Follow @ontheissuesorg

Emmanuel Cleaver on Budget & Economy Democratic Representative (MO-5)

Voted NO on terminating the Home Affordable mortgage Program.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Biggert, R-IL]: The HAMP Termination Act would put an end to the poster child for failed Federal foreclosure programs. The program has languished for 2 years, hurt hundreds of thousands of homeowners, and must come to an end. This bill would save $1.4 billion over 10 years. To date, the HAMP program has already consumed $840 million of the more than $30 billion of TARP funds that were set aside for the program. For this extraordinary investment, the administration predicted that 3 to 4 million homeowners would receive help. HAMP has hurt more homeowners than it has helped. The program has completed about 540,000 mortgage modifications. Another 740,000 unlucky homeowners had their modifications cancelled.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Capuano, D-MA]: This is a program that I'm the first to admit has not lived up to what our hopes were. This program we had hoped would help several million people. Thus far we've only helped about 550,000 people. But to simply repeal all of these programs is to walk away from individual homeowners, walk away from neighborhoods. I'm not going to defend every single aspect of this program, and I am happy to work with anyone to make it better, to help more people to keep their homes, & keep their families together. To simply walk away without offering an alternative means we don't care; this Congress doesn't care if you lose your home, period. Now, I understand if that makes me a bleeding-heart liberal according to some people, so be it.

Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending.

Congressional Summary:
• $7 billion Increase in Fund balance appropriation (without fiscal year limitation).
• With respect to the Unemployment Trust Fund and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund: Removes the FY2010 limitation as well as the specific dollar amount for such advances, replacing them with such appropriations as may be necessary.
• Increases from $315 billion to $400 billion the maximum loan principal for FY2009 commitments to guarantee single family loans insured under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF).
• Increases from $300 billion to $400 billion the limit on new Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae) commitments to issue guarantees under the Mortgage-Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. LEWIS (D, GA-5): This bipartisan bill will provide the necessary funds to keep important transportation projects operating in States around the country. The Highway Trust Fund will run out of funding by September. We must act, and we must act now.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. CAMP (R, MI-4): [This interim spending is] needed because the Democrats' economic policy has resulted in record job loss, record deficits, and none of the job creation they promised. Democrats predicted unemployment would top out at 8% if the stimulus passed; instead, it's 9.5% and rising. In Michigan, it's above 15%. The Nation's public debt and unemployment, combined, has risen by a shocking 40% [because of] literally trillions of dollars in additional spending under the Democrats' stimulus, energy, and health plans.

We had a choice when it came to the stimulus last February. We could have chosen a better policy of stimulating private-sector growth creating twice the jobs at half the price. That was the Republican plan. Instead, Democrats insisted on their government focus plan, which has produced no jobs and a mountain of debt.

Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. PETER WELCH (D, VT-0): Citigroup supports this bill. Why? They're a huge lender. They understand that we have to stabilize home values in order to begin the recovery, and they need a tool to accomplish it. Mortgages that have been sliced and diced into 50 different sections make it impossible even for a mortgage company and a borrower to come together to resolve the problem that they share together.

Sen. DICK DURBIN (D, IL): 8.1 million homes face foreclosure in America today. Last year, I offered this amendment to change the bankruptcy law, and the banking community said: Totally unnecessary. In fact, the estimates were of only 2 million homes in foreclosure last year. America is facing a crisis.

Opponent's argument to vote No:

Sen. JON KYL (R, AZ): This amendment would allow bankruptcy judges to modify home mortgages by lowering the principal and interest rate on the loan or extending the term of the loan. The concept in the trade is known as cram-down. It would apply to all borrowers who are 60 days or more delinquent. Many experts believe the cram-down provision would result in higher interest rates for all home mortgages. We could end up exacerbating this situation for all the people who would want to refinance or to take out loans in the future.

Rep. MICHELE BACHMANN (R, MN-6): Of the foundational policies of American exceptionalism, the concepts that have inspired our great Nation are the sanctity of private contracts and upholding the rule of law. This cramdown bill crassly undercuts both of these pillars of American exceptionalism. Why would a lender make a 30-year loan if they fear the powers of the Federal Government will violate the very terms of that loan?

Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. DAVID OBEY (D, WI-7): This country is facing what most economists consider to be the most serious and the most dangerous economic situation in our lifetimes. This package today is an $825 billion package that does a variety of things to try to reinflate the economy:

1. creating or saving at least 4 million jobs
2. rebuilding our basic infrastructure
3. providing for job retraining for those workers who need to learn new skills
4. moving toward energy independence
5. improving our healthcare system so all Americans can have access to quality treatment
6. providing tax cuts to lessen the impact of this crisis on America's working families.

Opponent's argument to vote No:

Rep. JERRY LEWIS (R, CA-51): Most of us would agree that the recent $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is an illustration of how good intentions don't always deliver desired results. When Congress spends too much too quickly, it doesn't think through the details and oversight becomes more difficult. The lesson learned from TARP was this: we cannot manage what we do not measure. We cannot afford to make the same mistake again.

Sen. THAD COCHRAN (R, MS): We are giving the executive branch immense latitude in the disbursement of the spending this bill contains. We are doing so without any documentation of how this spending will stimulate the economy. Normally, this kind of information would be contained in an administration budget. For items that have a short-term stimulative effect, most of us will feel comfortable debating their merits as an emergency measure. But there is a great deal of spending that is not immediately stimulative.

Voted YES on monitoring TARP funds to ensure more mortgage relief.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. BARNEY FRANK (D, MA-4): Last year, after we responded to the urgent pleas of the Bush administration to authorize the $700 billion deployment of Federal funds to unstick the credit markets, many of us became very unhappy, [because Bush] repudiated commitments to use a significant part of the fund to diminish foreclosures. If we do not pass this bill today, we will make no progress in what is the single biggest economic problem we've been facing, namely, the foreclosure crisis.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. RON PAUL (R, TX-14): There has been a lot of money spent to try to bail out the financial industry, and nothing seems to be working. I think it's mainly because we haven't admitted that excessive spending can cause financial problems, & excessive debt and inflation can cause problems.

Actually, the recession is therapy for all of the mistakes, but the mistakes come, basically, from a Federal Reserve system that's causing too many people to make mistakes. Interest rates are lower than they should be, so they don't save. That contributes to what we call "moral hazard" as well as the system of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac system. With the assumption that we're all going to be bailed out, people say, "Well, no sweat because, if there is a mistake, the government will come to our rescue." A private FDIC would never permit this massive malinvestment. There would be regulations done in the marketplace, and there would not be this distortion that we've ended up with.

Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler.

• Requires each automaker to submit a restructuring plan which includes:
• the repayment of all government-provided financing
• the domestic manufacturing of advanced technology vehicles
• restructuring existing debt.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. BARNEY FRANK (D, MA-4): This economy is in the worst shape that it has been in since the Great Depression. This Congress voted 2 months ago to advance $25 billion to the auto industry to promote innovation. This $15 billion is an additional "bridge loan."

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SPENCER BACHUS (R, AL-6): We all understand that the bankruptcy of either GM or Chrysler would have a cascading effect on other manufacturers. But I cannot support this plan because it spends taxpayer money without any real promise to return the industry to profitability. I see several glaring flaws. We are creating a new car czar to manage these companies from Washington; not a CEO, but a car czar. Second, this legislation actually imposes new and expensive mandates on our automobile companies. Third, this legislation imposes Federal Government management on the Big Three, the wisdom of Washington. It is clear that the management of these companies have made mistakes, many mistakes, but to set up a command and control Federal bureaucrat is exactly the wrong solution.

Rep. RON PAUL (R, TX-14): The problems that we are facing today date back to 1971. But we don't seem to want to go back and find out how financial bubbles form and why they burst. Instead, we just carry on doing the same old thing and never look back. We spend more money, we run up more debt, we print more money, and we think that is going to solve the problem that was created by spending too much money, running up debt, printing too much money. Today, we are talking about tinkering on the edges without dealing with the big problem.

Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy.

