Smith Job Performance: Year-End Summary

Since we reached the end of the 1st Session in the 110th Congress, its a good time to recap what Adrian Smith's performance was for his first year in Congress.


CLUB FOR GROWTH KEY VOTES

Given that the Club for Growth paid out over $500,000 to Adrian Smith during the campaign, in contributions and ads, it's a good idea to continue checking if they are getting their money’s worth.

The CFG has what they call their “Key Votes”. They track the votes of their paid representatives to see if they are voting the way the CFG want them to be voting.

Let's look at the "key votes" since July 1, 2007:


1. "YES" on the "Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment" to the 2007 Farm Bill (HR 2419)

This amendment would have basically gutted and replaced the Farm Bill.

Smith voted NO.


2. "NO" on the Rule for the 2007 Farm Bill (HR 2419)

CFG said "The rule would result in a $7.5 billion tax increase on foreign companies with operations in the United States."

Smith spoke up against it during consideration of the rule (H.RES.574).

It actually closed a loophole that allowed foreign corporations to avoid taxes by using "tax havens". It would not affect those from nations with treaties with the US, so would cover a very small, but costly, percentage. It was NOT a tax increase.

Smith voted NO


3. "NO" on the 2007 Farm Bill (HR 2419)

SMITH VOTE YES


4. "NO" ON THE ENERGY BILL (H.R. 3221)

This bill put a new focus on alternative energies.

Smith vote NO


5. "NO" ON THE ENERGY TAX BILL (H.R. 2776)

This bill would "provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation."

Smith voted NO


6. "NO" on extending the TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE REVISION and EXTENSION ACT (H.R. 2761)

The bill would have extended and expanded the insurance to better cover those affected in the event of a terrorist attack. CFG/Smith took the "market should control" position instead.

Smith voted NO

**Note: the bill did pass, and Smith voted for it, but only after all new provisions were stripped and the extension time was severely reduced. This ensured the CFG position that the "market should control it."


7. "NO" on "SCHIP Reauthorization"

Smith voted NO


8. "NO" on Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 (H.R. 3121)

Smith voted NO.


9. "YES" on Permanent Death Tax Repeal on the motion to recommit for the Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007 (H.R. 3056).

Smith voted YES


10. "NO" on Veto Override of the Water Resources Development Act (HR 1495).

Smith voted YES, but so did a large majority of Republicans.


11. "YES" on Peru Free Trade Deal

Smith voted YES.


12. "NO" On the Omnibus Spending Bill.

This combined all the remaining appropriations bills and added in the Iraq spending in to a massive bill.

On the day of this statement by the CFG, there were 2 votes in the House to pass this in the House.

Vote #1: Smith voted NO

Vote #2: Smith voted NO

When the Iraq spending was put in that matched what the President wanted (another "blank check" with no accountability), the final vote was held.

Smith voted YES, along the rest of the Republicans.

This will be a 1/2 point vote with the CFG.


SUMMARY: Adrian Smith voted 8.5 out of 12 times with the Club for Growth. When you factor in the first half of the year, you find that Smith has voted with the CFG 85.4% of the time. He's only gone against them on 3.5 out of 24 votes.

But what were those votes?

Two of them were on the Farm Bill: One an amendment, one the Farm Bill itself. To vote with the CFG would be political suicide in this state, and Smith knew it. However the bill isn't finished yet.

The remaining votes were on a veto override and on the Omnibus bill. What allowed him to go against the CFG on those votes was the fact the vast majority of Republicans voted the same way: Safety in numbers.

The CFG are getting what they paid for.



VOTING PATTERN

There were a total of 1186 Roll Call votes in the 1st session. This is, by the far, the most number of record votes in a session in the last 15 years. The most in that time prior to this session was 885 vote in the First Session of the 104th Congress (1995-1996). Most of the votes this time were due to stalling parliamentary tactics by Republicans, which Smith stepped right up to support. Now let's look at his pattern for the first year.


