level to $9.8 Trillion (ignoring the fact they did the very same thing repeatedly by their overspending and failure to enact any kind of spending limit’s the last 6 years). This was done because going into surplus will not happen overnight. Chairman Spratt, of the Budget Committee, gave a good summary in his final statements:

Mr. Speaker, this is a good budget. I would be the first to say it is not a perfect budget, but I would be the first to argue that it is worthy of our support.

Indeed, I think it requires our support if we don't want to see the budget process fail abjectly once again, as it did last year under Republican control when no concurrent budget resolution was ever enacted, passed, and only two of 11 appropriation bills were passed.

The bottom line, this budget moves us to balance over the next 5 years. Along the way, it posts smaller deficits than the President proposes, it adheres to the pay-as-you-go principle, which is the rule of this House, contains no new mandatory spending that is not paid for, and it funds five program integrity initiatives to root out wasteful spending and fraud and tax evasion.

Within this framework, it does more for veterans health care, far more, more for children's health care, far more, and more for education, lots more.

Here in a nutshell are the basics of the budget: This budget runs to surplus of $41 billion in the year 2012. Contrast that with the President's budget which is always in deficit. This budget not only abides by pay-as-you-go principles, it enhances them by establishing a new Senate PAYGO rule and calling for reinstatement of the statutory PAYGO rule as well. This budget does all of the above, I will say this emphatically one last time, does all of the above without raising taxes.

The tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and 2003 remain in full force and effect, unaffected in any way by this budget resolution. As enacted and originally written, most of these tax cuts expire on December 31, 2010, and that has nothing to do with our budget resolution.

But in our budget resolution, we identified all of the middle income tax cuts, many of which we supported at the time passed, and we made it the policy of our resolution to extend these tax cuts when they expire.

In this concurrent resolution, we go even further. We install a trigger that will facilitate the extension of these tax cuts so long as, number one, the House waives PAYGO; and, number two, the tax cuts extended do not exceed 80 percent of the surplus projected by OMB by the year 2012.

This concurrent resolution in other respects sets defense spending levels that the President requested. Why is spending so high? It contains $145 billion in supplemental expenditures.

And let me say one thing about the argument one of the leaders of the other party made on the House floor just a few minutes ago about the amount of debt that is being added to the national debt. What we are talking about is taking a big battleship and turning it around slowly. We have inherited the basics of this budget. Much of the spending that we are carrying forward was dictated over the last 6 years. The same for the revenue flow of the budget we are undertaking. It is going to take time to turn this big battleship around.

But as we do, the best we can do is, number one, have a concurrent budget resolution with the binding effect of budget law for the first time in a long time; and, secondly, this concurrent resolution which will put us back on the path to a balanced budget.

For those for whom a balanced budget is something of a moral imperative because of the debt we are leaving our children, the right vote today, the only vote today is the vote for this budget resolution, and I commend it to every Member of this House, Democrat and Republican, and urge their support.

The final vote was cast in both the House and Senate on the same day. The resolution PASSED in the House on a vote of 214-209-10. ALL OF THE REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST IT.


NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

This Defense Appropriations bill was the cause of a drama in the House this week. The debate and vote actually took 2 days to complete, with the first day having a lot of wasted time. Adrian Smith was right in the thick of things with his Republican colleagues, as they tried to stall and delay any and all debate or consideration of this bill - a bill that FUNDS OUR TROOPS.

11:25AM - The Republicans through Rep. Buyer made a Motion to Adjourn. All but 2 of the Democrats were joined by 36 Republicans to defeat this motion. Adrian Smith, however, voted FOR Adjournment.

Next, the resolution that provides for debate parameters was presented.

H.RES.403 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes.

Once again, as usually happens, there were two votes: On “ordering the previous question” and “agreeing to the resolution”. Both were party-line votes, with Smith joining his party as usual.

