This last week before the recess really showed Adrian Smith in his true form: A follower who will do whatever his party leaders and biggest contributors tell him to do, even at the expense of his own constituents. So what exactly did he do? Here’s a list for you to summarize all the massive amounts of data to follow:
- Voted against continuing health insurance coverage for children who’s parents work and make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but can’t afford insurance for their children. That would have ended coverage for 45,000 of Nebraska’s children. He did so because of cuts in the Medicare Advantage program. A program that has not proven cost effective, and is a nod to the insurance and drug manufactors.
- Voted against tax credits for renewable energy because loopholes were closed that ended much of the ongoing corporate welfare to the Big Oil companies during a time of record profits. It's a tax credit that benefits Nebraska’s ethanol industry.
- Voted against a maximum continuous deployment period for troops of one year, as well as minimum rest periods between deployments. There were exceptions made for the President to waive those in times of emergency, as well as in cases where troops volunteer for redeployment.
- Voted against ensuring that workers receive fair, prevailing wages on federal contracts that are granted to build renewable energy systems. If that NO vote had prevailed, it would have prevented those in the Third District working on building any ethanol plants that receive federal funds from being assured a fair wage.
- He voted against fair wages for working women. When the Supreme Court ruled against a woman that filed suit for receiving wages less than her male counterparts, they dismissed it saying she filed too late. The bill that was submitted clarified and protected this timeline for women in the future.
- He voted against an earmark to continue research into protecting grapes from disease, among other things, to ensure a better crop. He sided with those saying it would benefit the wine industry. He forgot that there is a growing number of small, independent wine producers in Nebraska that would benefit from this research.
- He voted against the energy bill, which contains so many benefits through wind and ethanol promotion for Nebraska.
- Smith joined in with his party to play petty, political stalling games all week by voting for every motion to adjourn (except the one time a Democrat moved for it), and voting against the approval of the journal every time.
Finally, Smith failed to even vote for the Agriculture Appropriations Bill because, after a confusing vote, he did what his party leadership told him to do and WALKED OUT. They threw a major temper tantrum when there was some confusion, and chose to walk instead of staying and working things out. He then joined the same leadership to cosponsor a resolution to try and bring the bill back to the floor.
The night of the walkout, there was confusion as to whether or not a motion to recommit had passed or failed. Votes were being changed, the board was fluctuating, and there was chaos. The Republicans felt they had won the vote, but the board changed to that not being the case. The House Majority Leader (a Democrat) moved to vacate that vote so the Republicans could redo it and the vote would be without controversy. They wouldn’t accept. They demanded that they won. They then walked out. In the ensuing votes, the Democrats agreed to redo the vote, but with the Republicans leaving (and all but a few of them choosing to stay), they redid the motion to recommit that then failed on a voice vote. They then passed the bill.
In cosponsoring the new resolution, Smith joined with his party leadership saying they wanted to have a redo to add the provision that illegals don't have certain rights (that are already on the books, by the way). They had their chance to have a “Do Over”, but they walked out. They demanded it again well after the fact.
After all that, he still managed to miss another vote on the Water Resource Development Act. Why? Well, he said he was at a meeting. The interesting thing was he was there voting 8 minutes before on another vote, and this vote took place around 10:30 IN THE EVENING. Why would someone have a meeting that late at night?
Adrian Smith spent the entire week never once speaking up on any issue. Not one statement on the record. He let his party leadership do everything for him. He never showed any kind of leadership of his own, and he took positions that were not of benefit for the people of Nebraska.
ROLL CALL VOTES
Because of all the maneuvers and games that were played during this last week before the August break, I’ll be showing the votes in order (with the exception of a few that really have little bearing and will be shown last). Please bear with the length, but it was necessary so you had a true understanding of everything that happened.
JULY 31
H.RES.581 - Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3161, Agriculture Appropriations for FY 2008.
This was setting forth the rules for debate of another appropriations bill. As usual, the Republicans all voted against it, the Democrats for it. The resolution passed.
But before the bill could be presented for debate, a vote was demanded on the previous day’s journal.
The Journal was APPROVED on a vote of 214-210-8.
FOR: 204 Democrats, 10 Republicans
AGAINST: 23 Democrats, 187 Republicans
NO VOTE: 3 Democrats, 5 Republicans
Smith voted AGAINST approval.
H.R.3161 - Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
Departments covered under this appropriations bill:
- Department of Agriculture
- Food and Drug Administration
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Farm Credit Administration
Debate started, and after an hour, Rep. Price made a “motion to rise”. Doing this at this point in any debate is the same as trying to adjourn and stall or halt all debate on a bill.
Since it was felt a quorum was not present, one had to be obtained through a roll call.
A Quorum was found: 389 Present. Smith was listed as Present.
Finding a sufficient number present, a vote was taken on Price’s motion.
The Motion that the Committee Rise FAILED 172-231-34. Only 12 Republicans joined the Democrats to vote AGAINST the motion. Smith voted FOR it. In other words, he was prepared to stop or stall the bill.
An Amendment was then put up for consideration.
H.AMDT.725 - An amendment by Rep. Phil Gingrey - To reduce the appropriation for the Office of the Secretary by $50,050, or 1%.
As Republicans began speaking, they decided to start talking about SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), which was not a part of this current appropriations bill, and was to be debated later in the week on another bill. Several parliamentary inquiries were made by Democrats that it was a violation of the rules to not confine remarks to the bill on hand. The Republicans said they were connected. The Chair ruled their must be an ongoing nexus established. The Republicans again focused on SCHIP. There were more objections. They also were complaining they were not given enough time to debate everything they wanted to debate. They were decrying fowl tactics by Democrats. In doing so, they were using fowl tactics to create chaos. Time then expired.
Appropriations Chair David Obey then stood and commented on the ongoing tactics:
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California pointed out, we have now probably expended in terms of salaries for the clerks, the cost of air conditioning for the Chamber, the cost of lights for the Chamber, we have probably now expended more money than would be saved by this $50,000 amendment; and so what I think this amendment is about is something very different than in fact we are hearing from our friends.
What I think this is about is that, last year, if you take a look at the appropriation bills that have been considered so far this year, last year, approximately 86 hours were spent debating those bills. This year, we have had about 152 hours expended debating the same bills. Why is that?
Last year, there were 144 amendments offered by those on this side of the aisle then in the minority. This year, the now minority has offered 339 amendments. So it is obvious to me what is going on.
I don't think this debate is at all about either fiscal responsibility or the fact that the amendment purports to save $50,000. This is simply a device which allows the sponsors and the supporters to tie up the time of the House and eventually deny this House the ability to get its work done before it leaves for the August recess. That is what this is about. And all of the rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, I think every Member of the House knows that is what it is about.
From the beginning, it has been apparent that there are a small number of Members on the other side of the aisle who would prefer to engage in filibuster by amendment, no matter what that means in terms of the quality of the debate, no matter what that means in terms of the inconvenience to Members, and no matter what that means in terms of the ability of this House to finish its business in a timely fashion.
So let me simply say we will hear a lot of rhetoric tonight about fiscal responsibility. Keep in mind what the real debate is, and we will give all of that rhetoric the attention that it deserves, which is very little.