92.83% (1102) - Smith’s votes match the GOP majority.
33.56% (398) - Smith’s votes match the Democrats majority.
38.70% (459) - Majority of GOP votes match the Democrats majority.
38.62% (458) - Smith’s vote is the same as the result of the vote (passed/failed).
43.17% (512) - GOP’s vote is the same as the result of the vote.
95.03% (1127) - Democrats vote is the same as the result of the vote.
0.93% (11) - Smith has voted with the Democrats, but against the GOP majority.
5.99% (71) - Smith’s vote is in the extreme minority of the GOP, voting opposite of the majority.

To get a much better look at these numbers, however, it’s best to remove the votes that are unanimous or near unanimous (less than 25 votes in opposition). These usually consist of ceremonial type votes, such as pledging the support of veterans, praising a sports team, or changing the name of a post office, etc. There were 297 unanimous or nearly unopposed votes. The follow statistics represent the remaining 889 votes:

90.44% (804) - Smith’s votes match the GOP majority.
11.36% (101) - Smith’s votes match the Democrats majority.
18.22% (162) - Majority of GOP votes match the Democrats majority.
18.11% (161) - Smith’s vote is the same as the result of the vote (passed/failed).
24.18% (215) - GOP’s vote is the same as the result of the vote.
93.36% (830) - Democrats vote is the same as the result of the vote.
1.24% (11) - Smith has voted with the Democrats, but against the GOP majority.
7.99% (71) - Smith’s vote is in the extreme minority of the GOP, voting opposite of the majority.


Smith turns out to be on of those in the extreme almost 8% of the time. But overall, the numbers clearly show someone that is even more partisan than the majority of the Republican party.

But in looking at these numbers, understand this is looking at all 1186 votes that were recorded. When all the procedural votes are removed, the numbers are even more startling.

As pointed out by Don Walton in a recent Lincoln Journal Star article, Congressional Quarterly's numbers show a much clearer picture:

Among Nebraska’s three Republican House members, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry compiled the most independent voting record with respect to both the president and his party.

The 1st District congressman supported the president’s position 65 percent of the time and voted with the majority of his Republican colleagues 81 percent of the time.

Rep. Adrian Smith, 3rd District, exhibited the most support for both president and party.

Smith voted with the Republican majority 98 percent of the time. He compiled an 83 percent score in support of Bush’s legislative positions.

Rep. Lee Terry, 2nd District, voted with the majority of his fellow Republicans on 93 percent of roll call votes in the survey. Terry supported the president 76 percent of the time.

Even in the state, Smith is the most partisan. As pointed out many times this year, Smith's votes have repeatedly reflected positions that do NOT benefit people in the Third District. He has repeatedly chosen party over the people, campaign contributors over constituents. All these numbers make that very clear.



BILLS SPONSORED AND COSPONSORED

At the end of the First Session, Adrian Smith had sponsored only 6 bills, and cosponsored 116 bills, for a total of 122 bills.

Compare that to our other 2 Representatives in Nebraska:

Jeff Fortenberry, sponsored 16, cosponsored 169, for a total of 185.

Lee Terry sponsored 29, cosponsored 327, for a total of 356.

Among the 53 Freshman members of Congress, the average number of bills sponsored is 13, and the average number cosponsored is 240, the total average being 253.

The median total number of bills is 247.

Given those numbers, Smith has less than half the number of bills than the average among the Freshmen.

Smith’s rank as far as total number of bills is 50 out of 53. He’s at the very bottom of the group.

The top 20 Freshmen Representatives were as follows (sponsored/cosponsored):

1. Stephen Cohen, D-TN (15/712)
2. Phil Hare, D-IL (10/513)
3. Keith Ellison, D-MN (18/471)
4. Mazie Hirono, D-HI (13/409)
5. Betty Sutton, D-OH (21/389)
6. Yvette Clarke, D-NY (4/374)
7. Hank Johnson, D-GA (11/359)
8. Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH (14/322)
9. Peter Welch, D-VT (38/294)
10. Jason Altmire, D-PA (21/302)
11. Bruce Braley, D-IA (9/312)
12. Chris Carney, D-PA (19/292)
13. Nancy Boyda, D-KS (12/297)
14. Jerry McNerney, D-CA (7/297)
15. Patrick Murphy, D-PA (19/279)
16. Steven Kagen, D-WA (10/278)
17. Joe Courtney, D-CT (19/262)
18. Michael Arcuri, D-NY (23/256)
19. Zachary Space, D-OH (24/245)
20. Nick Lampson, D-TX (33/225)

Now some statistics on these bills:

Of the 6 bills sponsored, only ONE was passed - H.RES.99, which was a simple resolution congratulating the UNL Volleyball team. The remaining bills were referred to committees, with only one of those getting referred then to a subcommittee.