12:43 P.M. - The Republicans through Rep. Davis made another Motion to Adjourn. All of the Democrats were joined by 27 Republicans to defeat this motion. Adrian Smith voted FOR Adjournment.

Next the actual bill was presented

H.R.1585 - To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

This triggered a series of parliamentary tactics. But first an explanation, so everyone understands what happened.

A Republican would make a motion for the “Committee to Rise”. They would demand a recorded vote of this, pending first a Quorum vote.

Per the Clerk of the House, a quorum in the House of Representatives is when a majority of the Members are present. When there are no vacancies in the membership, a quorum is 218. When one or more seats are vacant, because of deaths or resignations, the quorum is reduced accordingly. Because of Members' other duties, a quorum often is not present on the House floor. But any Member may insist that a quorum must participate in any vote that takes place in the House. If a member makes a point of order that a quorum is not present, and the Speaker agrees, a series of bells ring on the House side of the Capitol and in the House office buildings to alert Members to come to the Chamber and record their presence.

For a Committee to “rise”, this motion usually would take place at the end of an consideration of a bill up for amendment. Basically the entire House then becomes the Committee, and the Speaker of the House replaces the current Chairman in the chair at that time (a different member acts as Chair each day). However, these motions took place prior to the conclusion of consideration of amendments. As a result, these motions were used to immediately halt consideration of the bill, and were similar to a motion to adjourn in the House.

In summary, a Republican member would demand the committee rise, pending a quorum first be established, thus stopping all debate.

1:21 P.M. - Rep. Price moved that the committee rise, and demanded a recorded vote pending a point of no quorum.

1:42 P.M. - QUORUM established: 397 Present, Smith among them.

1:51 P.M. - On Motion that the Committee Rise, the motion FAILED. All Democrats and 8 Republicans voted to defeat this motion. Smith voted FOR the motion.

2:12 P.M. - Rep. Westmoreland moved that the Committee rise, and demanded a recorded vote pending a point of no quorum.

2:33 P.M. - QUORUM established: 393 Present, Smith among them.

2:42 P.M. - On Motion that the Committee Rise, the motion FAILED. All but one of the Democrats were joined by 4 Republicans to defeat the motion. Smith voted FOR the motion.

3:04 P.M. - Rep. Westmoreland moved that the Committee rise, and demanded a recorded vote pending a point of no quorum.

3:28 P.M. - QUORUM established: 407 Present, Smith among them.

3:38 P.M. - On Motion that the Committee Rise, the motion FAILED. All but one of the Democrats were joined by 5 Republicans to defeat the motion. Smith voted FOR the motion.

4:07 P.M. - Rep. Buyer moved that the committee rise, and demanded a recorded vote pending a point of no quorum.

4:29 P.M. - QUORUM established: 403 Present, Smith among them.

4:38 P.M. - On Motion that the Committee Rise, the motion FAILED. All but one of the Democrats were joined by 4 Republicans to defeat the motion. Smith voted FOR the motion.

4:49 P.M. - Rep. Buy moved that the Committee rise, and demanded a recorded vote pending a point of no quorum.

5:13 P.M. - QUORUM established: 398 Present, Smith among them.

5:23 P.M. - On Motion that the Committee Rise, the motion FAILED. All but 4 of the Democrats were joined by 9 Republicans to defeat the motion. Smith voted FOR the motion.

So, after 6 hours of motions to stop debate, the debate finally started.

There were 20 Amendments offered on this bill. Of those, 12 were agreed to by voice vote. The remaining 6 received recorded votes.


H.AMDT.186, offered by Rep. Robert Andrews of New Jersey, to prevent funds authorized in the bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being obligated or expended to plan a contingency operation in Iran.

The amendment FAILED on a vote of 202-216-19. All but 6 of the Republicans were joined by 29 Democrats to defeat it. Smith voted AGAINST the amendment.