The debate continued with a new amendment, this one actually amending the Gingrey Amendment.
H.AMDT.726 - An amendment by Rep. Patrick McHenry - to reduce the appropriation for the Office of the Secretary by $100,100.
Once offered to amend the Gingrey amendment, Republicans again went back to the SCHIP bill. They complained they had little notice for the hearing, and starting arguing that. Democrats stood up and stated that all notice was done according to the rules.
Then Rep. Barton of Texas wanted to go back to remarks on the original Gingrey amendment. In doing so, he wanted to start a colloquy with Rep. Dingell regarding the SCHIP, and claiming to not receive enough notice.
Rep. Obey stood up and raised a point of order. Rep. Barton wanted to argue Energy and Commerce Committee rules. Rep. Obey pointed out it was an Agriculture Appropriations bill being debated, NOT the rules of a committee. You know, to get the full feel of this argument and pure STUBBORNESS of one of several delays used on this debate by the Republicans, you really need to read this transcript for yourself. It almost reminds me of a Cindy Sheehan style sit-in protest, where the Republicans are decrying their oppression and chanting “We shall overcome“:
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin will state his point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thought that Members were required to be addressing the matter at hand.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The Members who are recognized should confine their remarks to the issue that is being debated. The gentleman from Texas may proceed.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I understand the rules, Mr. Chairman. I am going to try to comply with the rules. I support the Gingrey amendment just like I supported the McHenry amendment. I also believe that we should use as close an approximation of an open and fair process on the SCHIP reauthorization as we are using on the pending appropriations process; and I am informed by my staff that the SCHIP bill, which was 465 pages in length, was presented to minority staff at 11:36 p.m. last Tuesday evening; and I would like the distinguished chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee to indicate to me if that is a true statement.
Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly willing to hear the gentlemen debate this matter when their bill is on the floor. But the last time I looked, I thought an appropriations bill was on the floor; and, just for the heck of it, I would like us to stick to the rules and consider the matter before us. We have spent 2 hours on a nonsensical, symbolic amendment that has very little relationship to the bill; and it seems to me this House is getting considerably far afield.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. The gentleman who sought the time must confine his remarks to the pending question. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I understand the rules that we are operating under, and I am totally supportive of Mr. Gingrey's amendment on the Ag appropriations bill. I listened with interest to my committee chairman, Mr. Dingell, earlier when he rose to speak about the process in the Energy and Commerce Committee. He didn't talk about the Gingrey amendment. He didn't talk about anything dealing with the Ag appropriations. So I am simply trying to get some information from him about what he spoke of, and I think the rules of the Energy and Commerce Committee require a 36-hour advance notice, and we weren't given that 36-hour notice on that bill.
Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas will suspend.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. And I think the chairman knows it.
Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am not under the impression that the rules of the Energy and Commerce Committee are now before the House. I am under the impression that the Agriculture appropriations bill is before the House, and it would be nice if we could focus our discussion on that.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin stated a point of order, and he is correct. The gentleman from Texas, who has been recognized, must confine his remarks to the pending question. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy. Mr. Chairman, I think the majority is embarrassed to have the question answered. I think the majority knows that we were not given the bill within the 36-hour window. We weren't even given it within a 12-hour window.
Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin will state his point of order.
Mr. OBEY. The gentleman is not discussing the matter at hand.
The CHAIRMAN. Once again, the gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. The gentleman from Texas must confine his remarks to the pending question. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, I need an answer to this question, and I am at a loss about how to get that answer. I listened to my chairman explain his position. I would hope that we could give him a chance to respond to a few simple questions about what he just told the body. So my question is, did we get the bill within 36 hours?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, point of order. The gentleman can raise any question he wants with the gentleman from Michigan but not on an appropriation bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. The gentleman from Texas must confine his remarks to the pending question.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Is it within the rules of the bill that is under consideration now to go back and ask that previous comments be read to the body to see if they were germane to the pending question? Is that within the rules?
The CHAIRMAN. That is not in order.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is not in order or it is in order?
The CHAIRMAN. A Member wishing to address the propriety of those remarks must have been timely. The gentleman's present request would not be timely. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my distinguished chairman, who is the dean of the House, who has served in this body over 50 years, who will go down in its history as one of the most effective Members of the entire 200-plus years of the Congress, if the current process that we are apparently going to use on the SCHIP bill once we get through the Agriculture appropriation bill----
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, point of order. This is not a matter pertaining to the subject at hand.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. With all due respect, I think that does pertain to the subject at hand.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin have a point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do. The gentleman is not addressing the matter at hand. This is not the United States Senate where anything is possible.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from Texas must confine his remarks to the pending question. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to yield to my distinguished chairman for any remarks he cares to make. How are the Tigers doing in the American League? What are his plans for the August break? If we can't talk about substantive issues because the majority is embarrassed to hear the answer, maybe we can discuss something else.
Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Perhaps the gentleman can tell us what the name of the Secretary of Agriculture is. That would at least get us close at hand to the subject we are supposed to be debating.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, it's not DAVID OBEY. I am going to yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, out of respect for the chairman's courtesies.
But that still didn’t end the stonewalling. One after another Republican stood up to argue about spending increases, tax increases, and went right back to the SCHIP program, along with Medicare Advantage. One after another Democrat stood up and raised points of order that these discussions had nothing to do with the amendments and the bill being discussed. Each time that was sustained. The Democrats then started pointing out these amendments had been accepted, yet the Republicans kept standing and keeping up their assault. It’s clear in reading the transcript that tensions were starting to boil. Finally on a point of order, the decision of the chair was appealed, and a recorded vote was demanded:
On the Motion to Sustain the Ruling of the Chair, the ruling was sustained on a party-line vote of 220-178-39. All but one Republican voted AGAINST the motion.
Smith joined with his party on this issue.
Because of the constant back and forth, the House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made a Motion to Rise, which would halt the debate for the day.
On Motion That The Committee Rise, it PASSED 235-153-49, with 16 Republicans joining all the Democrats that were present to vote FOR it.
Smith voted AGAINST the Motion.
So you see, they wanted to stop debate, so they stonewalled preventing real debate, and then when the Majority decided things were not going anywhere, the Republicans, Smith right in with them, decided they just had to be contrary.
They were little kids having a temper tantrum and they didn’t want to quit at that point.
Hoyer then spoke up:
The Agriculture appropriation bill is on the floor. Mr. Obey, myself, and Mr. Boehner had very long discussions about how we would consider the appropriation bills. On or about June 14, it was June 12 and 13 that we really discussed, we came to agreement. We came to agreement on how we would consider the appropriation bills, essentially the time frame that would be accorded to those bills, that we would have open rules on the appropriation bills, and that we would come to only unanimous consent agreements on the constraint of debate.
Furthermore, we agreed that we would offer a rule the Monday following June 14 to provide for a point of order on items added to appropriation bills. I believe that I have, as leader, done everything I said I would do.
On Monday, I offered a unanimous consent, a request to add to our rules the point of order that the minority felt important to protect its rights. That unanimous consent, obviously, was not objected to. It is now part of our rules.