Supplemental appropriations for:
1. Infrastructure Investments: Transportation: DOT, FAA, AMTRAK, and FTA
2. Clean Water (EPA)
3. Flood Control and Water Resources (ACE)
4. 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities (ED)
5. Energy Development (DOE)
6. Extension of Unemployment Compensation and Job Training
7. Temporary Increase in Medicaid Matching Rate
8. Temporary Increase in Food Assistance

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. DAVID OBEY (D, WI-7): Congress has tried to do a number of things that would alleviate the squeeze on the middle class. Meanwhile, this economy is sagging. Jobs, income, sales, and industrial production have all gone down. We have lost 600,000 jobs. We are trying to provide a major increase in investments to modernize our infrastructure and to provide well-paying construction jobs at the same time.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. JERRY LEWIS (R, CA-41): Just 2 days ago we were debating an $800 billion continuing resolution. Now in addition to being asked to pay for a bailout for Wall Street, taxpayers are being asked to swallow an additional $60 billion on a laundry list of items I saw for the first time just a few hours ago. The Democratic majority is describing this legislation as a "stimulus package" to help our national economy. But let's not fool ourselves. This is a political document pure and simple. If these priorities are so important, why hasn't this bill gone through the normal legislative process? We should have debated each of the items included in this package.

It doesn't take an economist to tell you that the economy needs our help. But what does this Congress do? It proposes to spend billions more without any offsets in spending. The failure to adhere to PAYGO means that this new spending will be financed through additional borrowing, which will prove a further drag on our struggling economy.

Voted YES on defining "energy emergency" on federal gas prices.

• Makes it unlawful, during a period proclaimed by the President as an energy emergency, to sell gasoline at a price that:
  1. is unconscionably excessive; or
  2. indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage of the circumstances to increase prices unreasonably.
• Authorizes the President to issue an energy emergency proclamation of up to 30 days, with renewals allowed.Proponents argument for voting YEA: Rep. STUPAK. Vote YES to stand up for consumers who are paying outrageous gas prices at the pump, or vote NO to allow oil companies to go on setting them unchecked. The national average for a gallon of regular gasoline is $4.07. The high cost of energy produces more opportunities to have price gouging and price manipulation. overyone is shocked to learn that there is no Federal law against gas price gouging. Unscrupulous wholesalers, retailers and refiners operate without the Federal oversight to ensure prices are fair and justified. A vote against my bill is a vote against consumers and a vote for Big Oil.

  Opponents argument for voting NAY: Rep. BARTON of Texas: [My first issue the bill is that by the bill's own definition], we don't have price gouging in the US today. We do have high prices. But the reason we have that price is not because of price gouging at retail. I am not aware of any pehas State law to go after price gougers.

  The second issue with the bill, it requires the declaration of a Presidential energy emergency. The bill doesn't give any definition as to why the President should declare an energy emergency; it doesn't define "unconscionably excessive"; it doesn't define when a "seller is taking unfair advantage."

  I know there is a lot of pressure on the Congress doing something. I would state we would be better serve�+ePd to look at the underlying fundamentals that address thpply situation.

  Reference: Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act; Bill H R 6346 ; vote number 2008-448 on Jun 24, 2008

  Voted YES on revitalizing severely distressed public housing.

  CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: <A��/I>HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2008:
• Makes promoting housing choice among low-income families one of the purposes of the HOPE VI grant program for revitalization of severely distressed public housing.
• Prohibits the award of demolition-only grants
• Specifies requirements for revitalization plans including:
  1. involvement of public housing residents;
  2. a program for relocation;
  3. one-for-one replacement of demolished dwelling units; and
  4. green developments.

<���wb>SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. WA: This bill preserves public housing. The administration eliminated the one-for-one replacement requirement in 1996, effectively triggering a national sloughing off of our Nation's public housing inventory. Housing authorities have consistently built back fewer units than they have torn down and, as a result, over 30,000 units have been lost. I urge you to support our Nation's low-income families and to preserve our housing stock.

OPPONE.��NT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Rep. HENSARLING: Prent Reagan once said that the nearest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program, and I don't think there is any better case study than perhaps the HOPE VI program. If there was ever a program that cried out for termination, it's this one.

This program began in 1992 with a very noble purpose of taking 86,000 units of severely distressed public housing and replacing them, demolishing them. Well, it achieved its mission. But somewhere along�b�< the line we had this thing in Washington known as missireep.

We already have 80-plus Federal housing programs, and the budget for Federal housing programs has almost doubled in the last 10 years, from $15.4 billion to more than $30 billion now. So it's very hard to argue that somehow Federal housing programs have been shortchanged.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Bill passed House, 271-130

Voted YES on regulating the subprime mortgage industry.