H.AMDT.187, offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, to clarify that no previously enacted law authorizes military action against Iran. It also prohibits funding authorized by the bill or in any other act from being used to take military action against Iran without specific authorization from Congress unless there is a `national emergency created by an attack by Iran upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed forces' (language taken directly from the War Powers Resolution, P.L. 93-148).

The amendment FAILED on a vote of 136-288-13. All but 7 of the Republicans were joined by 100 Democrats to defeat it. Smith voted AGAINST the amendment.

H.AMDT.188, offered by Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California, to require the Secretary of Defense to issue a report on the continued use, need, relevance, and cost of weapons systems designed to fight the Cold War and the former Soviet Union.

This amendment FAILED on a vote of 119-303-15. All but 5 of the Republicans were joined by 113 Democrats to defeat it. Smith voted AGAINST the amendment.

H.AMDT.193, offered by Rep. John Tierney of Massachusetts, to reduce the $8.1 billion specified for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) activities by $1.084 billion from specified programs.

This amendment FAILED on a vote of 127-299-11. All but 3 of the Republicans were joined by 105 Democrats to defeat it. Smith voted AGAINST the amendment.

H.AMDT.194, offered by Trent Franks of Arizona, to increase by $764 million the amount authorized for ballistic missile defense.

This amendment FAILED on a vote of 199-226-12. All but 13 of the Democrats were joined by 10 Republicans to defeat it. Smith voted FOR the amendment.

H.AMDT.196, offered by Rep. Steve King of Iowa, to add language to section 1222 to explain that the bill's prohibition on the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq should not be construed to prohibit the United States from establishing a temporary military base or installation by entering into basing rights agreements between the United States and Iraq. The amendment also states that Congress recognizes the United States has not established any permanent military installations inside or outside the United States.

My question would be this: What does King consider “permanent”? Cause it sure seems we have a lot of them, and saying we don’t seems a bit odd.

The amendment FAILED on a vote of 201-219-17. While 15 Democrats voted for this, the remaining were joined by 8 Republicans to vote against it and defeat it. Smith voted FOR the amendment.

H.AMDT.197, offered by Rep. James Moran of Virginia, to require the Office of the Secretary of Defense to submit a report identifying the current capacity at Department of Defense facilities in the United States to securely hold and try before a military commission the detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The report shall include the Department's estimated number of detainees that will be 1) charged with a crime, 2) subject to a release or transfer, or 3) held without being charged with a crime, but whom the Department wishes to detain. The report shall also describe actions required by the Secretary and Congress to ensure that detainees who are scheduled for release are released no later than December 31, 2007.

Too little has been done to handle the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. This basically says that it’s time to start doing more.

The amendment PASSED on a vote of 220-208-9. All but 15 of the Democrats were joined by 4 Republicans to vote FOR this amendment. Smith voted AGAINST it.


H.AMDT.198, offered by Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey, to require the videotaping of interrogations and other pertinent interactions between U.S. military personnel and/or contractors and detainees arrested and held. Directs the Judge Advocates General of the respective military services to develop uniform guidelines for such videotaping. Provides access to detainees for representatives of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture for independent monitoring of detainee conditions and treatment.

This amendment FAILED on a vote of 199-229-9. All but 12 of the Republicans were joined by 44 Democrats to defeat it. Smith voted AGAINST the amendment.


A motion was made to recommit to the committee, which is a procedural vote. The motion PASSED 394-30-8. Smith voted for this motion. From there the committee offered the bill for final passage.

The bill PASSED on a vote of 397-27-8. Only 25 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against it. Smith voted FOR the bill.

So, after all that wasted time and stalling, the bill ended up with wide support in the House. But, that does not erase the fact that, if Smith and his colleagues had succeeded, they would have prevented the FY2008 funding for the Defense Department from going forward!!


OTHER VOTES


H.R.1124 - To extend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999.

This bill amends the District of Columbia Access Act of 1999 to authorize the public school and private school tuition assistance programs established under the Act through FY2012. Essentially it does a 5-year extension.