Since that time, on 10 appropriation bills we have had open rules, as we said we would. The agreement, as you have heard me state before, contemplated that you would give us, on the minority side, essentially the same unanimous consents that we gave to you in an election year 1 year ago.
Notwithstanding that understanding, we have taken 50 hours longer to consider the appropriation bills since that time than we took last year when you were in charge and Mr. Obey gave the unanimous consent. You've heard me complain about that because I thought that was not consistent with the agreement.
Notwithstanding that, we have proceeded on this floor with open rules, and the Agriculture appropriation bill has come to the floor with an open rule. The Agriculture appropriation bill has been on the floor for some, 4, 4 1/2 hours, and we are not really considering the substance of the Agriculture appropriation bill.
I know there is upset on your side of the aisle, I say to my friends on the minority side, about another bill. But there was nothing in the agreement that said if you were upset with another bill that the agreement reached between Mr. Boehner and I and Mr. Obey would not be honored. There was nothing that said that if we're angry about another bill that we will disrupt the appropriations process.
And, therefore, it is my perception, and I think, based upon the facts that everyone in this country has observed over the last number of hours, that my perception is the agreement has not been honored. I regret that.
I hope that those of you on the minority side who have dealt with me through the years believe that I try to treat one another as I want to be treated by them. I regret that we are now going to go to the Rules Committee on the appropriations bills. We will go to the Rules Committee on the Agriculture appropriation bill. We will go to the Rules Committee on the Defense bill. We will go to the Rules Committee on each and every other bill.
That does not mean I expect you to sit back and simply say, well, that's fine. I expect that we will not have a happy time over the next coming days. But I also believe that you have not left me or my party with an alternative, if, in fact, we are to proceed with the people's business. We have disagreements. That's fair. Amendments expressing those agreements offered on this floor is fair. Demanding votes on those amendments and on those bills is fair and what the American people expect. What the American people, in my opinion, do not expect is for us to simply do nothing, to simply circle one another, yell and scream at one another, point fingers at one another and not proceed with their business.
We believe very strongly that children ought to have health care. I believe you think children ought to have health care. We have a difference of opinion as to how we accomplish that objective. That is fair. What is not fair, from our perspective, is to simply disallow the House to proceed to do its business, to have its disagreements, to make its votes, to express its will. And so I say to you that we will complete the agenda that I have set forth. I hope we pass all those bills. If we don't pass them, so be it. But if we pass, or whether they fail, we will consider them during this sitting, before we recess for our summer break. I regret that, but it is the only alternative with which I think I am left if, as majority leader of this House, I'm going to facilitate the accomplishment of the people's business.
AUGUST 1st
The next day, the House began a new session at 10AM. At 10:02AM, an objection was made to accepting the previous days journal, and a vote was therefore scheduled for later in the date. Then, 1 minute debates were started, where House members can step up and make 1-minute statements on any subject.
Suddenly, at 10:35AM, Rep. Tom Price of Georgia made a motion for the House to Adjourn for the day. This would further delay any further debate on bills and further delay their ability to go on break. Republicans were still angry and ready for a fight.
The Motion to Adjourn FAILED 177-231-24. There were 16 Republicans that joined the Democrats to vote against the motion.
Smith voted FOR the motion.
The vote on the previous day’s journal was then held.
The Journal was APPROVED on a vote of 214-189-29, nearly party line, with Smith voting AGAINST approval. That vote ended at 11:11AM.
At 11:12AM, a motion was again made by Republicans to Adjourn.
The motion to Adjourn FAILED on a vote of 154-236-42. There were 30 Republicans that joined the Democrats to vote against this motion.
Smith voted FOR the motion.
H.RES.594 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3162) to amend titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the children's health insurance program, to improve beneficiary protections under the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP program, and for other purposes.
Here was the reason for this delay. This would set down the rules for debate on the SCHIP bill.
A Motion to Consider the Resolution was made and passed on a party-line vote.
Debate continued, and before the closing statements could be made, Republicans made another motion to Adjourn.
The Motion to Adjourn FAILED on a vote of 172-246-14. There were 25 Republicans that voted with Democrats to defeat the motion.
Smith voted FOR adjournment.
On “Ordering the Previous Question” and the motion to Agree to the Resolution, both votes were party-line.
Smith remained loyal to his party.
H.R.3162 - To amend titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the children's health insurance program, to improve beneficiary protections under the Medicare, Medicaid, and the CHIP program, and for other purposes.
Also known as the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007.
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was first passed in 1997 and signed by President Bill Clinton. The goal of the plan was to provide health insurance coverage for children who’s parents earned too much to qualify them for Medicaid coverage, but didn’t make enough to actually get private insurance and/or didn’t have insurance through an employer. We’re talking about trying to provide health care for the children of the working poor.
While providing for expansion of SCHIP, this also made cuts in the Medicare Advantage Program. I previously discussed this program when Adrian Smith decided to defend it.
An Analysis of the Medicare Advantage was done by the Congressional Budget office, and found this program costs 18% more per senior. It’s a program offered by private insurance companies, but results in a greater cost to tax payers. It would be a continuing hand out to the insurance industry, when other options can be found. Keeping it at it’s present level would be an example of Adrian not being fiscally conservative, but rather, keeping campaign contributors happy.
Debate was several hours and got rather contentious over procedural arguments and Republicans again crying about being the oppressed minority.
No amendments were offered to the bill, but a motion was made to Recommit with Instructions. That motion FAILED on a party-line vote.
H R 3162 then PASSED on a vote of 225-204-4.
FOR: 220 Democrats, 5 Republicans
AGAINST: 10 Democrats, 194 Republicans
NO VOTE: 1 Democrat, 3 Republicans
Smith voted AGAINST this bill. In doing so, he voted AGAINST the working poor of the Third District that depend on this program.
A report on SCHIP was released by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a national philanthropy group devoted to improving health and health care. The data in the report was compiled and analyzed by State Health Access Data Assistance Center at the University of Minnesota. It showed that the program provided health care coverage for more than 6 million children. In Nebraska, the program is called Kids Connection, and it currently covers more then 45,000 children. From 1997 to present, the number of children without coverage nationally dropped 23.9 percent.
The report also found that, nationally, the percentage of children who visited a doctor within a 12 month period differed greatly depending on whether or not the child was insured. It found that 90.3 percent of children with insurance visited a doctor at least once in 12 months, whereas only 32.6 percent of uninsured children did.
FURTHER READING:
SCHIP debate takes yucky turn: What compassion?
‘Compassionate' Bush Fails Children on Health: Gene Sperling
------
A motion was then made to convene the next day at 9AM instead of 10AM. The motion PASSED on a vote of 403-15-14.
H.R.3248 - To amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to make technical corrections, and for other purposes.
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, it do so 422-1-9.
The vote took place at 10:17PM.
H.R.1495 - To provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.
This bill had passed with a large majority in April, went to the Senate, then to the Conference Committee.
This was to approve the final version of the bill.
H.R. 1495 was PASSED on a vote of 381-40-11.
Only 40 Republicans voted against it.
The time was 10:25PM.
Smith DID NOT VOTE.
