Family farms: Crop insurance; no capital gains on land
Q: Since the family farmer is self-employed, would you cap government agriculture benefits to a modest one-family level? A: I’d sure consider it, because concentration in the agricultural area. isn’t fair to the farmers. We’ve got to solve the vertical
and horizontal integration problems. We’ve got to get tough on trade. We’ve got to have crop insurance. We’ve got to have freedom to farm with a safety net. We ought to cut capital gains so that there’s no capital gains on farm equipment and land.
Source: GOP Debate in Johnston, Iowa
Jan 16, 2000
Assist farmers in transition to free market
Q: You voted for the Freedom to Farm Act. A: That’s right. And it was the right thing to do. If farmers want to make better profits off of their farm commodities, the only way to get there is to get into the free market. But having said that, we have
not done a good job in helping on the transition. This has been a tough time for farmers. [One problem is] death taxes. A family farm has to be sold to pay the 55% death tax and that’s ridiculous. I’ll lead the fight to get rid of it.
Source: Des Moines Iowa GOP Debate
Dec 13, 1999
Ethanol subsidies OK, but no federal gasohol requirements
Sen. Orrin Hatch said he supports ethanol subsidies in agricultural states, but maintained requiring the corn-based gasoline blend at the pump needs to be a state issue. “We need to use these agricultural products in every way we can,” Hatch said.
Critics argue that the tax subsidy benefits only a few large producers. The subsidy remains popular in farm states because ethanol creates new markets for corn and can help support corn prices at a time when commodity prices are at historic low levels.
Source: Ken Thomas, Associated Press, in Washington Post
Sep 18, 1999
Alternative fuels important to our energy security
[Regarding ethanol subsidies], Hatch said, “Some day it might come down to where we’re going to need this ethanol development to save our country.” Hatch said he’s learned the importance of developing gasoline alternatives during the gas shortages of the
mid-1970s. “We have to develop as many alternate sources of gasoline as we possibly can,” Hatch said. “This country runs on energy and we have to always have to be at the forefront of developing good energy, [via R&D or via] natural resources.”
Source: Ken Thomas, Associated Press, in Washington Post
Sep 18, 1999
Raising the minimum wage causes “disemployment”
[Some people] believe that an increase in the minimum wage is a quick, painless way to help the disadvantaged in our society. I can only wonder then why they have not offered raising the minimum wage to $15, $20, or $30 an hour. There is indeed an
adverse effect on employment. For every 10% increase in the minimum wage, the disemployment effect was between 100,000 to 300,000 jobs. Disemployment means jobs not only eliminated, but also jobs that are never created in the first place.
Minimum wage jobs are first jobs; workers go on to others
It is a great myth that everyone currently earning the minimum wage gets “stuck” in a minimum wage job. The fact is that people cycle through these jobs regularly. They get raises; they get more education; they learn a new skill; they prove themselves
reliable; they move on and up. First jobs are for learning as well as earning. If we continue to raise the bar for entry, how many adults will we have who have never worked? How many teenagers and young adults who need a chance are not going to get one?
Replace minimum wage increases with cut taxes & education
Hiking the minimum wage is not the only way to assist working Americans and those struggling to make ends meet. I’d like to raise people’s paychecks by cutting their taxes. I think we can work together on education. Education - or the lack of it - is the
biggest factor in determining an individual’s earning capacity. Let’s tackle illiteracy and other root causes of low-skills and low-earnings potential. But, for heaven’s sake, let’s recognize the minimum wage as the mirage it really is.
Voted YES on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To take $670,000 used by the EEOC in bringing actions against employers that require their employees to speak English, and instead use the money to teach English to adults through the Department of Education's English Literacy/Civics Education State Grant program.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALEXANDER: Let me begin with this story. In March 2007, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Salvation Army for allegedly discriminating against two employees in a Boston area thrift store. What had the Salvation Army done to earn this lawsuit from the Federal Government? Well, it had required its employees to speak English on the job. The English rule was clearly posted, and the employees were given a year to learn it. But this lawsuit means that a small business in Missouri would have to hire a lawyer in order to make sure they have a clear business reason to require their employees to speak our common
language on the job.
So I have an amendment to bring some common sense to this subject. It would be to take $670,000 used by the EEOC, which it is using to bring actions against employers who require their employees to speak English.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. KENNEDY: Let's look at what the law is and what the Alexander amendment provides. The law currently says that if there is a need to speak English on the job, fine; employers can require that. But employers cannot use English-only rules as an excuse when they want to fire minorities who are performing the job correctly. In this fact situation, those employees had performed the job correctly for 5 years.
In addition, this amendment reduces the EEOC's ability to fight all forms of discrimination because it cuts the entire budget. That means race, age, religion, and disability cases will be harmed. I hope the amendment will be defeated.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment passed, 54-44
Voted NO on limiting farm subsidies to people earning under $750,000.
Vote on an amendment to bill H.R. 2419 (Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act): To improve the adjusted gross income limitation and use the savings to reduce the Federal deficit.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. KLOBUCHAR: The focus of this amendment is to make sure the subsidy and the safety net in the farm bill go to the people whom it will most help; that is, family farmers. The top 20 business recipients in the country have each gotten more than $3 million under this farm bill. Under the current system, a part-time farmer can have an income as high as $2.5 million from outside sources and still qualify for Federal farm benefits. I do not believe we should be handing out payments to multimillionaires, when these payments should be targeted to family farmers. This amendment places reasonable limits on the incomes of those who receive farm payments: If you are a full-time farmer, you can get the subsidies as long as your income does not exceed $750,000.