According to the speakers advocating for this bill, the Act had increased attendance of DC students by 60% over 5 years. For the 2005-2006 school year, almost 5,000 students received funding to enroll in 646 universities and colleges in 47 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Most of these students are the first in their families to attend college. This Act is considered a first step in reversing the flight of taxpayers from the District, many of whom left to gain access to lower cost state colleges and universities in the region. It has acted as a proxy and substituted for a state university system for DC. There they only have one state system college.

The Act has received ongoing bipartisan support, and President Bush included $35 Million in his budget request to continue the program.

No one stood up to speak against this bill.

On a Motion to Suspend the Rules, the bill PASSED 268-100-64.
FOR: 192 Democrats, 76 Republicans
AGAINST: 2 Democrats, 98 Republicans
NO VOTE: 37 Democrats, 27 Republicans
Smith voted AGAINST this bill.

Why would Adrian Smith be against allowing students of the District of Columbia the same opportunites to choices in higher education that every other student gets that live in a state? Could it be it would reduce the money going into the pockets of the Nelnet folks? I don’t know, but it’s a thought.


H.R.916 - To provide for loan repayment for prosecutors and public defenders.

Known as the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007, the CRS Summary states that this bill:

Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to direct the Attorney General to assume the obligation to repay student loans for borrowers who agree to remain employed, for at least three years, as:
(1) state or local criminal prosecutors; or
(2) state, local, or federal public defenders in criminal cases.

Allows a borrower and the Attorney General to enter into an additional loan repayment agreement, after the required three-year period, for a successive period of service which may be less than three years. Limits the amount paid under such program on behalf of any borrower to $10,000 per calendar year and $60,000 total.

Many smaller communities struggle with getting and obtaining prosecutors, due to the fact the private sector pays much better. This bill provides for incentives for attorney’s to work in the public sector for a while, and in exchange, they get much of their student loans reimbursed. Without prosecutors, the courts have a hard time doing their job of protecting our communities.

On a Motion to Suspend the Rules, the bill PASSED 341-73-18.
FOR: 224 Democrats, 117 Republicans
AGAINST: 1 Democrat, 72 Republicans
NO VOTE: 6 Democrats, 12 Republicans

Adrian Smith voted AGAINST THIS BILL, along with Roy Blunt, John Boehner and Eric Cantor. HOWEVER, the other 2 Nebraska Reps, Lee Terry and Jeff Fortenberry, did Nebraska proud, joined the MAJORITY of their party and voted FOR this bill. Adrian Smith has the District with the most rural areas, and this would only benefit the Third District. Smith once again voted AGAINST the interests of the Third District.

A letter was published in the Grand Island Independent today that talks about this vote, and explains it well. It’s worth publishing further here so everyone can see:

Smith's vote harms rural law enforcement officials

On Tuesday, May 15th, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 916, which if approved would provide a meaningful, yet fiscally responsible, incentive to recruit and retain qualified attorneys in the criminal justice system. H.R. 916 would provide student loan repayment assistance to attorneys who agree to serve as prosecutors or public defenders for a period of at least three years. Unfortunately, Rep. Adrian Smith chose not to support Third District prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and instead voted against the legislation.

Most law school graduates leave school with a substantially large amount of student loan debt - for some students in excess of $100,000. At the same time, median entry-level salaries for prosecutors and public defenders are dwarfed by increasingly competitive salaries in the private sector. As a result, 24% of local prosecutor offices and 60% of public defender offices nationwide report difficulty recruiting new attorneys, and even more report difficulty retaining qualified attorneys. In the Third District, recruitment of prosecutors and public defenders can be even more difficult, as asking a recent law school graduate to come to the panhandle instead of taking a salary twice as high in Omaha or Lincoln can be a daunting task.