He had the following inserted into the record:
Stated for:
[Begin Insert]
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 790. I was detained in a meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
[End Insert]
Smith had been present at 10:17PM to vote for the previous bill (HR 3248). Even Reps. Fortenberry, Terry, Blunt, Boehner and Canter were present and voting.
What did he do in the 8 minutes between votes that constituted a “meeting” that late at night?
AUGUST 2nd
A new day began - one that would be one of the most dramatic of the week.
H.RES.601 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3159) to mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation for units and members of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces between deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.
On Ordering the Previous Question and Agreeing to the Resolution, once again the resolution was passed on straight party-line votes. Smith, as always, kept his party loyalties front and center.
H.R.3159 - To mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation for units and members of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces between deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.
This is a very good bill that supports the needs of the troops. It‘s also supported by the Veterans for America.
Per the CRS Summary:
Prohibits units and members of the regular Armed Forces from being deployed for Operations Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom (including participation in the NATO International Security Assistance Force (Afghanistan)) unless the period between deployments is equal to or longer than the period of the previous deployment. Expresses the sense of Congress that the optimal minimum period between such deployments should be equal to or longer than twice the period of the previous deployment.
Prohibits units and members of the reserves from being deployed for such Operations (including such NATO participation) if the unit or member has been deployed within three preceding years. Expresses the sense of Congress that units and members of the reserves should not be mobilized continuously for more than one year, and that the optimal minimum period between such deployments should be five years.
Authorizes the: (1) President to waive such limitations after certifying to Congress that the deployment is necessary to meet an operational emergency posing a threat to vital national security interests; or (2) chief of staff of the military department concerned (including the Coast Guard) to waive such limitations with respect to a member who has voluntarily requested mobilization.
The Republicans immediately offered up a motion to Recommit, which failed on a vote of 207-217-1-7, nearly party-line.
The bill then PASSED on a vote of 229-194-3-6.
FOR: 223 Democrats, 6 Republicans
AGAINST: 4 Democrats, 190 Republicans
PRESENT: 3 Republicans
NO VOTE: 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans
Smith voted AGAINST THIS BILL, and in doing so, he voted against the health and the wellbeing of our Armed Forces.
Republicans then called once again for a vote on approving the previous day’s journal.
The Journal was APPROVED on a vote of 232-186-2-12
There were 20 Republicans that joined the Democrats in approving it, while 11 Democrats joined the Republicans in voting against it.
Smith voted AGAINST approving the Journal.
H.RES.599 - Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3161) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
Another set of rules were put forth to continue debating the HR 3161 Agriculture Appropriations bill. Thus began the further building of tensions.
Rep. David Obey got up and spoke about how the minority brought us to this point where they are trying to now get the process moving again. He points out that the President had attacked the Congress that day for not moving faster on getting the appropriations bills moving forward. He also reminded the minority that 86 more hours had been spent on debates on these bills than had been spent the previous year when the Republicans were in control. They had also considered more than twice the number of amendments than during the last session. He states that while Republicans are now decrying what they call “self-executing” amendments in the rules resolution, that the same thing was done by the same Republicans that were crying, and the ones in this rules resolution were either from Republicans or received bi-partisan support from Republicans on the Rule Committee.
The Republicans stood up, however, and still claimed this was all “unprecedented” and that it was “shutting down the process”.
Rep. Obey came back and stated:
We had an understanding with the minority party that these bills would be finished in roughly equivalent time to that which was taken last year. The minority party was so angry about a bill that was going to extend health care to 5 million additional kids they walked away from that agreement, and that's why we are here today.
When the Republicans had ran out their time, and before Democrats could close out their statements, Republican Rep. David Dreier made a motion to Adjourn.
The motion to ADJOURN FAILED on a vote of 165-254-13. All of the FOR votes were Republicans, with 32 Republicans voting NO with the Democrats.
Smith voted FOR Adjournment.
Finally, on Ordering the Previous Question and Agreeing to the Resolution, H. RES. 599 was PASSED, both votes being party-line.
H.R.3161 - Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
Debate then continued on this Appropriation Bill. The first 2 amendments that had been started 2 days before were passed on a voice vote. Then the rest of the amendments all received recorded votes.
H.AMDT.731 - To strike language from the bill prohibiting use of funds by the USDA Chief Financial Officer for "competitive sourcing" activities until the Secretary of Agriculture submits a report on the Department's contracting out policies and budget.
Those for this amendent felt the language in the bill would prevent funds from being spent to conduct public-private competitions, and sought to remove that language. They feel the private sector should always be allowed to complete against the government for federal jobs. It’s a pro-corporation amendment.
Those against this amendment stated it would remove the requirement of the USDA to provide a report on contracting out policies and expenditures, nothing more. Voting against this amendment would be pro-union.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 168-254-15. All the FOR votes were Republicans.
Smith voted FOR the amendment.
H.AMDT.732 - to reduce funds provided in the bill for rural community facilities programs by $6,287,000.
Those for this amendment felt the fund was increased too much and wanted to keep the funds at the same level as the previous appropriations bill.
The program provides funds for the building of community facilities in rurals towns with populations less than 20,000. These are used for health care, public safety and other public services.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 90-337-10. Only 89 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted for it.
Smith voted AGAINST the amendment.
H.AMDT.733 - To reduce funds in the bill for grants to finance broadband transmission in rural areas by $8,910,000.
Those FOR this amendment are opposed in the doubling of funding for rural broadband expansion.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 66-360-11. Only 65 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted for the amendment.
Smith voted AGAINST it.
H.AMDT.734 - To strike section 726 from the bill relating to importation of prescription drugs.
Personal use 90-day supplies would be allowed from Canada, but the bill prohibits other importations from other countries.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 146-283-8.
Smith voted FOR the amendment.
H.AMDT.735 - To prohibit use of funds in the bill to apply labor standards under the Davis-Bacon Act to contracts for construction of renewable energy systems.
The purpose of this amendment would be to eliminate the requirment of paying prevailing wages in, say, the construction of an ethanol plant with federal funds. Essentially, it would mean that those contracted could cut their costs by paying a lot less for their laborers wages. It’s another pro-business amendment at the expense of the workers.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 152-278-7. All the YES votes were Republicans.
Smith voted FOR the amendment.
In other words, he doesn’t want workers building new ethanol plants that receive federal funding to get paid fair, prevailing wages.
H.AMDT.736 - To reduce discretionary funding in the bill by 5.5% across-the-board.
The same amendment offered on each bill, to bring the total funds to the level of the previous year.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 146-284-7. Only 3 Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for it.
Smith voted FOR the amendment.
H.AMDT.737 - To prohibit use of funds for the Catfish Pathogen Genomic Project in Auburn, Alabama.
Auburn University is using the funds from this earmark to conduct research into ways to prevent dimished productivity with Catfish. The leading aquaculture industry in the US is catfish. This looks into causes of pollution, ways to increase production, etc. Just like all food-growth industries need research done into way to protect against disease, so does the production of catfish.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 74-357-6. All but 3 of the YES votes were Republicans.
Smith voted FOR the amendment.
H.AMDT.738 - To prohibit use of funds for grape genetics research in Geneva, NY.