If you are a part-time farmer or farm investor, you can participate in farm programs if your income does not exceed $250,000.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. CHAMBLISS: I am disheartened that farm program critics continue to try to lead us into believing that there is a vast army receiving benefits to which they are not entitled. Stories about people receiving program benefits continue to make the headlines. But most of the people I know in these situations don't consider themselves wealthy. This debate is not about wealthy landowners and millionaires receiving program benefits. It is really about farmers in general, regardless of their economic situation, receiving program benefits. A few short months ago the debate was about making payments to millionaires and now we are at $750,000 and people want to go even further. This amendment is actually an assault on everyday farmers; but is disguised as an assault on wealthy landowners and millionaires.
Reference: Klobuchar Amendment to Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act;
Bill S.Amdt. 3810 to H.R. 2419
; vote number 2007-426
on Dec 13, 2007
Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing.
To enable employees to form & join labor organizations, and to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts. Requires investigation that an employer:
discharged or discriminated against an employee to discourage membership in a labor organization;
threatened to discharge employees in the exercise of guaranteed collective bargaining rights; and
adds to remedies for such violations: back pay plus liquidated damages; and additional civil penalties.
Proponents support voting YES because:
The principle at stake here is the freedom that all workers should have to organize for better working conditions & fair wages. There are many employers around the country who honor this freedom. Unfortunately, there are also many employers who do not. These employers attempt to prevent workers from unionizing by using tactics that amount to harassment, if not outright firing. In fact, one in five people who try to organize
unions are fired. These tactics are already illegal, but the penalties are so minor, they are not effective deterrents.
Opponents support voting NO because:
Democracy itself is placed at risk by this bill. The sanctity of the secret ballot is the backbone of our democratic process. Not one voter signed a card to send us here to Congress. None of us sent our campaign workers out to voters' houses armed with candidate information & a stack of authorization cards. No. We trusted democracy. We trusted the voters to cast their ballots like adults, freely, openly, without intimidation, and we live with the results. But here we are, poised to advance legislation to kill a secret ballot process.
Let's be clear. Every American has the right to organize. No one is debating that. This is a right we believe in so strongly we have codified it and made it possible for workers to do so through a secret ballot.
Status: Cloture rejected Cloture vote rejected, 51-48 (3/5ths required)
Reference: Employee Free Choice Act;
Bill H R 800
; vote number 2007-227
on Jun 26, 2007
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.
Increase the federal minimum wage to:
$5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after enactment;
$6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
$7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day.
Proponents support voting YES because:
We have waited for over 10 years to have a clean vote on the minimum wage for the poorest workers in this country Low-wage workers had their wages frozen in time, from 10 years ago, but when they go to the supermarket, the food prices are higher; when they put gasoline in the car, the gasoline prices are higher; when they pay the utility bills, the utility bills are higher; when their kids get sick, the medical bills are higher. All of those things are higher. They are living in 2007, but in their wages they are living in 1997.
Opponents support voting NO because:
This bill is marked more by what is not in the bill than what is in it. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They create two-thirds of our Nation's new jobs, and they represent 98% of the new businesses in the US. What protection does this bill provide them? None whatsoever.
We can do better. In the interest of sending the President a final measure that provides consideration for small businesses and their workers, the very men and women who are responsible for our economy's recent growth and strength, we must do better.
Reference: Fair Minimum Wage Act;
Bill H.R.2
; vote number 2007-042
on Feb 1, 2007
Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25.
Vote to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour, over a two-year time period, in three incremental stages. Without the amendment, the minimum wage would increase to $6.25 per hour.
Reference: Amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938;
Bill S AMDT 44 to S 256
; vote number 2005-26
on Mar 7, 2005
Voted YES on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress.
Vote to pass a resolution to give no enforcement authority to ergonomics rules submitted by the Labor Department during the Clinton Administration. These rules would force businesses to take steps to prevent work-related repetitive stress disorders
Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage.
The Kennedy (D-MA) Amdt would have increased the minimum wage by $1 an hour over two years, to $5.65 an hour beginning Jan. 1, 2001. The Kennedy Amdt would have also provided $9.5 billion in tax cuts over five years.
Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)50; N)48; NV)2
Reference: Motion to table Kennedy Amdt #2751;
Bill S. 625
; vote number 1999-356
on Nov 9, 1999
Voted YES on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time.
This bill would have allowed workers to choose between overtime and compensatory time.
Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)53; N)47
Reference: Motion to invoke cloture on a Committee amdt to S. 4;
Bill S. 4
; vote number 1997-68
on May 15, 1997
Voted YES on replacing farm price supports.
Replaces farm price supports with seven years of annual fixed payments.
Status: Bill Passed Y)64; N)32; NV)4
Reference: Agriculture Market Transition Act of 1996;
Bill S. 1541
; vote number 1996-19
on Feb 7, 1996
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record.
Hatch scores 0% by the AFL-CIO on union issues
As the federation of America’s unions, the AFL-CIO includes more than 13 million of America’s workers in 60 member unions working in virtually every part of the economy. The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our nation. To accomplish this mission we will build and change the American labor movement.
The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: AFL-CIO website 03n-AFLCIO on Dec 31, 2003