H.R.3915: To reform consumer mortgage practices and provide accountability for such practices, to establish licensing and registration requirements for residential mortgage originators. Prohibits certain creditor pra�S��ctices with respect to high-cost mortgages, including:recommending default on an existing loan in connection with closing of a high-cost mortgage

steering incentives to mortgage originators

exercising sole discretion to accelerate indebtedness

single premium credit insurance and

negative amortization mortgages.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. FRANK: This legislation seeks to prevent a repetition of events that caused one of the most serious financial crises iD'_En recent times. We have a worldwide problem economicallyth a terrible shortage of credit. Innovations in the mortgage industry, in themselves good and useful, but conducted in such a completely unregulated manner as to have led to this crisis. The fundamental principle of the bill is not to put remedies into place, but to stop future problems from occurring in the first place. We have had two groups of mortgage originators: banks subject to the regulation of the bank regulators; and then mortgage loansv�|� ALIGN=middle> Eliot Engel on War & Peace Click here for 13 full quotes on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace

• Voted NO on banning armed fo in Libya without Congressional approval. (Jun 2011)
• Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan. (Mar 2011)
• Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)
• Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
• Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq.J�[ (Oct 2002)
• Voted NO on disallowing the invasio Kosovo. (May 1999)
• Solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. (Apr 2002)
• Strengthen sanctions on Syria & assist democratic transition. (Apr 2008)
• No contact & enforce sanctions on Iran until threat is gone. (May 2011)
• Boycott & sanctions against Iran for terrorism & nukes. (May 2011)
• Iranian nuclear weapons: prevention instead of containment. (Mar 2012)
• Sanctions on Iran to end nucl���ear program. (Apr 2009)

Eliot Engel on Welfare & Poverty

�n�= Click here for 8 full quotes on Welfare & Poverty OR background on Welfare & Poverty. Voted YES on instituting National Service as a new social invention. (Mar 2009) Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 200�g�3) Voted YES on responsible fatherhood via faitsed organizations. (Nov 1999) Finish welfare reform by moving able recipients into jobs. (Aug 2000) Increase the earned income tax credit. (Jan 1993) Fully fund Head Start; Job Corps; and WIC food program. (Apr 1993) Develop a strategy to eliminate extreme global poverty. (Dec 2007)

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record: Strongly Favors topic 1
Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals: Favors topic 1
Rated 9% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance: Strongly Favors topic 1
Let mary perform abortions in cases of rape or incest: Favors topic 1
Protect the reproductive rights of women: Strongly Favors topic 1
Ensure access to and funding for contraception: Favors topic 1
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contrace��>�ption: Strongly Favors topic 1
NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion: Strongly Favors topic 1
NO on banning partial-birth abortions: Favors topic 1
NO o�pW�tr> West Virginia Democrat J��� Lucille Roybal-Allard

<���2big>VoteMatch Responses (Click here for VoteMatch quiz)
VoteMatch Question & Answer (Click on question for explanation and background)	Based on these stances: (Click on topic for excerpt & citation)
Strongly Favors topic 1: Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right<����/a> (+5 points on Social scale)
James Oberstar	s2n65%	Minnesota Dem./Farmer/Labor (until 2010)
David Obey	s1n95%	Wisconsin Democrat (until 2010)
John Olver	s1n100%	Massachusetts Democrat
Solo'�s8mon Ortiz	s2n35%	Texas Democrat (Uted 2010)
Major Owens	s1n100%	New York Democrat (until 2007)
Frank Pallone	s1n100%	New Jersey Democrat
Bill Pascrell	s1n90%	New Jersey Democrat
Ed Pastor	s1n90%	Arizona Democrat
Donald Payne	s1n90%	New Jersey Democrat
Nancy Pelosi	s1n90%	California Democrat
Collin Peterson	s3n20%	Minnesota Democrat�]��/Farmer/Labor
Earl Pomeroy	s2n50%	North Dakota Democrat (until 2010)
David Eugene Price	s1n95%	North Carolina Democrat
Mark Pryor	s2n42%	AR Democratic Sr Senator
Nick Rahall	s1n85%
Jack Reed	s1n95%	RI Democratic Sr Senator
Harry Reid	s1n84%	NV Democratic Sr Senator
Silvestre Reyes	s2n55%	Texas Democrat
John Rockefeller	s1n79%	WV Democratic Sr Senator
Ciro Rodriguez	s2n55%	Texas Democrat (until 2010)
Mike Ross	s2n45%	Arkansas Democrat
Steven Rothman	s1n95%	New Jersey Democrat
s1n90%	California Democrat
Dutch Ruppersberger	s1n85%	Maryland Democrat
Bobby Rush	s1n85%	Illinois Democrat
Tim Ryan	s1n100% MO Senatorial: John Brunner Sarah Steelman Todd Akin Lame-duck session 2012: KY-4: Thomas Massie(R) MI-11:Dave Curson(D) NJ-9: Donald Payne Jr.(D) WA-1: Suzan DelBene(D) Re-seated Former Reps: AZ-1: Ann Kirkpatrick(D) AZ-5: Matt Salmon(R) FL-8: Alan Grayson(D) IL-11:Bill Foster(D) NH-1: Carol Shea-Porter(D) NV-3: Dina Titus(D) NY-24:Dan Maffei(D) TX-36:Steve Stockman(R) 2013 Resignations and Replacements: IL-2:Jesse Louis Jackson(D,resigned) IL-2:Robin Kelly(D,running) MA-5:Ed Markey(D,running) MA-8:Stephen Lynch(D,running) MO-8:Jo Ann Emerson(R,resigned) SC-1:Tim Scott(R,resigned) SC-1:Mark Sanford(R,running)	Newly-elected Democrats: AZ-9: Kyrsten Sinema CA-2: Jared Huffman CA-7: Ami Bera CA-15:Eric Swalwell CA-24:Julia Brownley CA-29:Tony Cardenas CA-35:Gloria Negrete McLeod CA-36:Raul Ruiz CA-41:Mark Takano CA-47:Alan Lowenthal CA-51:Juan Vargas CA-52:Scott Peters CT-5: Elizabeth Esty FL-18:Patrick Murphy FL-22:Lois Frankel FL-26:Joe Garcia HI-2: Tulsi Gabbard IL-8: Tammy Duckworth IL-10:Brad Schneider IL-12:Bill Enyart IL-17:Cheri Bustos MD-6: John Delaney MA-4: Joe Kennedy III MI-5: Dan Kildee MN-8: Rick Nolan NV-4: Steven Horsford NH-2: Annie Kuster NM-1: Michelle Lujan-Grisham NY-5: Grace Meng NY-10:Hakeem Jeffries NY-18:Sean Maloney OH-10:Joyce Beatty PA-17:Matt Cartwright TX-16:Beto O`Rourke TX-20:Joaquin Castro TX-23:Pete Gallego TX-33:Marc Veasey TX-34:Filemon Vela WA-6: Derek Kilmer WA-10:Denny Heck WI-2: Mark Pocan	Newly-elected Republicans: AR-4: Tom Cotton CA-1: Doug LaMalfa CA-21:David Valadao CA-41:Paul Cook FL-3: Ted Yoho FL-6: Ron DeSantis FL-19:Trey Radel GA-9: Doug Collins IL-15:Rodney Davis IN-2: Jackie Walorski IN-5: Susan Brooks IN-6: Luke Messer KY-6: Andy Barr MI-11:Kerry Bentivolio MO-2: Ann Wagner MT-0: Steve Daines NY-26:Chris Collins NC-8: Richard Hudson NC-9: Robert Pittenger NC-11:Mark Meadows NC-13:George Holding ND-0: Kevin Cramer OH-2: Brad Wenstrup OH-14:Dave Joyce OK-1: Jim Bridenstine OK-2: Markwayne Mullin PA-4: Scott Perry PA-12:Keith Rothfus SC-7: Tom Rice TX-14:Randy Weber TX-25:Roger Williams UT-2: Chris Stewart	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty Main Page Profile MO politicians Contact info: Fax Number: 202-225-4403 Mailing Address: Longworth HOB 1027, Washington, DC 20515 Official Website Phone number: (202) 225-4535

Page last updated: Apr 09, 2013