This would eliminate $628,843 for the Grape Genetics Program at Cornell University. Those for this amendment feel it is “footing the bill for the wine industry to be competitive.“
Those against this amendment point out the primary goal of genetic research is to reduce losses to crop yield and quality that result from disease, pests and environmental stress, and to improve grape and grape product quality and utilization.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 76-353-8.
Smith voted FOR it.
H.AMDT.739 - To prohibit use of funds for the Alternative Uses of Tobacco (MD) grant.
This amendment would prohibit $400,000 in Federal funds from being used for alternative uses for tobacco research. They feel this research has been supported for too long.
Those opposed to this amendment point out that tobacco naturally produces high-nutrition proteins, industrial raw materials and large amounts of biomass which can be used for renewable energy. “Think if all of the tobacco farms in America could be turned into energy producers, an extraordinarily positive contribution to the economy of our country.”
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 94-337-6.
Smith voted FOR the amendment.
H.AMDT.740 - To prohibit use of funds for the Ruminant Nutrition Consortium (MT, ND, SD, and WY).
Supports of this amendment say it would eliminate $489,000 for ruminant livestock production research, rangeland integration and other livestock resources. They also opposed a sole-source contract to just one entity.
Those opposed to this amendment point out that it’s not sole-sourced, and that four universities would benefit. The research is to develop new methods to add value to common grain and forage crops through the use of ruminant livestock (cattle, sheep and bison). The projects enhance economic return and positively impact the regional environment by integrating rangeland, annual crops, and livestock resources.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 74-355-8.
Smith voted AGAINST the amendment.
What he’s saying is that he’s against research for other crops and farm products in other states, but if it’s something that benefits members of the Cattleman’s Assocation, he’s all for it. Not that I have a problem with him supporting this one. It’s the hypocrisy that really stinks.
H.AMDT.741 - To prohibit the use of funds for the Wood Utilization (OR, MS, NC, MN, ME, MI, ID,TN, AK,WV) grant.
Supports of this amendment say it would cut out $6,371,000 for research into wood utilization. The wood utilization program has received Federal funds since 1985 and has received more than $90 million in appropriations.
Those opposed state the wood utilization consortium is made up of 10 universities in 10 different States around the country with varying missions. These programs make the furniture industry more competitive in the global economy. There have also been products that have come out that protect troops in Iraq, as well as the Coast Guard and Army.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 68-363-6.
Smith voted FOR it.
-----
After that last amendment, a Motion to Recommit was offered up. The instructions would be to adopt the following amendment:
Mr. Lewis of California moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3161, to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the House promptly with an amendment that:
(1) Prohibits any funds in the act (including grant funds) from being used to employ an alien who is not authorized to be employed in the United States; and
(2) Prohibits any funds in the act for rental housing assistance programs to provide assistance to an alien not authorized to receive such assistance pursuant to 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Those for the motion to recommit stated it would add in safeguards to prevent illegal aliens from benefiting. Those opposed stated that “promptly” actually takes the bill from the floor without reaching the question of passage. They also pointed out that nothing in this bill would be a benefit for illegal aliens as current law covers that, and it is unnecessary.
Then the chaos began in full.
A parliamentary inquiry was raised on the time for the vote. Rep. Barton asked if unanimous consent could be requested for a 5-minute, rather than a 15-minute vote. The chair ruled that the request could not be entertained without proper notice. There was questioning as to what actually was proper notice. Then Rep. Bilbray raised a parliamentary inquiry, asking why this amendment couldn’t just be accepted and brought back the next morning at 9AM “so the American people could be assured that illegal aliens would not get this benefit”. The Speaker ruled against this inquiry, referencing Deschler's Precedents, volume 7, chapter 23, section 32.25, which provides for it to come back without privilege.
The vote then began, and pursuant to the rules, reduced electronic voting to 5 minutes minimum.
As the vote was coming to an end, it was virtually neck and neck. The Speaker Pro Tempore waited until the number of members present was up on the screen, and gaveled it closed. The screen had said 214-214, which as a tie would mean the motion failed. However, it turned out that changes were still being entered by hand. Members can turn in vote changes to the “well”, and the House Clerk staff announce and enter the changes. So, at about he same time he was calling the vote, one had been entered, changing it to 215-213 in favor of the motion. The floor erupted with Republicans screaming and yelling “shame, shame, shame!” over and over.
But while all this is happening, several changes were still being entered:
Representatives Space, Lampson, Mitchell, McNerney and Gillibrand were changing their votes from “yea” to “nay”.
Representatives Bean, Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, and Mario Diaz-Balart were changing their votes from “nay” to “yea”.
Because of the chaoes, and confusion over the vote, the House Majority Leader stood and made a motion to try and vacate and redo the vote. House Minority Leader Boehner objected:
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the vote that we have just taken.
Mr. BOEHNER. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the previous vote was taken.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair first will announce the result. The Chair prematurely announced that the motion was rejected on a tie vote of 214-214. After the cards already submitted in the well were entered in the computer, the result was the same, albeit by a different total, 212-216. The motion is not adopted.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the previous motion to recommit failed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX this will be a 5-minute vote.
Mr. BOEHNER (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, I move to adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the minority leader that that motion is not proper at this time because we are in a vote on the motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to recommit with the previous question ordered to passage without other intervening motion. The only reason it is not on the board is that the machine is down.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that the vote is on the motion to reconsider.
What was happening at that point was that the Republicans decided to get up and walk out. They tried to disrupt the process, and pretty much achieved that goal by most of them leaving the chamber and not returning. They were crying dirty tactics, but Hoyer had tried to correct the mistake right away. They didn’t care. And the machine displays decided to go down right then, so the vote couldn’t be seen.
On the Motion to Recommit, the official first vote was 212-216-5, with all the Republicans being joined by 14 Democrats to vote for the motion. It failed.
However, on the Motion to Reconsider (which would vacate and do a new vote if it passed), the vote was 238-12-55-127:
FOR: 223 Democrats, 15 Republicans
AGAINST: 4 Democrats, 8 Republicans
PRESENT: 55 Republicans
NO VOTE: 3 Democrats, 124 Republicans.
Adrian Smith WALKED OUT prior to this vote as he is listed as a “No Vote”.
The Motion to Recommit was again made, and failed on a voice vote that time because almost all of the Republicans were GONE, including Adrian Smith.
The Agriculture Appropriations bill was then PASSED on a vote of 237-18-13-165.
FOR: 226 Democrats, 11 Republicans
AGAINST: 3 Democrats, 15 Republicans
PRESENT: 13 Republicans
NO VOTE: 2 Democrats, 163 Republicans
Again, Adrian Smith was a NO VOTE, which essentially was a vote AGAINST the bill. A bill VITAL to the Third District.
And while he did what his party leadership told him to do, some key Republicans stayed and did their jobs. Specifically, Rep. Jeff Flake, who keeps putting up all the amendments to remove earmarks; and Rep. Jerry Moran of Kansas.
FURTHER COVERAGE OF THE WALKOUT: Partisan tensions boil over in Congress
AUGUST 3rd
When the House came back together the next day, the first thing that Majority Leader Hoyer did was offer a resolution to be submitted to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct:
Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall immediately review the regularity of events surrounding the vote on the motion to recommit on H.R. 3161, which occurred on August 2, 2007, and report back to the House.