The Sponsored bills were introduced as follows:

1 in January
1 in February
1 in March
1 in June
2 in July

None have had any activity since the last bill in July was referred to a subcommittee in August.

Smith has not gotten many cosponsors on his bills. Specifically:

2 on the UNL Resolution
3 on a college tax credit bill
4 on the CAFO's tax credit
7 on the bill to eliminate meth kingpins
10 on the 15-year non-residental property tax credit
17 on the like-kind property tax credit

Remember the Omaha World-Herald editorial during the 2006 election?

In the Legislature, Smith is not known as a skilled lawmaker. He is not known for an ability to build constructive coalitions for complicated legislation. He is not known as a skilled public speaker. He has no reputation for making substantive issues the subjects for his priority bills. He is not a lawmaker whom backers seek out to be the prime sponsor of major legislation.

He is not known as a leader.

His first year demonstrates that clearly, just with his 6 little bills. They've gone nowhere and have no real support.


Now, lets look at the bills he's cosponsoring.

There are 23 that are types of Resolutions (20%). Of those:

- 5 are Concurrent Resolutions (need votes in both the House and Senate). Of those, 1 has had no vote, 3 were passed in the House and sent to the Senate with no further action , and 1 had a Senate vote but is still awaiting another vote in the House.

- 9 of the Resolutions have been passed.

- 9 have not made it out of Committee.

- Smith was an originating co-sponsor on 9 of the resolution. Of the remaining 14, the soonest he signed onto the resolution (from time of introduction until the time he signed on) was 1 day. The longest wait on another resolution was 119 days. The average time from introduction to signing onto a resolution was 33 days.

- 6 of the Resolutions involved statements in support of troops.

- 2 recognized college sports teams.


There are a total of 93 Bills (in that they require action in the House and Senate, and Presidential action to become a law, compared to resolutions which are just placed in official record and don't become actual laws). Smith has not seen near the action on these as he has the resolutions.

- Only 9 have received any votes. Of those, 2 became laws, 1 was indefinitely postponed, and 6 have recieved no further action in the Senate at this time.

- The two bills passed were:
1) Research program for remediation of meth labs;
2) to name the Capital hall "Emancipation Hall".

- The bill Indefinitely Postponed was to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. ME Debakey (a Senate version passed instead).

- The 6 bills that have only had a House vote and are held up in the Senate are:
1) Allow membership for spouses/siblings of Purple Heart receipients;
2) Set aside more federal lands for the Lewis & Clark Nebraska park;
3) the Lower Republican River Basin Study Act;
4) The Platte River Implementation Program;
5) Directing the FDIA to establish industrial bank holding company regulations; and
6) Impose economic sanctions against Iran.

- Only 7 other bills have had hearings.

- The remaining 77 have only been referred to committees or sub-committees, with no further actions.

- Smith was an originating (day of introduction) co-sponsor on 27 out of 93 of the bills (29%)

- On the remaining 66, the shortest time from introducing to signing for a bill was 6 days, the most on another bill was 300 days. The average number of days from introduction to signing on was 82 days. The median is 62 days.


Just what has he signed on to (bills)?