When prosecutor and public defender officers are unable to recruit attorneys or retain experienced ones, it undermines the criminal justice system as a whole. Attorney shortages can force offices to decline to prosecute or delay prosecution of cases, and as a result of these backlogs, guilty individuals may be released. Despite decreasing populations in western Nebraska, law enforcement in the Third District could come to a screeching halt without qualified attorneys in the prosecutor's office. It is a shame that Rep. Smith did not join 341 other House members, including 117 Republicans, in helping recruit and retain the most qualified attorneys to serve in the public sector as local prosecutors and public defenders.

Trevor Fitzgerald, President
Creighton Law School Democrats
Omaha

H.R.1700 - To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to enhance the COPS ON THE BEAT grant program, and for other purposes.

Per the CRS Summary, this bill covers some duties of the Attorney General, and authorizes grants to:

- hire school resource officers and establish local partnerships to combat crime, gangs, drug activities, and other problems in elementary and secondary schools;
- pay for officers hired to perform intelligence, anti-terror, or homeland security duties;
- establish and implement programs to reduce and prevent illegal drug activities, including the manufacturing, distribution, and use of methamphetamine;
- meet emerging law enforcement needs, as warranted.
- assign prosecutors to handle cases from specific geographic areas and to address counter-terrorism problems and violent crime in local communities; and
- develop new technologies to assist state and local law enforcement agencies in crime prevention and training.

The bill PASSED 381-34-17. All 34 “NO” votes were Republicans. Smith voted FOR this bill.


H.RES.223 - Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims.

Passed Unanimous.


H.RES.385 - Recognizing National AmeriCorps Week.

This bill PASSED 346-21-1-64. All “NO” votes were Republicans. Adrian Smith voted FOR it.


H.R.634 - To require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of veterans who became disabled for life while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States.

This coin will be minted for distribution for a limited time, starting January 1, 2010. It’s a $1 Silver coin, with a $10 Surcharge per coin. The coin will be distributed by the Disabled Veterans’ LIFE Memorial Foundation. The proceeds will go to contruct an American Veterans’ Disabled for Life Memorial in Washington DC.

The bill passed UNANIMOUS.

H.R.692 - To amend title 4, United States Code, to authorize the Governor of a State, territory, or possession of the United States to order that the National flag be flown at half-staff in that State, territory, or possession in the event of the death of a member of the Armed Forces from that State, territory, or possession who dies while serving on active duty.

Also known as the Army Specialist Joseph P. Micks Federal Flag Code Amendment Act of 2007, governors call proclaim the flag be flown at half-staff when any state resident, who is a member of the Armed Forces, dies in active duty, and orders that federal buildings in that state comply with that proclamation.

The bill PASSED with only 4 “NO” votes. Those votes were all Republicans.


H.R.1773 - To limit the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to grant authority to motor carriers domiciled in Mexico to operate beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border.

Known as the Safe American Roads Act of 2007, it prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from granting authority to a Mexico-domiciled motor carrier to operate beyond U.S. municipalities and commercial zones on the U.S.-Mexico border, except under a pilot program. Directs the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation to monitor and review, and submit an interim and final report to Congress regarding, the pilot program. Requires the Secretary, not later than 60 days after the termination of the pilot program, to report to Congress on the results of such program.

The bill PASSED 411-3-18. Only 2 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against this bill.


H.RES.404 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1427) to reform the regulation of certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes.

Passed with usual party-line vote.

H.R.1427 Is still being debated, so I will include the summary of activities in next weeks report.


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

FLOOR STATEMENTS

Adrian Smith made no new floor statements this week.

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

BILLS SPONSORED & COSPONSORED

Adrian Smith did not sponsor any new bills this week, leaving his ongoing total at 3. He did put his name on 3 bills as a cosponsor, bringing his total to 50:


H.RES.399 - Supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day.

This was introduced by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, with Reps Lee Terry and Adrian Smith listed as cosponsors, on 5/14/2007. The text of the bill isn’t much longer than the title. Most people love and honor their mothers, but this is almost like a filler for their numbers. It’s a resolution, nothing more.