Hoyer then spoke of the events and tried to put himself in the shoes of the minority. He felt this resolution to check into the events would begin to correct the situation.
Then Rep. McNulty, who had been the Speaker Pro Tempore, got up and apologized for how things went down. He apologized for calling the vote before all the vote changes in the well had been entered. He’s been in the House since 1989 and has a reputation for being fair and impartial.
Of course, Minority Leader Boehner had to stand and went back to talking about broken promises and the SCHIP issues. He also felt the resolution was premature, and he didn’t feel the Ethics Committee was the way to go. Hoyer agreed to withdraw and speak about it further with him.
There was another disruption then. A motion was made to adjourn, and a roll call vote was started. However, the problems with the machines from the night before had not been resolved. It took nearly an hour to argue over what to do. The Republicans wanted a hand count through quorum. Hoyer moved that the House go ahead and adjourn, and to vacate the vote. Then the technicians would work on the problem. Finally, that idea did prevail.
They reconvened at 4pm, and the almost immediately, Republicans moved to adjourn AGAIN.
The Motion to ADJOURN FAILED on a vote of 180-237-15.
Smith, as usual, voted to Adjourn.
H.RES.600 - Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.
Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of Friday, August 3, 2007, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating to the following measures:
(1) The bill (H.R. 3087) to require the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
(2) A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain electronic surveillance.
(3) A bill to authorize additional funds for emergency repairs and reconstruction of the Interstate I-35 bridge located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, that collapsed on August 1, 2007, to waive the $100,000,000 limitation on emergency relief funds for those emergency repairs and reconstruction, and for other purposes.
The Resolution was PASSED on a party-line vote. Democrats FOR, Republicans AGAINST.
H.R.3311 - To authorize additional funds for emergency repairs and reconstruction of the Interstate I-35 bridge located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, that collapsed on August 1, 2007, to waive the $100,000,000 limitation on emergency relief funds for those emergency repairs and reconstruction, and for other purposes.
This bill passed with a unanimous vote.
A vote was then demanded for approving the previous day’s journal.
The JOURNAL was APPROVED on a near party-line vote of 216-199-17.
Smith voted AGAINST it.
Rep. John Boehner then offered a resolution that blamed the Democrats for being at fault for the previous day. Rep. Hoyer then stood up and talked about how they had earlier agreed to meet, but that hadn’t even had a chance to happen. Now Boehner was playing a trick by offering his own resolution after he had asked Hoyer to withdraw his.
Bottom line: The Majority was doing everything properly to try and get things moving again and the Republicans continued to have temper tantrums and stall. The resolution was agreed to, but with the preambles full of blame removed completely.
H.R.3356 - To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain electronic surveillance.
This would give the President procedures for warrantless wiretapping, but would expire in 6 months. This prevents the Democrats from being accused of being weak and not doing something about this issue prior to going on vacation for a month.
The bill PASSED on a vote of 218-207-8, nearly party-line.
Smith voted AGAINST it.
The Senate version came through later....
S.1927 - A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other purposes.
The Senate version of the FISA bill passed as the final version on a vote of 227-183-23.
Smith voted FOR that version.
FURTHER READING:
Persistence paid off in fight to update spy law. Democrats will try again to win battle with new bill in September
Tapped out: Snooping law is bad legislation
The Need to Know
Yet again, the Democrats roll over
H.RES.612 - Raising a question of the privileges of the House.
Boehner then stepped up. Again. This time with a new resolution.
This was to try and censure Rep. Murtha, because when he was acting as Speaker Pro Tempore, and was asked how many members rose to request a recorded vote, he replied: “It is up to the chair. Let me tell you this, the vote will show that the approval would be approved by the House as it has been.''.
Basically, because Murtha used more “normal” wording, he wanted to censure Murtha. But the fact is that the Chair does have discretion to determine the number the arose as being sufficient. What he did was proper. They just didn’t like how he said it.
It’s petty.
Rep. Hoyer got up, said “Enough is enough”, which met with loud round of applause. He then made a motion to table the resolution.
Boehner made a point of order and parliamentary inquiry and said that because of that statement, Hoyer was engaging in debate and they had a right then to a one-hour debate on the matter. The Speaker said that the Chair had not ruled yet that the resolution constituted a question of privilege. A vote was called for on the motion to table. Here’s a video of the event:
The Motion to table PASSED on a vote of 211-178-12-31.
Adrian Smith voted AGAINST tabling the motion.
Being late in the date (around 9:30PM), Hoyer then made a motion to ADJOURN for the day.
The Motion to Adjourn PASSED on a vote of 270-121-41.
Smith voted AGAINST Adjournment - probably because the Republican leadership did so, and it was a Democrat that made a motion.
AUGUST 4th
The House met again on Saturday morning. Once again the Republicans moved to Adjourn right away.
The Motion to Adjourn FAILED on a vote of 136-246-50.
Smith voted FOR Adjournment.
H.RES.615 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3221) moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure, and for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2776) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.
On Ordering the Previous Question and Agreeing to the Resolution, it passed on party-line votes.
H.R.3221 - Moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure.
This is the energy bill. It provides for what direction the US is going to start taking when it comes to energy use, technology, research, etc.
There were 23 amendments. Of those, 18 passed by voice vote, and 1 was withdrawn. The remaining 4 had roll call votes.
H.AMDT.748 - To require electric suppliers, other than governmental entities and rural electric cooperatives, to provide 15 percent of their electricity using renewable energy resources by the year 2020. Allows 4 percent of the requirement to be satisfied with electricity efficiency measures.
The big providers are going to be nudged toward renewable energy, but the rural electric co-ops will be exempt.
The amendment PASSED on a vote of 220-190-28. There were 188 Democrats and 32 Republicans that voted for it.
Smith voted AGAINST the amendment.
H.AMDT.751 - To repeal the availability of Federal eminent domain authority for use by companies permitted by FERC to construct or modify transmission lines within National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors. In place of this, the amendment would amend section 216(e) of the Federal Power Act to require permitted companies to proceed in accordance with state law.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 169-245-24.
Smith voted AGAINST it.
H.AMDT.755 - To provide a sense of the Congress to recognize and support large and small scale conventional hydropower.
This Amendment PASSED 402-9-26.
Smith supported it.
H.AMDT.764 - To prohibit any Federal agency, including any office of the legislative branch, from acquiring a light duty motor vehicle or medium duty motor vehicle that is not a low greenhouse gas emitting vehicle.
Time to start turning the government “green”.
The amendment PASSED on a vote of 218-196-23.
Smith voted AGAINST this amendment.
-------------
A motion was again made to recommit with instructions.
The motion FAILED on a vote of 169-244-20.
Smith voted FOR it.
H R 3221 then PASSED on a vote of 241-172-20.
FOR: 215 Democrats, 26 Republicans
AGAINST: 9 Democrats, 163 Republicans
NO VOTE: 7 Democrats, 13 Republicans
Smith voted AGAINST the energy bill.
Many aspects would greatly benefit the Third District.
FURTHER READING:
Critiques of House energy bill
--------
H.RES.623 - Raising a question of the privileges of the House.
John Boehner then had to get up and raise yet another ruckus. This new resolution was over the fact that Hoyer said “Enough is enough” the previous day and managed to table the resolution. Because the record didn’t show that statement, he also felt it was wrong. He now wanted to censure Rep. Tauscher of California, who was the acting Speaker Pro Tempore.
A motion was made to table it, and a roll call vote was held.
The motion to table PASSED on a party-line vote, with Smith joining in with his party to vote against it.
H.R.2776 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.
This is also known as the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007. It extends tax credits for renewable energy, creates new tax credits for qualified hybrid cars, and for energy efficient appliances. It removes some of the tax benefits previously allowed to be deducted for oil and gas production (basically corporate welfare for big oil). There was also studies on carbon credits authorized.
A motion to recommit was made, that would remove much of the items in the bill.
The Motion FAILED on a vote of 65-346-22. All 65 YES votes were Republicans.
Smith voted FOR the Motion.
H R 2776 was then PASSED on a vote of 221-189-23
FOR: 212 Democrats, 9 Republicans
AGAINST: 11 Democrats, 178 Republicans
NO VOTE: 8 Democrats 15 Republicans
Smith voted AGAINST this bill
In voting against this bill and against the energy bill, he continues his support of big oil, and failure to support renewable energy, and his failure to support the needs of the citizens of the Third District.
The Speaker of the House released this statement on this bill:
Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 Passes
The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 would accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy sources and alternative fuels. The bill provides longterm tax incentives encouraging the production of electricity from renewable energy - including energy derived from wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, river currents, ocean tides, landfill gas, and trash combustion resources. The bill also provides tax incentives for the production of renewable fuels such as cellulosic alcohol, biodiesel and renewable diesel.
To pay for these renewable energy and conservation incentives, the bill repeals approximately $16 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas companies that were given during an era of record profits. To ensure that oil and gas companies are paying their fair share of taxes, it closes a tax loophole that allows big oil and gas companies to game the system by understating their foreign oil and gas extraction income. It also closes the “Hummer” Tax Loophole, fixing a serious mistake that provides an extra tax incentive for businesses buying luxury SUVs, while exempting vehicles that are used for legitimate business purposes.
-------
Finally, last order of this Saturday session was a vote on the previous day’s journal.
The Journal was APPROVED on a party line vote, with Smith voting against it.
AUGUST 5th
Finally, a special Sunday Session, which would be the last of the of the sessions before the break.
H.R.3222 - Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
Another one of the appropriations bills.
There were 15 amendments submitted. Of those, 2 passed and 3 failed by voice vote, 2 were withdrawn, and the remaining 8 had recorded votes.
H.AMDT.769 - To prohibit the uses of funds to be used to perform any cost study pursuant to the provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed exceeds a period of 24 months after initiation of such study with respect to a single function activity or 30 months after initiation of such study for a multi-function activity.
Once again, protecting the private companies by preventing any studies that could show there is no cost effectiveness or savings in using private versus public.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 148-259-30.
Smith voted FOR it.
H.AMDT.770 - To limit the use of funds for the Presidio Trust.
Those for this amendment state it would prohibit $2.5 million from being used to restore the parade ground in the center of the Presidio's Main Post.
The Presidio is one of the oldest continuously used military posts in the nation and has been turned over to the National Park Service.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 94-311-32.
Smith voted FOR it.
H.AMDT.772 - To revise by reducing the amounts made available under the heading "RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION- Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide", and increasing the amounts made available under that heading by $97,200,000.
The purpose of this amendment is to restore missile defense systems that were cut.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 161-249-27.
Smith voted FOR it.
H.AMDT.775 - To prohibit the use of funds to be used to award a grant or contract based on the race, ethnicity, or sex of the grant applicant or prospective contractor.
This amendment would prevent consideration of minorities as a primary reason for accepting a contract. Those opposed to this feared it would affect current contracts with minorities.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 126-284-27.
Smith voted FOR it.
H.AMDT.776 - To prohibit the use of funds under the heading "Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army" may be used for the Paint Shield for Protecting People From Microbial Threats.
This would eliminate an earmark worth approximately $2 Million. Those against it felt it would all go to Sherwin-Williams paint company. That claim was denied, informing the supporters that these contracts are bid through the DOD.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 91-317-29.
Smith voted AGAINST the amendment.
H.AMDT.780 - To prohibit funds to be used for the Doyle Center for Manufacturing Technology.
The Doyle Center is a Defense Department entity, working with suppliers.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 98-312-27.
Smith voted FOR it.
H.AMDT.781 - To prohibit funds to be used for the Lewis Center for Education Research.
This amendment would redirect $3 million from the Lewis Center for Educational Research to the Family Advocacy Programs in the Operations and Maintenance account.
This is a program that helps get science into the classrooms. Per their website,
Global Programs include the Goldstone Apple Valley Radio Telescope (GAVRT) project with NASA, JPL/Caltech in which teachers nationwide access a 34-meter radio antenna via the Internet.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 57-353-27.
Smith voted AGAINST it.
H.AMDT.782 - To prohibit funds to be used for the National Drug Intelligence Center, Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
This amendment would eliminate $39 million in Federal taxpayer dollars for the National Drug Intelligence Center. It’s part of a growing list of intelligence, or so-called "black earmarks."
Those opposed state the NDIC’s analytical tools are among the best in the industry, with missions involving drug trafficking, money laundering, terrorism, fraud in the health care industry, and child abduction. The NDIC document exploitation program analysts are supporting the U.S. Army to facilitate criminal investigations being conducted in Iraq.
NDIC developed computer software. It was recently adopted by the U.S. Army in Iraq to exploit valuable information from captured computers of insurgents and members of al Qaeda.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 109-301-27.
Smith voted FOR it.
---------
The bill then came up for the final vote.
H R 3222 was PASSED on a vote of 395-13-24.
Only 12 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against it.
Smith voted FOR it.
ADDITIONAL VOTES:
H.RES.579 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2831) to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Act occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the disciminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.
For consideration of the bill, the resolution passed on party-line votes, with Smith voting against it.
H.R.2831 - To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.
Known as the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, it’s a result of a Supreme Court decision to reject a claim by Lillie Ledbetter regarding pay discrimination based on her sex. She found out about the time she retired she was getting far less than her male counterparts. The reason for the rejection? They said she hadn’t filed it within 180 days of the offense. The offense would have been when the check was issued. She did file within 180 days of finding out, but it was well after the check had been issued. This bill would correct that problem.
The bill PASSED on a vote of 225-199-9.
It was nearly party-line.
Smith voted AGAINST it.
H.R.2272 - To invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States.
This bill was originally passed by a voice vote in the House, and then passed on unanimous consent in the Senate after it was debated. The Senate asked for an amendment the House disagreed with. This vote would agree to, and instruct, Conferees.
The motion PASSED on a vote of 258-167-7.
Smith voted FOR it.
After that, the final version was submitted to the House for consideration.
H.RES.602 - Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2272) to invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States.
To consider HR 2272 in it’s final version - on ordering the previous question and agreeing to the resolution, it passed on a strict party-line vote, all Republicans voting against the resolution for debate.
When HR 2272 then came up, the House Republicans tried stalling again by making a motion to Recommit the Conference Report with Instructions.
The motion FAILED on a vote of 199-227-6.
Smith voted FOR the motion.
The bill then PASSED on a vote of 367-57-9
FOR: 224 Democrats, 143 Republicans
AGAINST: 1 Democrat, 56 Republicans
NO VOTE: 6 Democrats, 3 Republicans.
Smith, after joining in on all those ongoing attempts to stall, voted FOR the bill.
It goes to the President for his signature.
H.RES.580 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 986) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.
Once again, on ordering the previous question, and agreeing to the resolution, it passed on a party-line vote with Smith voting with his party to try and defeat it.
H.R.986 - To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.
A motion was made to recommit this bill, which FAILED on a near party-line vote of 200-225-7.
The bill then PASSED on a vote 253-172-7
FOR: 229 Democrats, 24 Republicans
AGAINST: 172 Republicans
NO VOTE: 1 Democrat, 6 Republicans
Smith voted AGAINST it.
H.R.176 - To authorize the establishment of educational exchange and development programs for member countries of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).
Shirley A. Chisholm United States-Caribbean Educational Exchange Act
This bill PASSED on a vote of 371-55-6. Smith voted FOR it.
S.1 - A bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process.
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
The bill PASSED on a vote of 411-8-13. Smith voted FOR it.
It’s now cleared for the President to sign.
THE REMAINING BILLS passed on unanimous or near unanimous votes:
H.R.2750 - To require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
H.R.180 - To require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies, and for other purposes.
H.R.2347 - A bill to authorize State and local governments to direct divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with investments of $20,000,000 or more in Iran's energy sector, companies that sell arms to the Government of Iran, and financial institutions that extend $20,000,000 or more in credit to the Government of Iran for 45 days or more, and for other purposes.
H.R.957 - To amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to expand and clarify the entities against which sanctions may be imposed.
H.R.2722 - To restructure the Coast Guard Integrated Deepwater Program, and for other purposes.
H.R.3311 - To authorize additional funds for emergency repairs and reconstruction of the Interstate I-35 bridge located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, that collapsed on August 1, 2007, to waive the $100,000,000 limitation on emergency relief funds for those emergency repairs and reconstruction, and for other purposes.
------------------------------------------
BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED
Adrian Smith didn’t sponsor any new bills. However, he added his name as a cosponsor to 8 bills.
H.CON.RES.193 - Recognizing all hunters across the United States for their continued commitment to safety.
This was introduced on 7/26/2007.
Smith added his name on 8/3/2007.
H.RES.622 - Providing for the correction of the events of August 2, 2007.
This was a resolution put forth by the Republican leadership. Basically, they wanted a do-over on the Agriculture appropriations bill they walked out on so they can add in the extra language about no funds being allowed for illegal immigrants (even though under current law they already CAN’T be legally employed or receive housing assistance with the funds). They forget that they had a chance to redo the vote due to the confusion, but again…they walked away. And Adrian Smith was right in the middle of all that. This is proof of his desire to play the games instead of just working on behalf of his constituents.
H.R.1154 - To award a Congressional Gold Medal to Michael Ellis DeBakey, M.D.
Dr. Michael Ellis DeBakey performed the first successful coronary bypass, pioneered the field of telemedicine, was elected the first President of Baylor College of Medicine, and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction and the National Medal of Science.
This bill was introduced way back on 2/16/2007.
Smith just now added his name on 8/1/2007.
H.R.1419 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand tax-free distributions from individual retirement accounts for charitable purposes.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude from gross income any distributions from individual retirement accounts for certain charitable purposes.
The bill was introduced clear back on 3/8/2007.
Smith just added his name on 8/3/2007
He just loves those specialized tax cuts that usually can only be utilized by the wealthier citizens.
H.R.1814 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a credit to certain agriculture-related businesses for the cost of protecting certain chemicals.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a retailer of agricultural products and chemicals or a manufacturer, formulator, distributor, or transporter of certain pesticides a business tax credit for 30 percent of costs for or related to the protection of such chemicals or pesticides, including employee security training and background checks, installation of security equipment, and computer network safeguards. Sets a $2 million annual limit on such credit and a per facility limitation of $100,000 (reduced by credits received for the five prior taxable years). Terminates such credit after 2010.
So, essentially, he wants us all to pay for part of the overhead costs of pesticide manufacturers.
The bill was introduced back on 3/29/2007.
Smith added his name on 8/3/2007.
H.R.2784 - To greatly enhance the Nation's environmental, energy, economic, and national security by terminating long-standing Federal prohibitions on the domestic production of abundant offshore supplies of natural gas, to dedicate fixed percentages of the resultant royalties for environmental restoration projects, renewable energy and carbon sequestration research, and weatherization and energy assistance for those in need, and to share a portion of such royalties with producing States, and for other purposes.
This would expand offshore gas leasing, increase the area available for drilling, and provide for greater flexibility with royalties. Basically, it’s a handout to big oil. It has no real call to promote alternative or renewable energy.
It was introduced on 6/20/2007.
Smith added his name on 8/3/2007.
H.R.2802 - To implement the recommendations of the Federal Communications Commission report to the Congress regarding low-power FM service.
This bill would allow for local communities to set up radio stations on “low power FM” frequencies.
The bill was introduced on 6/21/2007.
Smith added his name on 7/31/2007.
H.R.3004 - To reform the essential air service program, and for other purposes.
Prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from compensating an air carrier for providing essential air service to an eligible community in the 48 contiguous states if such community: (1) is located fewer than 70 miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport; or (2) is fewer than 210 miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport and requires a per passenger subsidy for such service in excess of $200 for calendar year 2008, including any increase for each ensuing calendar year.
Authorizes a state or local government to submit a proposal to the Secretary to: (1) compensate an air carrier for essential air service to an eligible community above the $200 per passenger subsidy cap; (2) compensate a preferred air carrier for providing such service (i.e., an air carrier preferred by the affected community although it is not the lowest bidder); and (3) restore the eligibility of a community to receive subsidized essential air service.
Introduced on 7/11/2007, Smith added his name on 8/1/2007.
H.R.3315 - To provide that the great hall of the Capitol Visitor Center shall be known as Emancipation Hall.
Smith was part of the initial introduction on 8/2/2007
-----
After 7 months on the job, Smith has Sponsored 6 bills, and Cosponsored 79 bills, for a total of 85.
Among the 53 Freshman members of Congress, Smith ranks #50 as far as the number of bills sponsored/cosponsored.
The Median total number sponsored/cosponsored for Freshmen is 156.
The average number of bills sponsored for Freshmen is 8.2, and cosponsored is 163, for a total of 171.2.
1 comments:
Notice how little Mr Smith actually sponsors or supports which has to do with 3rd district interests.
Fortunately, he seems comfortable in not doing much beyond symbolic tag ons to others.
Way to lead Mr Smith! From behind.
You get what you vote for.
3rd District can do better.
Ethan Edwards
Post a Comment