- 12 of the bills are purely based on "trigger issues" - bills that have huge one-issue PAC's that support Smith, and pull in the one-issue votes.
--- Of those, 3 are related to abortion (one to ban by giving equal rights to the unborn, one to make it illegal to take minors across state lines to get an abortion, one to ban embryonic stem cell research).
--- One appeals to the far-right radio/FOX listeners by making a non-issue into an issue (the Fairness Doctrine).
--- One is making sure "God" is put on Flag Certificates.
--- One is to repeal gun controls in the Washington DC area. One is to prevent the courts from interpreting the Pledge of Allegiance ("under God").
--- One is to stop lawsuits to remove one-religion display's from public property.
--- One is to overrule a judges webcast royalty decision
--- 2 would make no changes to the SCHIP program, but extend it 18 months or 5 years (result being no additional funds, so fewer and fewer children covered).


- 3 bills are pro-corporation/anti-union bills (one would completely repeal Davis-Bacon).

He has now put his name on 6 bills related to immigration, but what are they really?
--- 2 make it easier for employers to hire immigrants. (remember, they take a lower pay).
--- 1 is the "no drivers license" bill
--- 1 is to exclude SSA wages/earnings for an immigrant (those earned while illegal).
--- 1 is English as the official language
--- 1 would eliminate the diversity program, which brings in higher educated immigrants.
*None of these have gone past introduction.

A whopping 22 are related to tax issues. But who do they benefit?
--- 2 are to eliminate the estate tax
--- 1 cuts capital gains
--- 1 repeals the AMT permanently
--- 1 to make ALL the Bush tax cuts permanent
--- 3 are ag tax credits (ag processing property, ag business costs, farm equipment depreciation)
--- Tax credits for restaurant depreciation, freight rail capacity, heat pumps, using renewable energy, and research. He would prohibit internet commerce taxes permanently, road/bridge tolls for those built with federal funds, new cell phone taxes, and increase the amount that can be deducted from an IRA for charity donations. Oh, and he would put beer taxes back to pre-1991 levels.
None of these, however, show where the cuts will come from in spending to cover what would literally be trillions over the decades in lost revenue. If he comes up with it, great - but I doubt it. None have even had a committee hearing.


- With the exception of the tax credits, only 5 bills are related to agriculture.
--- 1 would make it so manure is not a pollutant.
--- 1 would extend the current Farm Bill
--- 1 would treat conservation reserve program payments as rentals
--- 1 was for ag disaster relief (he signed on 60 days after introduction)
--- 1 would have prohibited FSA office closures (signed on 85 days after introduction, and now it's too late).

- 8 bills are related to expanding access to Medicare/Medicaid funds by medical companies and providers.

- 2 bills would order the Treasury to mint commemorative coins for the Army infantry and to honor Mother's Day.

- 2 deal with health care for rural veterans. One he signed on 16 days after introduction, the other was 60 days later. Neither have had any action.

AT NO TIME did Smith submit an Amendment to any of the bills being debated on the floor. The only time his name was mentioned was once, and that was with 2 other Representatives that took the lead while he followed.

There are a lot of odds and ends, but you get the idea.

I'm sure there are other statistics some would have a question about, but it's hard to come up with all the combinations. If there are any questions, just post them, and I'll put the information together, as all of it is saved for further number crunching.

Overall, Smith's first year is nothing to celebrate. It's weak and shows next to no work being accomplished. It's clear he thinks the answer to everying is TAX CREDITS. He's so focused on trying to get every tax credit on the books possible, that he's failing to really spend time focusing on matters that really affect the regular people in his district on a daily basis. His issues benefit a few, but the many are ignored. His actions make the Club for Growth happy, that's for sure.



IN CLOSING


With such a weak performance, Adrian Smith is RIPE for being a one-term Congressman. We, in the Third District, need to work to really encourage those considering a run for the Third District to get into the race, and SOON. Filing deadlines are fast approaching. In this incredibly positive "pro-Democrat" time in our political history, and with a very vulnerable, weak incumbent in office, there is no better time to pick up the Third District seat for the Democrats. The word on the lips of most Americans is "change", and lets hope we can find someone to achieve that. The LAST thing we need is to continue allowing someone remain in office who's sole goal is to do whatever he can to '"stay until retirement", and who's philosophy is that George Bush and the current far-right Republican leadership can do no wrong. That mindset will only continue to hurt the chance of this district remaining a district after the next census.