H.R.1042 - To extend trade promotion authority.

Known as the Trade Promotion Authority Extension and Enhancement Act of 2007, the CRS Summary states it:

Amends the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 to extend the President's authority until July 1, 2011 (or until July 1, 2016, and July 1 of each fifth year thereafter if the President extends such authority and the Congress approves) to enter into trade agreements with foreign countries whose tariff and nontariff policies unduly burden or restrict U.S. trade or adversely affects the U.S. economy. Extends trade authorities procedures (congressional approval) to bills implementing trade agreements entered into during the five-year period beginning on July 1, 2011, and during each five-year period thereafter, unless Congress disapproves after April 1, and before July 1, of the year in which any such five-year period begins.

This bill was introduced clear back on 2/14/2007. Smith just added his name on 5/15/2007.


H.R.1552 - To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to authorize physical therapists to evaluate and treat Medicare beneficiaries without a requirement for a physician referral, and for other purposes.

This bill was introduced clear back on 3/15/2007. Smith just added his name on 5/17/2007.

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

BY THE NUMBERS

The updated statistics for Smith as of the end of this week:

- Sponsor of 3 Bills.

- Cosponsor of 50 Bills.

- As far as number of bills, Smith is ranked #47 out of the 53 Freshman members of Congress. Only 6 others have fewer bills sponsored or cosponsored than he does.

- The average number of bills sponsored/cosponsored in the 110th Freshman class is 100.26, and the median number is 86. Compare to Smith’s 53 bills.


Of Smith’s Bills:

- 6 are resolutions that would never become actual laws (ceremonial).
- 8 are bills calling for different tax cuts on a very small number of Americans (generally the richer people).
- 2 different balanced budget amendments (that always fail, as at least 2 are introduced each congress).
- 12 are Ideological (as in, they get one-issue PAC’s to give money, but never have a chance of passing).
- 2 deal with veterans’ issues.
- 6 calls for extending Medicaid coverage for different drug and medical providers (while this may or may not benefit seniors, it more than benefits all the pharmaceutical and medical PAC’s that gave Smith a LOT of money).
- 1 removes federal retirement benefits for certain offenses.
- 1 deals with methamphetamine labs and clean up.
- 4 benefit big businesses directly.
- 1 provides college infrastructure grants through the IRS.
- 9 have direct impacts on Nebraska, with 4 dealing with communications issues.
- 1 civil air patrol bill

The Top Ten Freshmen in Congress are(Name, Party-State, Sponsor, Cosponsor):

1. Stephen Cohen, D-TN, 5, 292
2. Phil Hare, D-IL, 2, 244
3. Mazie Hirono, D-HI, 6, 212
4. Keith Ellison, D-MN, 1, 193
5. Hank Johnson, D-GA, 5, 188
6. Betty Sutton, D-OH, 8, 164
7. Chris Carney, D-PA, 10, 140
8. Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH, 2, 148
9. Yvette Clark, D-NY, 0, 148
10. Patrick Murphy, D-PA, 5, 131


There have been 383 votes so far, of which, 113 can be considered unanimous (less than 10 voting against the outcome, quorums included). Of the contested votes (270 total), Smith has voted:

- 94% of the time with Republicans (253 votes)
- 12% of the time with Democrats (33 votes)
- 17% of the time, the way he voted was also the outcome of the vote (46 votes)

Also, of those 270 votes:

- Republicans have voted 16% of the time with Democrats (43 votes)
- Republican majority vote has matched the outcome 21% of the time (56 votes)
- Democrats votes have matched the outcome 95% of the time (257 votes)
- Smith has voted 3 times with the Democrats against the Republican Majority vote.
- Smith has voted in the Minority of the Republican party 17 times.

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

I'm adding this video of Rep. Barney Franks. It was a speech he gave on the House Floor about the 3rd week of April. The bill he was speaking of doesn't matter. It's his response to all the games the Republicans have been playing with parlimentiary motions: